reading the DIGEST of 11/7/97, a few comments come to my mind

1/ hershey's kiss is an american copy of the italian company ferrero's
baci (which means kisses). the chocolate treat was developed sometimes
in the sixties and seventies, along with another series of chocolate
bonbons called "mon cheri" (my love). chocolate has often been
associated with sensuality.

2/ as for the barbie thing: as with disney's mickey mouse, which has
fueled numerous debates, barbie has entered the collective cultural
"unconscious" so to speak, and much can be discussed about whether the
status of the objects/figures does or not transcend the brand, and the
product. it is like coca cola. having reached a point of ubiquity on the
entire planet, a case could be made about the fact they simply do not
belong to the corporation that engineered the products, and reaps
enormous benefits every year. this could be a really interesting
discussion, as it would also mean that we could find an interesting
legal solution for artists to be able to deal with icons of our culture
without having to fear the corporate hostility, or at least having
assumed a position which can no longer be attacked.

artists vs. mattel would be a fascinating legal case which maybe a
willing patent/copyright lawyer be willing to fight for the beauty of
it! when companies develop a product that treaches such cultural
importance (sic) it could be important as a legal protection to state
that they then have to bare with parody or similar types of comments on
their work.

it reminds me of this legal action the region of tuscany is trying to
put together, so as to protect the image of the famous tuscan country
side: 1/ that there is a way to forbid the use of the landcape when
deemed degradating for the reputation of the region (i.e. toilet seats
and other detergent paraphernalia); 2/ that money be given to a fund
that will be used to preserve what makes the tuscan landcape so unique.
again, it is an interesting take on "moral" property.