Not All 90’s Nostalgia Glitters
This week, Frederika returns with analysis of IP in media, for the first time, examining a podcast.
I am a bit of a true crime nerd (for better or for worse). I also enjoy listening to podcasts whilst I am out and about. These two interests coalesce perfectly in the form of a podcast called True Crime Obsessed[1],
For those of you who have not yet experienced the joys of this particular podcast, I will provide a quick introduction. The two hosts (Gillian Pensavalle and Patrick Hinds) watch a true crime documentary and then discuss said documentary on the podcast. They cover a wide variety of true crime documentaries from standalone one-hour episodes to multi-series.
I highly recommend this podcast, the two hosts are hilarious. Additionally, they make sure that they always focus on the victims (even if the documentary itself doesn’t).
A few weeks ago, I listened to episodes that were released in February 2025, covering the documentary Glitter and Greed: The Lisa Frank Story[2]. This is a 2024 Amazon Prime docuseries investigating Lisa Frank Inc. where Lisa Frank Inc is an American company best known for its vibrant, glittery, rainbow-coloured designs featuring dolphins and other animals. The brand became iconic in the 1990’s through school supplies, stickers and stationery. The series mainly explored the internal dynamics of the company and the working conditions for employees[3]. Whilst listening to them discuss episodes three and four of the Amazon Prime documentary, it got me thinking about work.
“Why did it make you think about work?!”, I imagine you are all asking at this very moment.
Well, there were some talking heads in the Glitter and Greed documentary who allegedly had some issues with Lisa Frank Inc. related to intellectual property (IP). In particular, ownership and licensing agreements.
Therefore, I decided to do a little extra digging into the allegations discussed in the docuseries.
The Glamour Dolls–Lisa Frank Legal Dispute
As many of our regular readers will know, in any collaboration involving creative or proprietary work, defining who owns the resulting IP is essential.
An IP ownership clause determines whether rights to inventions, designs, trademarks or creative works are retained by the creator, transferred, or jointly held. Without clarity, disputes often arise over use, profit-sharing or exploitation down the line.
In 2016/2017, the company Glamour Dolls Makeup, a New Jersey-based vegan cosmetics brand, entered into a licensing deal with Lisa Frank Inc. to launch a nostalgic, 90’s themed makeup collection. Their Kickstarter® campaign quickly went viral. However, what began as a promising collaboration unravelled, due to alleged contractual breaches and unclear IP control[4].
Glamour Dolls claimed that after it began investing time and money into designing, marketing and promotion, Lisa Frank Inc. suddenly withdrew from the project and entered into a new deal with a company called Morphe.
Allegedly, the designs used with Morphe were similar/identical to those that were created for the Glamour Dolls collaboration[5]. Glamour Dolls ended up suing Lisa Frank Inc. for breach of contract, among other claims, and is also facing a countersuit from Lisa Frank Inc[6][7].
This case highlights how licensing agreements without clear ownership terms, deliverable expectations and approval clauses can result in significant legal exposure.
Regarding the Glamour Dolls controversy, the Glitter and Greed docuseries reveals how shifting demands from Frank’s team, including inconsistent design approvals and alleged personal favour requests, contributed to the breakdown of the relationship[8].
The result was a failed product launch, a damaged brand, and a courtroom battle over who truly controlled and owned the IP.
Conclusions
This case, and its documentary, illustrate how ownership and licensing must be clearly defined and legally enforceable. Here are some quick helpful tips with regards to IP ownership and licensing:
-
Define IP ownership up front. Avoid assumptions or handshake agreements. Spell out who owns the rights to what.
-
Use detailed licensing terms. Define the scope of use, approval processes, royalties, termination rights, and dispute resolution procedures.
-
Don’t begin work without a signed contract.
-
Distinguish between ownership and licensing. Owning a design is different from having permission to use it.
-
Enforce approvals contractually. If approvals are required before using brand assets, this must be monitored and documented.
If you’re entering a partnership or licensing deal, protect your IP from day one with clarity, contracts, and caution.
References
[1] True Crime Obsessed.
https://www.truecrimeobsessed.com/
[2] Amazon Prime.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Glitter-Greed-Frank-Story-Season/dp/B0DJHB56D8
[3] Decider. “Stream It or Skip It: ‘Glitter and Greed’ on Prime Video.” https://decider.com/2024/12/05/glitter-and-greed-the-lisa-frank-story-on-prime-video-review/
[4] TIME. “The True Story Behind the Lisa Frank Documentary.” https://time.com/7199874/lisa-frank-documentary-true-story/
[5] Business Insider. “Lisa Frank’s Makeup Collection with Morphe Sparked Backlash Over a Previous Collaboration with a Small Beauty Brand.” https://www.businessinsider.com/lisa-frank-morphe-makeup-collection-backlash-2020-11
[6] Glamour Dolls Makeup. “Lisa Frank Lawsuit.” https://glamourdollsmakeup.com/pages/lisa-frank-lawsuit
[7] govinfo.gov. “Glamour Dolls Inc. v. Lisa Frank Inc. Case Documents.” https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-azd-4_21-cv-00228/USCOURTS-azd-4_21-cv-00228-0
[8] TV Insider. “Glitter and Greed: The Lisa Frank Story — 5 Revelations from the Docuseries.” https://www.tvinsider.com/1165256/glitter-and-greed-the-lisa-frank-story-revelations