<h2>Barbie</h2>
In 1997, Mattel, the owner of Barbie, filed a case against the band Aqua for their song Barbie Girl.
The song is about Barbie, and the video features the lead singer of the band playing the role of Barbie, complete with every clich&eacute; imaginable. She is depicted as somewhat dimwitted, frivolous, a gold digger and very materialistic.
Mattel claimed that this portrayal degraded Barbie by depicting her as a blond bimbo (in the lyrics of the song and the video), thereby violating Mattel&rsquo;s trademarks and copyright in Barbie and impacting its marketing strategy.
<img src="http://images.mid-day.com/images/images/2026/aug/Barbie-girl_e.jpg" alt="A still from Aqua&rsquo;s Barbie Girl music video" width="1280" height="720" /> A still from Aqua&rsquo;s Barbie Girl music video
The band filed a counterclaim against Mattel on the grounds that Mattel had wrongly portrayed them as unscrupulous and that their use of the word &lsquo;Barbie&rsquo; in the song was protected by the fair use doctrine. They also argued that the original Barbie doll had itself been based on a German adult novelty toy called the Bild Lilli doll, and therefore Mattel&rsquo;s claim that Aqua had sexualised Barbie was unfounded.
The court dismissed Mattel&rsquo;s claims on the ground that Aqua&rsquo;s use was clearly a parody and fell within the fair use doctrine.&nbsp;
The court also dismissed the counterclaim filed by Aqua and found that the band had not been disparaged by Mattel merely by the filing of the lawsuit.
In conclusion, the court aptly stated: The parties are advised to chill.
<h2>The &lsquo;Skywalker&rsquo; name change incident</h2>
In 2014, a woman in the UK incorporated the name of the Star Wars character Luke Skywalker into her own, changing her middle name to Skywalker to become Laura Elizabeth Skywalker Matthews. She also began signing her name as L Skywalker.
She had filed all the necessary paperwork to legally change her name. However, when she attempted to renew her passport, the British Home Office refused to issue a new one as they believed the name could infringe copyright or trademark rights. It has been reported that she subsequently changed her name back to her original one and has been issued a passport by the authorities.
<h2>Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan&rsquo;s copyright</h2>
In 2018, Nida Fateh Ali Khan, daughter of the legendary Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, stated that she intended to take legal action against anyone infringing the copyright in her father&rsquo;s songs. Her father&rsquo;s songs are iconic and have been featured in numerous Bollywood films and performed and played extensively at public events.
In response to her public warning, and when asked by the press for his reaction, her cousin &mdash; the popular singer Rahat Fateh Ali Khan &mdash; stated that he did not require permission to sing the popular qawwalis of his late uncle, Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. &lsquo;Why would I need any permission?&rsquo; he asked.
<img src="http://images.mid-day.com/images/images/2026/aug/Nusrat-Fateh-Ali-Khan_e.jpg" alt="Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan" width="1280" height="720" /> Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan
He explained that the family had been involved in performing qawwali and Sufi music for many centuries, and that there had never been any reason to seek one another&rsquo;s permission. He added that even his late uncle had sung alongside his father and grandfather without any formal permissions being required.
When asked whether she would also take action against her cousin, Nida responded, &lsquo;Rahat is my brother and I will not take any action against him.&rsquo;
However, what is quite clear is that as the legal heir of her late father, she has inherited the copyright in his sound recordings and musical works and can enforce these against any unauthorized use by third parties.
<h2>Taylor Swift re-recording her songs</h2>
In late 2019, Taylor Swift was upset when her former label, Big Machine Records, was acquired by Scooter Braun, with whom Swift had many creative and personal issues. She was unhappy that Braun now controlled the sound recordings of many of her biggest hits.
<img src="http://images.mid-day.com/images/images/2026/aug/Taylor_e.jpg" alt="Taylor Swift. Pic/Instagram@taylorswift" width="1280" height="720" /> Taylor Swift. Pic/Instagram@taylorswift
The label owned the sound recordings and the right to publish her recorded songs. This allowed them to determine how the recordings could be broadcast and exploited. The friction between the parties was further aggravated by Swift&rsquo;s personal animosity towards Braun.
However, Swift continued to own the compositions and what is known as the musical works. This entitled her to re-record the songs, and the new sound recordings and the right to publish them would remain with her. She has since released several of these re-recorded versions.
The label, however, could continue to independently exploit the original recordings. This included all the original masters, music videos and associated artwork.
Then, in mid-2025, Taylor Swift bought back her entire catalogue of original recordings for a sum of $360 million, bringing this saga to an end.
Note: In any contractual relationship, it is important to anticipate that the contracting party might be acquired by, or might sell its rights to, a third party with whom you do not wish to be tied to. This possibility should be addressed in the contract.
A somewhat negative consequence of this litigation is that music labels are now increasingly asking artists to agree contractually that they will not re-record their songs.
<h2>&lsquo;Happy birthday&rsquo; case</h2>
For many years, the music company Warner/Chappell Music had been collecting royalties for the use of the song Happy Birthday to You in films, television episodes, advertisements or other performances. It was estimated that the company had earned about $2 million every year from these royalties.
In 2013, various artists and filmmakers being aggrieved at the perceived overreach of the company sued Warner/Chappell seeking refunds of the royalties that had been collected over the years. The court ultimately ruled that the lyrics could be used without paying royalties, as the copyright that Warner/Chapell claimed covered only certain specific arrangements of the music, not the song itself.
The case was eventually settled in 2015 and you can now sing Happy Birthday to You without fear of prosecution. Whew!
Extracted with permission from Who Owns What? by Xerxes Ranina, published by HarperCollins Publishers India

Book Extract Can you imagine courting legal trouble just for singing ‘Happy Birthday’ or for naming yourself after a Star Wars character? Check this new book

Copyright or wrong? Xerxes Ranina's new book 'Who Owns What?' highlights unique copyright claims

Who controls a woman’s body?

Book Extract Can you imagine courting legal trouble just for singing ‘Happy Birthday’ or for naming yourself after a Star Wars character? These excerpts from IP lawyer Xerxes Ranina’s new book highlight some famous and other lesser known cases of copyright claims

Copyright or wrong?

Barbie

Trending Stories

Latest Photos

Latest Videos

Latest Web Stories

Mid-Day Fast

Home / Sunday-mid-day / Article / Copyright or wrong?