Apple Sues Steve Jobs Figurine Maker Over Likeness

eldavojohn writes "Techdirt brings word that China-based MIC Gadget, the maker of a four inch 'SJ figurine,' is being sued by Apple to stop making the product. The fairly well detailed figurine went for $80 and the manufacturer offered updates as it quickly sold out of the first 300 and was subsequently sued before starting a second batch. The glasses, the black turtle neck, the salt and pepper beard, the blue jeans and the new balance sneakers — that is Steve Jobs' look and you don't even have to consider the smug look or the iPhone 4 in his hand while standing in a classic press event spotlight pose. So far, this notice for copyright infringement only exists for the 'SJ figurine' (no mention of Apple or Jobs in the store listing) but it appears other companies are allowing MIC Gadget some leeway with trademarks or perhaps they just haven't noticed yet. Could it be that Apple is just concerned that their followers are purchasing lead-painted false idols?"

Comments

Father Steve expressly forbid this!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images or Question His Profits." It's right there in the Holy Mac User Guide, people!

Re:Father Steve expressly forbid this!

[aztracker1]

I can totally see a political-cartoon with Steve (with big head) looking at the statue... "I mean, it looks nothing like me... I'll sue!"

Re:Father Steve expressly forbid this!

[Darinbob]

They're just iDolls.

Re:Father Steve expressly forbid this!

[HermMunster]

I guess Steve Jobs is now owned by Apple.

My initial thought is that this case can be thrown out because Apple isn't a party to the action.

Steve Jobs is the one that should be suing them.

Re:Father Steve expressly forbid this!

[mldi]

That's exactly the impression I got. I was going to say that he actually has a legitimate case. It's not satirical from what I can tell, and they're making money off of him. BUT, Apple should not be the one suing. I'm sorry Jobs, you're going to have to dig into your own pockets to take care of this one.

Re:Father Steve expressly forbid this!

[4phun]

Slow news day?

Funny....

[xQuarkDS9x]

I was not aware SJ was a father and led a "Church Of Apple"...

Re:Funny....

[Lumpy]

Father? FATHER??

He is our freaking GOD!

How dare you mock us!

Re:Funny....

[Thinboy00]

Father? FATHER??

He is our freaking GOD!

How dare you mock us!

...no relation to Lord Xenu then?

What is the basis for the suit?

[brennanw]

Has Apple trademarked Jobs' image? Or is there some kind of international law that covers selling the likeness of someone without their permission?

I'm not being snarky, I genuinely don't know.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[BobMcD]

Has Apple trademarked Jobs' image? Or is there some kind of international law that covers selling the likeness of someone without their permission?

I'm not being snarky, I genuinely don't know.

I had this same thought, and further, I'm pretty confident that there's no trademark issue here. Apple doesn't make figurines. The whole thing is a caricature and doesn't threaten the computer business in any way. Now, if Apple WERE in the action figure business, or had entered into a contract with someone who was, then we might have an issue of greater importance.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[BasilBrush]

Look more closely at the base. It's the shape of the Apple logo. For sure, that's Apple's most important trademark. And trademarks have to be protected.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[whiteboy86]

As far as I know, faces of people can't be used for commerce without permission from the "owner". A notable exception to this are pics, photos or caricatures of politicians in certain context.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already been down this road with the religious nutjob, Chuck Norris. The t-shirt seller lost.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[zigurat667]

I was wondering if Apple might have trademarked a cartoonesque drawing of Steve Jobs, otherwise this kind of caricature/parody should be protected by the freedom of speech.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[alen]

Pretty sure that there is a law where you can't make money off someone else's likeness. It's one thing to sell advertising for a show where you film it on a public street or function and people know that they will be filmed.

in this case they are selling a doll

even the reality shows are scripted and anyone who appears in a non-public area has signed a contract agreeing to be on the show

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[LWATCDR]

Actually I believe there is. Imagine in a few years if CGI gets good enough. You could have all sorts of "issues" come up. The new Tron movie will show if it is possible now.
I believe there are big exceptions for news and such.
Of course I think Apple should just let it go. Frankly it is just a good but of fun.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[nomadic]

What I don't understand is how Apple has standing to sue; Jobs should do his dirty work himself, and if I was an Apple shareholder I'd be annoyed Jobs was using the company resources for his own personal purposes.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[UnknowingFool]

The only thing that Steve Jobs could sue for is that the figurines violates his right of publicity and use his celebrity to sell a product that he did not endorse. But Jobs himself and not Apple would have to assert that right. Since the figurine does not actually endorse a product but the product as a work of art, Jobs would likely lose that case though as First Amendment rights to free expression often trump right of publicity. The iPhone case that looks like a NES controller would more likely be found in favor of Nintendo if they wished to assert that the case violates their trademark (if Nintendo trademarked the design) and the gadget company is using it to sell a product that is not a work of art.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[BasilBrush]

Apple has the standing to sue, because the most obvious trademark being infringed is the Apple logo that forms the base of the figurine.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[BasilBrush]

I don't think that's true. Madamme Tussauds usually have the subjects of their waxworks come to be measured and photographed for the model makers. But some of the waxworks are done without the celebrity's cooperation, and apparently that's OK.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[MachDelta]

If you follow enough links, it shows a snippit of the C&D email they received:

Unauthorized use of a person’s name and/or likeness constitutes a violation of California Civil Code Section 3344, which prohibits the use of any person’s name, photograph or likeness in a product without that person’s prior consent

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

"is there some kind of international law that covers selling the likeness of someone without their permission?"

I doubt it, otherwise various dictators around the world would have used it in the past. (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, George W Bush...

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[petes_PoV]

Pretty sure that there is a law where you can't make money off someone else's likeness.

if there was such a thing all the tribute bands (bootleg beatles etc.) would have a tough time. However since they appear to be thriving - even though the Beatles "Apple" is nearly as protective as the other one - it appears as if there is not such a thing, even in China..

Anyhow, surely SJ's image is a personal property - something that he, personally should be protecting - not something that a company would get involved in (unless Apple somehow think they own Jobs)

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the picture I saw, the SJ action figure is on an Apple Logo shaped stand...

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[lxs]

They did and they were planning to issue their own toys.
Liver sold separately.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Apple hates fun.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[shentino]

Quite a point.

Barring such a trademark, it would be Steve Jobs, and not Apple, that has standing to sue.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[pckl300]

They're telling a Chinese manufacturer to obey California Civil Code? Good luck with that.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[milkmage]

you can't sell a pro sports likeness (w/o a license) either... so why wouldn't it apply here?

this has a big fat NBA logo on the package
http://www.amazon.com/McFarlane-Toys-Sports-Picks-Bryant/dp/B002W9AC8C/ref=dp_cp_ob_t_title_2

i wonder if it still holds true if you remove the Lakers jersey and logo and just show him in street clothes - you can't say "Kobe Bryant" without thinking of the Lakers, similarly, "Steve Jobs" and Apple.

@nomadic - if you tried to sell a KB action figure, I'm pretty sure it would be the NBA lawyers on your ass, not Bryant's private attorney.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[morgan_greywolf]

The figurine maker could easily make an argument on fair use grounds -- so long as the figurine doesn't make portable media players, smartphones, computers or other consumer electronics, I'd say they were pretty safe to claim fair use as an affirmative defense (IANAL, etc.) (And, no, I don't forsee Apple going into the figurine business.) (The rules that apply to trademark fair use aren't the same as the rules that apply to copyright fair use, but the legal intent is roughly the same.)

Where they get into trouble is in using Steve Jobs' own image without his consent; except that Apple doesn't have ground to sue for Steve Jobs' image, only Steve Jobs does.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Bravo!

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[vlm]

Since the figurine does not actually endorse a product but the product as a work of art, Jobs would likely lose that case though as First Amendment rights to free expression often trump right of publicity.

The generally accepted definition is "single and original work of art". So if an artist made exactly one statue and sold it to a wax museum type of establishment, the artist would be OK. Multiple bronze castings are getting questionable. But hundreds of copies, that's well into commercial work. Note that I am not your lawyer, but I have researched this. Because of the rise of rapid prototyping and CAD/CAM/CGI, its only a matter of time before we can buy computer generated "single and original works of art" all slightly different poses etc. What if I upload my single and original work of 3-D art to an internet site where anyone whom pleases can download it and print it out? That will be a rather interesting court case and is relevant to my interests.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[nomadic]

Ahhh, alright that makes more sense. Still idiotic for them to sue.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[NewWorldDan]

As a work of parody, I don't think Apple has any kind of a case for trademark or copyright infringement. The most likely case I would think is that California confers on people a right of publicity. Again, I think this is a work of parody, and a very good one at that. I can't tell if it's meant to be an homage or a mockery of Jobs.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[AlecC]

I think there could be trademark issues, IF Apple had already trademarked Steve Jobs image. The executors of Lady Di have apparently trademarked any representation of her and want a cut of any commercial object that uses them as well as a veto on tastelessness. I am not sure that has been tested in court. But it requires Apple to have taken action first, which I am not aware that they have done.

If it is a recognizable logo, it doesn't have to be on something you make. If you put the Olympic rings on anything, the IOC will be after you in nothing flat, even if it is something like, say, a refrigerator that has no sporting use whatsoever.

Apple may say that Jobs appearance is inextricably tied to their brand. Fine, they should have said so in a trademark application before (assuming they haven't).

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[knappe duivel]

if I was an Apple shareholder I'd be annoyed Jobs was using the company resources for his own personal purposes.

If you were an Apple shareholder you should be very, very, very grateful to Jobs for making you a lot of money.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[DarwinSurvivor]

If the Chinese company is selling to people in California, then yes, they DO need to abide by the law. If they aren't selling to California then I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't have a leg (stem?) to stand on.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this is using the exact logo, they've sued over far less infringing uses of apples in logos before - and arguably much more idiotic.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[delinear]

Or maybe they just object to the huge Apple logo the figurine is standing on.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[arisvega]

The t-shirt seller lost.

You expected Chuck Norris to lose?

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[camperslo]

Or is there some kind of international law that covers selling the likeness of someone without their permission?

There was a previous case involving Jeff Stryker, but they weren't copying the whole body...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Stryker

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[pckl300]

If they're selling online, how are they to control the residence of the people who buy their products? What's to stop people from setting up a PO box in another state to take delivery?

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[future assassin]

I though Apples trademark has been the color white and ipod/phone for ages and not the Apple.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Always go to the original source (http://micgadget.com/9716/the-end-of-apple-ceo-action-figure/)

Here’s what the email has told us: “Unauthorized use of a person’s name and/or likeness constitutes a violation of California Civil Code Section 3344, which prohibits the use of any person’s name, photograph or likeness in a product without that person’s prior consent”

Thus http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/2/2/3/s3344

a)Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I'm not sure TM laws work like that. If you have what is obviously supposed to look like someone else's brand, not just use the same word or have a logo with similar elements, then I doubt it matters if you're in a different industry.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Monkeedude1212]

Woah - how does that fall under fair use grounds?

From what I understand, THESE constitute fair use:
commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

I can't stamp a Microsoft logo on a coffee mug and claim fair use. What kind of wacky world are you living in?

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Bobartig]

Keep in mind that the balance between right of publicity and 1st amendment rights is still very fuzzy. Some courts apply a "transformative" (Saderup, Cardtoons) test borrowed from copyright, under which parodical uses can be allowed. Some courts use a trademark-like "invokes the idea of the person in the minds of the consumers" (Midler, White) under which even radically altered images would still infringe the right.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[amicusNYCL]

That's fine. They just can't ship to California. There's nothing confusing about that. They don't have to "control residence", they just can't ship to places where it is not legal to sell their products.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Bobartig]

There are copyright claims for the use of the Apple logo pedestal, and the tiny iPhone sculpture. Apple owns these designs and can assert rights over their use and importation. They may not prevail if the makers can show some fair use defense, but that analysis is complex and all over the place. The amount of copying done, and commercial use of the images stacks against them.

Trademark is weird. The threshold matters are whether the use would be likely to cause 'consumer confusion', and if they brought a dilution cause of action, whether there was a "blurring or tarnishing" of the brand. The fact that Apple doesn't make figurines is relevant to the likelihood of confusion, but blurring and tarnishment require no proof of that.

There is also the matter of "secondary meaning." Although Steve retains his own right of publicity, which is a separate claim he can bring, a trademark claim can be brought for the use of his likeness because his image is so entwined with the business of Apple, and has achieved a "secondary meaning" that it identifies the source of a product.

Steve could also bring a Right of Publicity suit for the commercial use of his likeness, but I'm not really sure how/why apple would bring that claim. They could certainly file suit as joint parties against the statue makers.

Also -side note- I just saw the figurine. Shit, that is one amazing SJobs statue!!! Now I want one...

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Bobartig]

Keep in mind Trademark rights carry an affirmative duty to police the mark. If you allow permissive, unrestricted commercial use of your marks by others, courts can later use that against you when you try and bring a legitimate trademark suit against a party that is really infringing, like making knockoff "iPud" music players or something.

So, what is the test to determine what a company needs to vigorously police against, versus what is non-infringing use? No one really knows. This is why companies go after anyone/everyone like they do. The court may end up saying, "There's not TM issue here, everyone go home." but you can't know that before you litigate. So, it is actually perfectly rational for them to sue. Even if their claims have no merit, they have satisfied their requirement to police the mark by challenging others' uses. When the real infringement occurs, they will be able to assert their rights and win.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Bobartig]

You are confusing copyright "fair use" with trademark "fair use", and trademark "fair use" with trademark rights! You are kind of all over the place. As for CR vs. TM fair use, same name, different standards. Both are a complete doctrinal minefield in terms of the case law associated with them.

Any party can "easily make an argument" for fair use, but no one, and I mean NO ONE, knows if they will prevail on that claim. The law is just too erratic and fractured in this area.

Trademark fair use requires, as Monkeedude1212 says, commentary, criticism, news reporting, and it must specifically NOT be commercial use. Slapping a logo on something and selling it, that's commercial use.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were an Apple shareholder and Jobs was making me a lot of money, I'd want a figurine of him to place on my desk to remind me who's lining my pockets.... Oh wait.....

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[szilagyi]

I second the question, and I am being snarky (but still don't know the answer).

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Bigjeff5]

The essence of trademarks is that they cannot be used to impersonate a brand.

In most cases the specific industry involved is very important, but in some cases the infringing company can be in a completely different industry and still infringe.

For example, if some guy named George Apple starts a furniture business and decides to name it "Apple's Fine Furniture", then there isn't going to be any trademark infringement. It's obvious he doesn't care about Apple Inc's product image, he simply named the company after himself.

Now, if that same guy decides to make chairs that happen to look exactly like the Apple logo, then he is almost certainly guilty of trademark infringement. In that case, he is clearly trying to use Apple Inc's brand to boost his own sales.

This case would fall into the latter. The figurine maker is clearly trying to use Apple's brand to boost their own sales, and that violates trademark law. If it were just a guy on a platform in a turtle-neck holding a cell phone it would be no problem. But the Apple logo as the platform makes it clear they are attempting to profit off of Apple's brand name.

Likenesses of people are ok, as far as I am aware, but logos are not.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Bigjeff5]

Or, you know, the oodles of trademarks the figurine infringes on (Apple logo multiple times, and iPhone likeness).

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. From their own blog : "The Apple logo acts as a base platform! We are wondering if this is legit" (in http://micgadget.com/9634/phenomenal-steve-jobs-figure-hands-on/)

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[BasilBrush]

"The Lanham Act permits a non-owner of a registered trademark to make "fair use" or "nominative use" of a trademark under certain circumstances without obtaining permission from the mark's owner. The fair use and nominative use defenses are to help ensure that trademark owners do not prohibit the use of their marks when they are used for the purpose of description or identification. Fair use or nominative use may be recognized in those instances where a reader of a given work is clearly able to understand that the use of the trademark does not suggest sponsorship or association with the trademark owner's product or services and therefore is not being used in a manner to confuse the reader."

Sorry, this doesn't get fair use protection. It's using an Apple Inc logo to sell a product, not to identify someone else's product. It does suggest association with Apple Inc. And is very clearly trademark infringement.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[BasilBrush]

There's no parody here. This is a straightforward as if a company was selling a Star Wars figurine with a Star Wars logo on it without permission.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Ihmhi]

Either way, in 50 years however few of the 300 figurines already shipped are going to be worth a fair bit more than $80, I'm sure.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[pckl300]

I thought this was pretty common on the internet, no? If something is outlawed in my state, I can probably go online and buy from a manufacturer that is based in another state. They shouldn't be stopped from shipping it here.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[amicusNYCL]

If the state finds the package, inspects it, and realizes it is contraband, they will confiscate it. You can get a lot of things online shipped to you, but not all of them are legal where you live. People just rely on the state not inspecting the package to realize what it is. Even legal things sometimes get confiscated. I once shipped a scale-model of a handgun that was actually a lighter, and that never made it to my house.

OK, maybe the 12-inch switchblade in the box was what got it confiscated, and the "gun" just showed up on x-ray.

Fine, fine, maybe it wasn't the best idea to ship a "gun" and giant switchblade from the Vatican to the US, but it was the closest post office at the time.

I have seen a disguised shipment of marijuana between people in different states get confiscated though. That showed up on the UPS tracking page and everything. My roommate lost sleep waiting for a call from the police that never came, they can't really charge either the sender or receiver. The receiver might know nothing about the package and be uninvolved, and the recorded sender might not be the person who actually shipped it. They just take it and... keep it, I guess. To go with their gun lighters and giant switchblades.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[HermMunster]

That's trademark, and as long as it doesn't dilute the Apple products it can be used. This doesn't dilute Apple's products. Just because a company thinks they can lock down the trademark doesn't mean that they can claim that someone using it is doing so to dilute Apple's product/company.

Even so, it appears that they are suing due to Jobs' image being used too.

In order to gain anything from this they'll have to prove they tried to work it out. They can't just see the item and then sue wildly. I'm sure they think they can, but they have to have tried to settle the dispute. Otherwise, they'll probably only win an injunction and the company will just offer a slightly different doll.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[HermMunster]

Individual shareholders don't make gobs of money, though they probably make a decent amount off the dividend. Being the case, it is still up to the shareholders to reign in the BOD. These types of lawsuits can be seen as senseless spending and be condemned by the shareholders rightfully, especially if it does turn out that Apple is suing re: Jobs' likeness.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[HermMunster]

Not necessarily. His Apple stylized chair doesn't necessarily dilute Apple's product/company.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[HermMunster]

So, if Apple trademarked penis then they could sue you any time you used yours?

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[BasilBrush]

That's trademark, and as long as it doesn't dilute the Apple products it can be used.

There is such a thing as fair use for a trademark. However what you have stated is not it. There is no fair use exemption for the use this product makes of the Apple logo.

Even so, it appears that they are suing due to Jobs' image being used too.

What, because of what a Slashdot summary says? As if that was reliable. Lets see the text written by the Apple lawyers before making that assumption. The Apple logo is by far the most obvious legal issue and is easiest to pursue.

In order to gain anything from this they'll have to prove they tried to work it out. They can't just see the item and then sue wildly. I'm sure they think they can, but they have to have tried to settle the dispute. Otherwise, they'll probably only win an injunction and the company will just offer a slightly different doll.

Complete nonsense. You use another company's logo to see your product, and you are liable. The trademark owner doesn't owe you any responsibility to compromise.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[mug funky]

it is holding the likeness of an iphone though... who knows?

could be reality-distortion-field meets apple-fans-have-no-sense-of-humour

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[mug funky]

maybe a george lucas figurine.

it's not like they're selling iphone branded phones - unless apple own a Steve Jobs trademark.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[Dabido]

There is a law.

BUT, after saying that I'm sure it would have to be Steve Jobs who files the complaint and not Apple.

There might be some leeway on this though if they can somehow prove that Steve Jobs image/likeness etc is somehow owned by Apple in some form (though how much leeway there is I'm not sure. For instance, they might be saying, "that when people think of Steve Jobs they automatically think of Apple, so therefore the doll is linked to the brand image and they have a case", but that might not hold enough water to proceed). I'm not sure. But if Steve was filing the suit, then yes, he is pretty much supported by the law.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[mikechant]

If you put the Olympic rings on anything, the IOC will be after you in nothing flat,...

The Olympic rings and other Olympic related items have very specific and unique international legal protection, so I don't believe they have any relevance to any other case.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[DarwinSurvivor]

Ok, a few errors in your post.

A) Companies will NOT knowingly ship stuff to places it can't go. You may notice a lot of Canadian retailers will post "cannot ship to Quebec" on many of their products, that's because those products (without further language law adherence) are not permitted to be sold in Quebec.

B) They can and WILL go after the shipper for contraband (especially if the sending is a corporation that can be easily tracked).

C) They regularly intercept postal-pot-transports and then have an undercover make the delivery, if the person accepts the package, they can be charged.

D) The reason you "buddy" probably didn't hear anything about it was because it was probably a small enough amount that it wasn't worth their while (sent for destruction). The packages they intercept are normally about the size of a microwave.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[UnknowingFool]

There is nothing that said that the work of art had to be "single" nor non-commercial. Picasso, Monet, and Van Gogh were all paid artists. Da Vinci and Michaelangelo were sponsored by patrons. They got very little for the artwork while alive but that doesn't mean their work wasn't commercial. As for "single", many artists throughout the centuries have created copies of an original. Etchings and lithography have been used for centuries to reproduce artwork for sale. These days photographs can be reproduced thousands of times. Does that diminish that a photograph can be a work of art? The only real question is whether the item itself is a work of art or does it serve another purpose. If it is for another product then the likeness of someone could be interpreted to be an endorsement of the product.

In this case, a figurine has no other purpose than the work of art. The iPhone camera case does. For example, Jimmie Johnson recently won his fifth NASCAR Championship. If I was selling pictures of him celebrating with his crew, there's nothing he can do about it. If I put that picture on backpacks, I might have a legal problem when it comes to endorsements.

Re:What is the basis for the suit?

[amicusNYCL]

B) They can and WILL go after the shipper for contraband

How can they prove that the name of the shipper on the package is the person who actually shipped it, and that that person knew what was in it?

They regularly intercept postal-pot-transports and then have an undercover make the delivery, if the person accepts the package, they can be charged.

That doesn't seem very fair. If you want to get someone arrested, just mail them drugs and inform the cops, then they arrest the receiver and charge them?

The packages they intercept are normally about the size of a microwave.

Well yeah, trying to mail entire pounds of drugs is a pretty stupid idea.

Hold it wrong?

[vlm]

The glasses, the black turtle neck, the salt and pepper beard, the blue jeans and the new balance sneakers

It also talks to you, although the speech cuts off if you hold it wrong.

Re:Hold it wrong?

[Lazareth]

Well, it doesn't cut off completely. Rather, it pointedly informs you to "hold it right" and that "you're doing it wrong!" in a condescending tone.

I thought that this was decided

[Chrisq]

It looks like he has a case under Chinese law:

In the People's Republic of China, rights of personality are established by statute. according to article 99 and 100 of the General Principle of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the right of name and the right of image are protected. It is prohibited to use other's image for commercial use without the person's consent.

Re:I thought that this was decided

[erroneus]

I can only respond with what I understand of U.S. law. This figure, in my opinion, is a parody figure and should be protected by free speech.

So far, according to what I have read, this is only a C&D letter from a lawyer. I have not seen this letter or the law suit claimed in the headline of this story. The stories I have read make no mention of a law suit at all. If a suit were filed, we could then have a better idea as to what law(s) are applicable in this case. I do know that it wouldn't go over well in U.S. courts, but Apple might have a case under Chinese law in Chinese courts.

Typically, such "intellectual property" claims as these need to be registered somewhere. It may be that China makes no such requirement, but I would be surprised. Has the "SJ Look" been registered somewhere? I know that in the US and all across Europe that clothing and "looks" are not protected under any intellectual property law as the fashion industry is essentially exempt from such protections. (This is why we have seen a lot of REALLY big labels and logos on clothing lately... clothing can be duplicated, but labels and branding cannot) So to charge that someone has violated "a look" by making a figure of a highly public personality is on pretty doubtful ground from the outside. We certainly need more information to see if there is really a case.

Re:I thought that this was decided

[Chrisq]

We are talking about Right of Publicity, which don't have to be registered. It appears that in the USA it is decided at a state level.

To date, twenty-eight states are on record as recognizing the Right of Publicity. Indiana is believed to have the most far-reaching Right of Publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms.

Re:I thought that this was decided

[Chrisq]

Since he is suing the manufacturer in China to stop making the figurine, and not just stop distribution in the USA, I believe that this will be under Chinese law.

Re:I thought that this was decided

[erroneus]

I must have missed it. Where does it say that "he" (I presume you mean the Apple Computers company) has filed a law suit anywhere?

Re:I thought that this was decided

[Anonymous Coward]

Some laws are only applicable to Chinese citizens. Is this one of those?

Re:I thought that this was decided

[grumpyman]

What the heck do you mean? I think the Chinese should focus on taking down this one first.

Re:I thought that this was decided

[arisvega]

It looks like he has a case under Chinese law:

It is prohibited to use other's image for commercial use without the person's consent.

But they all look alike!

Voodoo

[Ceyx]

Maybe SJ is a beliver in Voodoo and afraid of angry customers ;-)

Copyright infringement?

[Pinky's Brain]

I don't see any Apple logo and the phone is too generic ... so what here is being unlawfully copied? It can't be Steve Jobs's likeness ... unless he is a CGI construct, robot or bio-engineered creature. Right of publicity infringement maybe.

Please scan this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody with a 3D scanner, please scan this and publish the results on the internet so that anybody with a 3D printer can churn these out ad infinitum.

Personality Rights

[eldavojohn]

It falls under personality rights which varies country to country but in the United States it is proving to be a very dynamically changing landscape.

In reality this is probably just an annoyed Apple lawyer with too much time on his hand muscling a little guy into submission. They're foreign and can be made to look like leeches, I'm sure. The real kicker is that, as the lawyer on Techdirt mentions, there's no clear motive for this, is Apple making a competing figurine that they're losing sales on? Is the figurine somehow damaging to Mr. Jobs? If it's a parody of Steve Jobs doesn't that fall under fair use? So many questions but the answer will always be "Who has the most money and lawyers?" And that's Apple.

Re:Personality Rights

[BasilBrush]

It falls under straightforward trademark infringement for the shape of the base of the figurine.

Re:Personality Rights

[suv4x4]

The real kicker is that, as the lawyer on Techdirt mentions, there's no clear motive for this, is Apple making a competing figurine that they're losing sales on?

the figurine is sitting on a big perfectly Apple-logo-shaped stand, the device in the figurine's hand has an iPhone UI sticker, and again, Apple logo on its back.

Not suing is setting a precedent that you can sell, literally, Apple branded merchandise without Apple's involvement.

Allowing people to make Apple-like products and Steve Jobs-like products also means Apple is losing control over the message of what Apple says to people.

The only way to not say something wrong to people, is to never say anything, and as we know Apple is notoriously tight-lipped. If third parties shape Apple's brand and perception, they lose a huge advantage they have in the moment in terms of control.

Apple is an extremely valuable brand, and you surely realize if they let one company sell these, thousands will follow soon.

Of course, many other companies may choose to ignore it, but that is not a problem of "morality". It's a matter of choice: Apple have the right under law to avoid those figures being produced, and they're using their rights.

Re:Personality Rights

[Attila Dimedici]

The real kicker is that, as the lawyer on Techdirt mentions, there's no clear motive for this...

Apple's motive is clear, someone is making money off of people who are members of the cult of Apple and it isn't Apple. That is money they should be spending on Apple products. You say you've got an Ipod, Iphone, Ipad, Mac Air, MacBook and a Mac desktop, well if you still have money left buy a second one of one or more of those.

Re:Personality Rights

[ncy]

well, i don't know about everybody else, but i'd feel somewhat uncomfortable if somebody was using my likeness in products around the world without my knowing. this would probably be especially frustrating to people who simply don't want that publicity, fame, and extra attention.

Re:Personality Rights

[CODiNE]

It's a parody if it's mocking him, if it's just a representation of him they're profiting off his likeness.

Batman shagging catwoman is a parody.
Batman statues being sold at comic-cons is trademark infringement, that kind of thing.

Re:Personality Rights

[Thinboy00]

Not suing is setting a precedent that you can sell, literally, Apple branded merchandise without Apple's involvement.

But the same company is, literally, already doing that!

Re:Personality Rights

[arisvega]

i'd feel somewhat uncomfortable if somebody was using my likeness in products around the world without my knowing.

There there, Mr Nobody. What are the odds for that?

this would probably be especially frustrating to people who simply don't want that publicity, fame, and extra attention.

Like modesty incarnate, low-profiled Steve Jobs?

Re:Personality Rights

[delinear]

Does "someone who doesn't want publicity, fame or attention" really sounds like an accurate description of Steve Jobs to you? I can understand he's annoyed they're using his image, but I can't say that someone who puts themselves so much in the limelight can really complain (even though I think they probably have a valid case for the figure's base and the fact he's holding an iPhone, the caricature aside).

Re:Personality Rights

[ncy]

certainly valid points, but what i'm talking about is based on rights; that is, if they can do it for him, what's going to stop them from doing it to anybody they please?" isn't that the whole purpose of model release forms? especially for those under-aged?

Re:Personality Rights

[ncy]

yea, you're right that of course there are low odds. the disturbing thought is that your image or likeness may be used for something you don't even believe in, or something for slander, or something purely for somebody else's profit. but yes, in most cases, probably harmless.

Re:Personality Rights

[Aldenissin]

Please mod parent up informative or insightful.

Re:Personality Rights

[arisvega]

Okay, I was a bit rude- but I still maintain that the celebrity sphere doesn't give a sh*t about you =)

Now on a more serious tone, my point is that, to celebrities, there is no such thing as 'bad publicity'. Look at how most of politicians are elected; all they need do is to advertise their name to voters, and the rest is almost automatic.

I am also concerned about such rights of the individuals- but on the case of public figures, they seem to both demand to have their cake and eat it. They love using 'public engineering' and seeing people as numbers, but when THEIR persona gets affected, suddenly they act as victims. Look at Hilary Clinton's statements at wikileaks; 'diplomats have the right to privacy', she said, after ordering spying on diplomats.

Personally, I think Jobs crybabies now, but underneath he's SO jizzing his pants out of this.

Re:Personality Rights

[FaasNat]

Batman is a character created by DC. Steve Jobs was not created by Apple (though some would argue...).

Re:Personality Rights

[Urkki]

It falls under straightforward trademark infringement for the shape of the base of the figurine.

Does Apples trademark cover figurines? I mean, it certainly doesn't cover for instance McIntosh apples...

So it's far from clear if putting a figurine of a CEO standing on the logo of the company is trademark infringement or not.

Re:Personality Rights

[Bigjeff5]

It's hard to sue someone in China (or Korea, or wherever) for infringing upon a US trademark.

US trademark applies in the US. China doesn't respect trademarks and copyright like the US does.

Re:Personality Rights

[Bigjeff5]

Why? He's ignorant, not insightful.

Re:Personality Rights

[BasilBrush]

It's clearly the exact Apple logo, and intended to be so.

Re:Personality Rights

[Urkki]

It's clearly the exact Apple logo, and intended to be so.

Of course, but that isn't necessarily trademark infringement. For example a newspaper can use Apple logo in an article about Apple company.

So printing an image of Steve Jobs standing on Apple logo in a newspaper would be fine . Wether this figurine case is covered by same rules or not, well, I guess that'll be determined in court now, unless they settle.

And actually, it's using Apple logo when not meaning specifically Apple, which is almost automatically trademark infringement, and must be defended against or trademark may get diluted and eventually become invalid.

Re:Personality Rights

[BasilBrush]

Of course, but that isn't necessarily trademark infringement. For example a newspaper can use Apple logo in an article about Apple company.

Indeed it can. Solely for means of identification, and provided that use doesn't confuse the public into thinking they are associated with the owner of the trademark. This case fails the fair use test on both counts.

Re:Personality Rights

[XLR8DST8]

the lawyer doesn't need to be annoyed or have too much time on his hands. legally, if copyrights are not actively protected, they can be lost. this is due diligence. it's not something that can just be ignored.. Xerox used to have an ad back in the day saying 'there are 2 Rs in Xerox (r)' - the second R being the tiny R denoting that the name is a registered trademark.

Re:Personality Rights

[Aldenissin]

Yea, I see you even clicked his link. Wait, no you must have not or be blind.

bad likeness

[deathguppie]

I don't see how this even closely resembles Steve Jobs.. the head is waaay to small..

The base of the figurine IS and Apple Logo!

[mrnick]

Look at what the the SJ figurine is standing on, it's clearly an Apple logo.

Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

probably knows his customer base and doesn't want his likeness lubed up and inserted in unseemly places.

Apple owns Steve's likeness???

[Mechanik]

Umm... what right does Apple have to sue over Steve's likeness? Shouldn't suit be brought by Steve himself rather than Apple? Did he sign over rights to his likeness to Apple?

I could see it if perhaps the figurine were based on a copyrighted image owned by Apple that contained Steve, but unless he's in a very specific pose or something it might be hard to prove.

Next thing we'll see is Apple trademarking Steve altogether and using him for their logo...

Re:Apple owns Steve's likeness???

[BasilBrush]

Take a closer look at the base of the figurine. Recognise it?

Re:Apple owns Steve's likeness???

[Mechanik]

Take a closer look at the base of the figurine. Recognise it?

That will teach me to not RTFA and just go by the summary. The figurine clearly has an Apple logo for its base. However, the summary and article both make it sound as if Apple is suing over Steve's likeness, not the use of their logo. So, you can understand why I found it all confusing.

why would anyone buy this?

[js3]

Are turtle necks really that hot?

Re:why would anyone buy this?

[Barefoot Monkey]

Are turtle necks really that hot?

They are very hot. That's why those of us who live in warmer climates prefer more open necklines, such as v-necks or T-shirts, to avoid heatstroke.

Re:why would anyone buy this?

[Abstrackt]

My theory is that this effigy emits some kind of highly localized reality distortion field and that enough of them in one place turn it up to 11.

Re:why would anyone buy this?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Are turtle necks really that hot?

Oh, man. Have you ever worn one? "Stifling" is more like it.

Re:why would anyone buy this?

[Bigjeff5]

Wouldn't it be better to just make 10 louder?

Current model

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the pancreas intact?

Re:Current model

[joeytmann]

Yes, but it does have a user replaceable liver.

Re:Current model

[maroberts]

Yes, but it does have a user replaceable liver.

..with Chianti and fava beans?

Perfect Likeness!

[Sponge Bath]

Steve has an insanely big head!

Re:Perfect Likeness!

[Anonymous Coward]

This one is awesome. Steve Jobs vs Bill Gates

Re:Perfect Likeness!

[espiesp]

Except that isn't Bill Gates... it's Eric Schmidt - despite what the image title says.

Why would Bill Gates be wearing a shirt with a big G on it?

Its head is to small to be Steve Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks nothing like Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs' head is way bigger in real life.

Blows my business plan!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in the process of making a Steve Jobs blow-up doll - extra tight asshole and mouth - for the guys who always wanted to sleep with him.

It had the faux black turtle neck, rimless glasses, jeans, and razor stubble. The better model had a synthetic voice that said, "I'm am now introducing this new iMac." Hit the button again, and it cycles though all of Apple's products.

I was going to make a killing!

Re:Blows my business plan!

[Pseudonym Authority]

No, you wouldn't have. It is not his asshole that Apple costumers want to use the doll for.

Boycott!

[Anonymous Coward]

When did a cease-and-desist letter become a lawsuit? And when did trademark enter into the story? According to MIC's own website, the letter states "Unauthorized use of a person’s name and/or likeness constitutes a violation of California Civil Code Section 3344, which prohibits the use of any person’s name, photograph or likeness in a product without that person’s prior consent” bla bla bla" As a previous poster said, it's not a trademark issue.

Ah, well. Who needs to go to the orginal site when rumours and hearsay will suffice? Boycott Apple! Boycott Apple!

Precedent

[Trip6]

Can't believe there isn't vast precedent here. Companies have been making and selling figurines of famous people since before there were famous people. But of course Apple gets some press out of it.

There's A Statue for for That

[mattwrock]

In the People's Republic of China, rights of personality are established by statute.

I thought it should be STATUE instead!

He's a public figure

[l0ungeb0y]

Sorry Apple, but you can stuff this "cease and disist letter" right up your ass. Steve Jobs is a public figure and this work can be considered a parody, regardless of it's "for profit" status. Don't you have an App in the App Store to censor out of existence?

I have plenty of Apple products, but it seems with every passing day Apple finds a way to make me like them less and less.

Re:He's a public figure

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Buying Apple products, furthers Apple's ability to control the universe.

Simply do not buy their overpriced, under featured junk.

This not bootleg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck trying to get China to stop infringing /anything/!
http://google.com/search?q="this+not+bootleg"

What I really don't understand is why EVERYONE uses China for cheap labour, while China consistently produces copyright infringing bootlegs with minor variations?
Why the fuck is the USA (and probably everyone else) sending trillions of dollars to these copyright-disrespecting motherfuckers?

Re:This not bootleg.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I really don't understand is why EVERYONE uses China for cheap labour, while China consistently produces copyright infringing bootlegs with minor variations?

The answer is in the question.

You're not really successful...

[Gordonjcp]

... until there's an action figure of you.

Perfect for an Improv Everywhere mission

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Steve Jobs look-alike day!

http://improveverywhere.com/

Imagine armies of folks emerging from the New York subways, all dressed up in Steve Jobs black turtlenecks and glasses. Even children, as well! They all head toward the NYC Apple Store. Half the onlookers are shocked, the other half laugh their asses off.

Simple solution

[ptomblin]

They just have to rename the figurine to "Sosumi".

For v 2.0 .....

[Anonymous Coward]

They could just revise it slightly, get rid of the apple logo base, and phone, and change the figure's name to Butthead CEO...

(Long-time Apple news-junkies/trivia-junkies should get that referance, I hope ;-) )

Re:For v 2.0 .....

[Anonymous Coward]

They could just revise it slightly, get rid of the apple logo base, and phone, and change the figure's name to Butthead CEO...

(Long-time Apple news-junkies/trivia-junkies should get that referance, I hope ;-) )

Butthead? I thought that was the instructions for use?

I just checked the MIC Gadget site

[Cornwallis]

The SJ Figurine doll is marked "Discontinued" and has been replaced by one called "Butt-Head Astronomer".

Surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple suing someone for some bullshit. Same shit, different day. Fuck Apple. They are seriously the lamest brand on the planet.

Pro tip

[Mathness]

Pro tip to Slashdot users: Stuff one of the SJ figurines down the front of your pants* and even you can obtain a girl- or boyfriend.

* Please note that prolonged exposure can result in: Expensive cloth and hardware habits, occasional cravings for grilled shoes with squid dressing, becoming a sex symbol and/or growing a beard.

Is this available in wax?

[hey!]

In a gift box along with a half-dozen 4" steel hat pins?

Shame on Apple

[twoears]

But what I'd like to see is a Larry Ellison voodoo doll.

But wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't Steve Jobs, this is Thom Mayne!

Sounds a bit like a case of

[Anonymous Coward]

"Butt Hole Astronomer" syndrome to me.

SJ Demands 12-inch figurine

[GodfatherofSoul]

And, have it covered with veins. Which I'm sure the Macoholics will appreciate just in time for Christmas.

Sued?

[Joao]

I'm far from being an Apple fanboy or defender. But it doesn't look like a lawsuit to me. They send them an email telling the company to stop. It wasn't even an official cease and desist letter.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it come with a spare liver ?

Parody?

[SuperKendall]

I thought the figure was not a parody at all, to me it was more like something you'd put in a shrine. Scary stuff.

Although if they also made a similar Bill Gates and Balmer figure, you could put them in one of those old vibrating electronic hockey sets and let them battle each other for supremacy.

simple business

[Thud457]

Apple hates fun.

That's because GNU/fun is FOSS.
Apple prefers iFun(tm), which is under the BSD license.

Eighty Dollars?

[aaaantoine]

Even his likeness is overpriced.

What's the difference between me and Apple?

[idontgno]

I know I'm not a lawyer... and I know better than to try to make up new IP rights on the fly.

Change the name...

[Anonymous Coward]

When Carl Sagan got pissy about the an Apple project code-named "Sagan", they changed it to "Butthead Astronomer".

Clearly, these folks should just change the name of thier figurine to "Butthead CEO"

If I could only get a hold of one...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

I'd spank a load on it and post to youtube, showing all the power of the Steve Jobs Bukkake effect. Steve knows how to give it out, but can't take it on the chin like the great pron star he could be.

Wrong Tag

[macbuzz01]

Shouldn't this be tagged idol instead of idle?

In other news

[Locke2005]

Steve Balmer is insisting that Microsoft sue anybody making a figurine that looks like a complete asshole...

Move to the US

[ThatsNotPudding]

where Parody is protected free speech.

Will Jobs sue me if i ever wear

[blair1q]

a black turtleneck?

Because that's all it would take for me to infringe on his slightly dimmer sense of style.

Misses the point completely

[93 Escort Wagon]

Read the article, people. Apple's not objecting to a Steve Jobs statue; it is complaining that "statue Jobs" is wearing chinos and a sweatshirt - that's diluting the brand.

This suit should fail

[scharkalvin]

S.J. is sort of a publilc figure, so he really can't protect his image from becoming a product. Not anymore than the president of the US could. Anybody want an Obama bobble-head for their rear deck?

I heard Ballmer ordered a few

[Anonymous Coward]

The old man believes in voodoo.

You can sue anyone for anything

[mschaffer]

You can sue anyone for anything. Winning a lawsuit is a whole other matter.

Re:You can sue anyone for anything

[Alrescha]

"You can sue anyone for anything"

Of course in this case, apparently nobody is suing anybody.

A.

Chuck Norris...

[Anonymous Coward]

Had lost (it or anything else for that matter) back in '72. However, it could be worse, he could have beaten Bruce Lee...

If Microsoft were clever...

[UBfusion]

they would *pay* this company to produce a Bill Gates figurine, complete with windows logos and win7phone.... But I'm afraid they aren't *that* clever...

Good job Apple

[wiedzmin]

Good job advertising the figurine maker.

Better yet

[Anonymous Coward]

They should make a penguin figurine standing on a Steve and Bill Base. Now that I would buy.

Make-believe

[w0mprat]

So playing make-believe with action figures, would a Julian Assange's transparency field trump Steve Jobs's reality distortion field?

post title is misleading

[mschaffer]

I know, it's just a C&D order, but the posting suggested otherwise.