Slashdot Mirror


Apple Forces Steve Jobs Action Figure Off eBay

Hugh Pickens writes "Kevin Parrish writes in Tom's Guide that last month, just in time for Christmas holiday gift-giving, M.I.C. Gadget began the manufacture and sale of a Steve Jobs action figure featuring an oversized head, Steve's trademark black shirt/blue jeans outfit, and a new iPhone 4 like a magical world-saving talisman in Jobs' left hand. The action figure, selling for $79.90, came with an Apple logo stand and cartoon balloons for writing custom messages. Soon a warning letter from Apple stated that the figurine violated a California statute prohibiting the use of a person's likeness in a product without prior authorization and sales ceased. But shortly after production stopped, the figurines began to appear on eBay selling for up to $2,500. Now Apple's lawyers have raided the online marketplace, zeroing in on one Canadian eBay seller who had already sold the figurine for $1,125 and eBay has removed other listings, telling sellers that the object for sale 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'"

233 comments

  1. Dildo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Honestly, look at the picture. It does look like a dildo, or maybe that's just how Jobs looks like.

    1. Re:Dildo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the arms extended it's a butt-plug. Anyone notice the fire-wire connector?
      Honestly I loved three things about the page; the comment at the top of the page about getting these now because the auction probably wouldn't run a day ,the comment at the bottom that says "grats, apple for making these figurines worth even more" and the Lenovo ad a the top!
      Irony abounds.
            Read this now before the Mac-correctness police mod this down making it worth even more.
      Could there be a Scientology tie in there somewhere? Or is the evil of Disney behind it all?

  2. Just damn! by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I was going to buy one to stick pins in!

    1. Re:Just damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well just think of the fun you could have with Steve Balmer action figures.

      There could be a prior-art problem though. The Balmer is actually a pretty close copy of Uncle Fester; it just isn't as inventive/insightful.

    2. Re:Just damn! by Nocuous · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm really wondering about Apple's motivation in this. If I go by their business practices, I'd guess they're sore they didn't get a cut of the profits. The reported $2,500 apiece for those things on eBay seems about the price point they would favor, given what their PC's cost.

      But Steve's such a media whore anyway, why didn't they just nod and smile?

      --
      Don't take it personally, but I'm not going to read your pithy response to my post.
    3. Re:Just damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the widespread availability of these figurines has been the primary factor in Jobs' mysterious illness of the past few years.

    4. Re:Just damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand Steve sending lawyers around, but I don't understand why Apple's lawyers would care. I really can't think of any reason that they would have standing to sue unless they somehow managed to register a trademark on Steve's face.... (Is that even possible?)

    5. Re:Just damn! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The profits would be negligable to Apple. I can think of three more likely possibilities.
      1. Jobs personally doesn't like this, and gave the order.
      2. The legal department warned Jobs that failing to protect his image right now may weaken future legal cases, particually in regard to the Apple logo.
      3. Apple are concerned that the product may be used to mock Jobs in public (eg, parody movies on youtube) and thus impact their reputation.

    6. Re:Just damn! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You mean all those former 3dfx graphics card users are still mad about the lack of Mac support?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Just damn! by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Apple are concerned that the product may be used to mock Jobs in public

      A legitimate concern. It's not like he doesn't give people enough to work with..."...you're just holding it wrong..."

    8. Re:Just damn! by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2

      Does it come with a chair?

    9. Re:Just damn! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Yes, just place it in his spring action arm, pull back and watch him throw it like a pro.

    10. Re:Just damn! by akayani · · Score: 1

      No but it was genitally challenged with butt tattoo that said 'lick here'. The plan was for this to cause the 2.0 version to talk.
      "I'm making you store manager!"
      "Is that you Bill?"
      "I'm an internet slut."
      "I'll open the source."
      "Get me a brown eye pad."
      "I won't leave you not like the others."
      "Oh dear I think eye pood."

    11. Re:Just damn! by Dellama · · Score: 1

      Android tablet pc wholesaler on line shop: www.android-tablet-pc-wholesale.com

    12. Re:Just damn! by Dellama · · Score: 1

      www.android-tablet-pc-wholesale.com Android tablet pc on line shop

    13. Re:Just damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I was going to buy one to stick pins in!

      yup, it's really nice..!

  3. "Celebrity"? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Really?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:"Celebrity"? by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      You know, back in the day, before people were so polarized, my sig read:
      "I learned, from a trusted source, that Steve Jobs likes avocado."
      I think that sums up things here pretty well.

    2. Re:"Celebrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Celebrity not star. Paris Hilton is considered a celebrity and all she ever did was video tape herself having sex and doesn't wear underwear with short dresses. There's a pretty low standard for celebrity these days.

    3. Re:"Celebrity"? by davev2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If one's likeness can be used to sell an item, including one's likeness, then one is a celebrity, i.e. a famous person.

      Now, would you like someone else to make money off of a doll made in your image? Remember, you get none of the money and they did not ask your permission.

    4. Re:"Celebrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what point you were trying to make with that sig, but why so many commas?

    5. Re:"Celebrity"? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      celebrity
      [suh-leb-ri-tee] Show IPA
      –noun, plural -ties for 1.
      1. a famous or well-known person.
      2. fame; reknown.

      Yup... as painful as it may be, it fits.

    6. Re:"Celebrity"? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you (or I) like something should have no impact on legality. I'm sure Steve Jobs also doesn't like when we make fun of his ridiculous turtleneck outfit and his RDF abilities either.

    7. Re:"Celebrity"? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      and all she ever did was video tape herself having sex and doesn't wear underwear with short dresses.

      "All she ever did"? That sounds like plenty to me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:"Celebrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they admit he's a celebrity?

      Great, sell the figurines in Europe. Celebrities pretty much have no "personal rights" to their image or likeness over here.

    9. Re:"Celebrity"? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obviously, his sig was being played by William Shatner.

    10. Re:"Celebrity"? by gman003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let me make the argument another way. Say someone is going on Fox News, and is saying that "according to known internet celebrity mobby_6kl, Fox is the most reliable and fair news source.". Obviously, they are attempting to make money via the use of your image. However, you never said such things, and never endorsed them. You can't sue for libel or slander, as your image is not provably being damaged by their actions. Such a thing is obviously wrong and unethical. Thus, there is a law intended to prevent such things.

    11. Re:"Celebrity"? by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Really? So, if whether or not you like something should have no bearing on legality of said thing? Using your reasoning, burgling your home should be legal because the only reason burglary is illegal is because the burgled do not like being burgled and that doesn't matter.

      Again, would you like it if someone make a doll of you and sold it for a profit and made a lot of money and gave you none? Do you consider that right and fair?

      Oh, and the general test is the average person, as in "Would the average person feel violated if..."

    12. Re:"Celebrity"? by happymellon · · Score: 1

      Did you just compare making a doll in the likeness of someone to burglary?

      Being burgled deprives you of of items you previously had. Having a doll being made of you means you lost... oh yeah nothing because Apple don't make Jobs action figures. How are the two even remotely comparable?

      Or are you of the opinion that if I walk down the street and someone take a photo of the street, which you happen to be in, then you should be compensated for making up part the street scene?

    13. Re:"Celebrity"? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legitimate. Take out the section between the commas and the sentence reads the same. It's the way that folks make an aside.

    14. Re:"Celebrity"? by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So every whore on this planet should be famous? Gee, standards sure got lowered.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:"Celebrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that character from Malcolm in the middle.

    16. Re:"Celebrity"? by rhade · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a haiku

      --
      http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
    17. Re:"Celebrity"? by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      The right term is parenthetical phrase, and while you're correct, I also feel like it's not quite right. Maybe it's the way it's led with a preposition, making it sound like it's part of the sentence.

    18. Re:"Celebrity"? by Macrat · · Score: 2

      Now, would you like someone else to make money off of a doll made in your image? Remember, you get none of the money and they did not ask your permission.

      Everyone seems to be missing the pedistal which is using the Apple logo without a license.

    19. Re:"Celebrity"? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah. Sounds pompous and faggy to me.

    20. Re:"Celebrity"? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2
      Everyone seems to be missing the pedistal which is using the Apple logo without a license.

      "Everyone" apparently including Apple. Which is odd. That's a trademark, much more solid that this "celebrity likeness" bullshit I (AMNAL) would have thought.

      But maybe they thought they'd just take off the logo and sell the Jobs figure anyway, so they went for that first.

    21. Re:"Celebrity"? by SiegeTank · · Score: 1

      Different types of monopoly rights:

      Physical rights
      Personality rights
      Copy rights
      Trade mark rights
      Patent/implementation rights
      ...
      Planetary rights
      Spatial rights
      the list could go on because...

      All abstract. All to address specific variances with the goal towards establishing abstract rights.

    22. Re:"Celebrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, that character, from Malcolm, in the middle.

    23. Re:"Celebrity"? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Ebay also owns some of the most used Ebay-like sites in certain countries in Europe.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    24. Re:"Celebrity"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, she was already famous, if only minorly. Now she's a famous whore.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:"Celebrity"? by slyguy135 · · Score: 1

      "Let me make the argument another way. Say your wife is sleeping with another man. Obviously, they are having an affair. However, you never agreed to such things, and never endorsed them. You can't sue for breach of contract, as that's not how marriage works. Such a thing is obviously wrong and unethical. Thus, there is a law intended to prevent such things."

      A car analogy is also needed but I'll let someone else do that.

    26. Re:"Celebrity"? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      She was famous for being filthy stinking rich, and not earning any of it. Inherited wealth. Thus she became a target for all the resentment of the lower and middle classes - people who have spent their lives working hard, struggling to make money and worrying about finances, being assured constantly that anyone can become a success with hard work while facing the reality that no amount of hard work will do it without a great deal of luck too. Then they see Paris, who did fuck-all and yet can spend more money on breakfast than most people make in a year... is it any wonder that people started to resent her so much? The sex tape just enhanced this: Turning her from a filthy rich snob into a filthy rich whore snob.

    27. Re:"Celebrity"? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      She was famous for being filthy stinking rich, and not earning any of it.

      Welcome to supply-side fame.

      This is the way of the world now, I guess. And why I don't own a television.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:"Celebrity"? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So every whore on this planet should be famous?

      It worked for Sarah Palin.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re:"Celebrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's called libel.

    30. Re:"Celebrity"? by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      He stated that whether anyone likes something should be irrelevant to whether that thing is a crime.

      Who cares if you are deprived of something? You do, that is it. You don't like it. But, I don't care and the person who took your stuff is happy. So, that cancels out your unhappiness.

    31. Re:"Celebrity"? by djrosen · · Score: 1

      Yes, really. I don't like the rain, who is responsible so I can see them brought to justice.

    32. Re:"Celebrity"? by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      The star Sol is responsible for the rain. You may sue at your convenience.

    33. Re:"Celebrity"? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I don't really think its new so awful much as I remember the same behavior from pr0n-stars from the 70s.( Still active social BUTTerfly Ron Jeremy is a fine example.) Come to think of it Rome at its peak had similar features to todays professional attention whores.
      Y'know, come to think of it, it makes all the little old lady and bored housewife demographic driving this trend seem quite sleazy through their voyeurism. Purchasing Grocery store tabloids and watching Entertainment revue television to follow this freakshow is making a coked up Hollywood crowd jump and shout "look at me, look what I can do". Other attention whores take it to Sex Pistols Promotion Proportions that goes a bit like this:
      1.Create the stir.( Tear up hotels/houses, behave like mental street people,Overdose, Beat your spouse, DUI, shoot something, transvestites)
      2Alert the press. (this is what you pay your agent for)
      3. Ride the wave( modify behavior to outshine todays johhny come latelys to the spotlight, flee to a foreign country for asylum, release sex video, start a rehab fight, be the caboose in a public lavatory train, knock up a minor,knock up a major, come out of the closet, go back in for auto erotic strangulation with sprinklings of bestiality and pedophilia, Get married in vegas, divorced in Mexico, bang your producer, bang your manager, bang someone younger so you can show off your plastic surgery for the camera. So much more.
      4.Rinse
      5.Repeat until career dries up and you wind up on Hollywood squares.

      Meanwhile the rest of us suffer because we have Gang and Drug units to prevent social tragedies, but nothing to stand against old ladies, housewives or celebrities.
      Even if we could get rid of Celebrities in our lifetime, we will have to put them on welfare like the Eskimoes because the are suited socially-mentally-physically for f**k else , but politics and we know where that story goes now don't we? I mean really, can you picture a bubblehead like Charlie Sheen asking "You want fries with that?" The are like animals that cant mix with society and Bunny hugger agencies will want to protect by fencing off the north of the Los Angeles area with 12 foot hurricane fence and accordion barbed wire so the Celebrities can remain in their natrual environment undisturbed.

              See what man hath wrought.

       

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    34. Re:"Celebrity"? by daath93 · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever gets rich by "with hard work" that's just a dumb statement. You become financially successful by "working smart", making good investments, making your money work for you. Most self made "successful" people didn't get where they are by luck. And conversely most people who do get rich with luck rarely stay rich, because they don't understand the concepts of maintaining and growing wealth like people who got there without luck.

    35. Re:"Celebrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about someone making money with a copy of your penis?

      (See "legal battles" section)
      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Jeff_Stryker

    36. Re:"Celebrity"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pity someone did not make one with jobs giving his lawyer a blow job

    37. Re:"Celebrity"? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Why thank you, slyguy.

      Let me make the argument another way. Say someone is going on Fox News with a Ford advertisement that states known slashdot celebrity slyguy135 thinks the Ford Pinto is just GREAT. no gas tank problems! However, you never endorsed them (dick). Such a thing is obviously wrong and unethical. Thus, there is common law intended to prevent such things.

      OK, I coulda done better, but I'm only on my fourth glass of whiskey.

    38. Re:"Celebrity"? by Meski · · Score: 1

      Fair use via parody?

    39. Re:"Celebrity"? by Dellama · · Score: 1

      On line shop: www.android-tablet-pc-wholesale.com Android tablet pc on line shop,wholesaler from China.

    40. Re:"Celebrity"? by Dellama · · Score: 1

      Android tablet pc On line shop: www.android-tablet-pc-wholesale.com. Wholesaler from China

    41. Re:"Celebrity"? by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Fair use is for copyrighted items and I doubt it would apply here. I really haven't read the applicable law as it is a California law. And, is this really parody?

      I don't think so, but that would be a question for the courts.

  4. icon by StripedCow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Perhaps we can still use it here on Slashdot, as the icon for Apple stories.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we can still use it here on Slashdot, as the icon for Apple stories.

      After the nuclear apocalypse in 2077, finding one will award 10 points to your melee weapons skill but the act of taking it will give you negative karma.

  5. Normal and good by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some of the comments on TFA are completely off the deep end, and I (foolishly) hope we don't end up with the same.

    This a good thing. Personality rights like this evolve from the protection of privacy, and imply each individual's right to control their usage by the media. Usually those in elected positions forgo such rights, but for the rest of us it's nice to know that we can try to control some of the usage of ourselves as a commodity. In reality, this right translates almost only to celebrities, which unfairly causes a lot of the vilification of the laws; the fact of the matter is that only celebrities (by definition, perhaps) have their personality commoditized. A celebrity is a business, and just like a business they have the right to control the marketing of their brand.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    1. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Completely on target. As a Sarah Palin supporter, I'm really looking forward to when strong protections against character use like this become the norm. Celebrities like Sarah need to be able to control when their image is used and what is said about them. Think about how much better our political process would be if presidential candidates could expunge anything negative said about them or any negative use of their image. We would have never had to find out that Sarah doesn't know what newspapers she reads. And the world would be a better place. There are going to be whiners who say that it limits speech but who cares.

    2. Re:Normal and good by noidentity · · Score: 2

      This a good thing. Personality rights like this evolve from the protection of privacy, and imply each individual's right to control their usage by the media.

      Not more imaginary property. What is a person's usage, can it be owned, and what are the costs of simulating ownership of this conceptual thing? Every form of imaginary property infringes on physical property rights.

    3. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Sarah Palin supporter

      As a Sarah Palin supported I'm actually surprised you're out of the kitchen on Christmas.

      That and the fact you know how to type.

    4. Re:Normal and good by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a difference between news articles about what she does which are covered by 1st amendment rights, and using Sarah Palin's image to sell products without her permission.

    5. Re:Normal and good by davev2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but you fail by conflating two different situations; your comment is not even close to insightful and an example of a false dichotomy.

      There is a major difference between a news report containing factual information and a picture of a person and a someone making a doll of celebrity for the sole purpose of making money of the celebrity's image.

      The choice is not between total control of one's image and/or likeness and no control at all.

      Please explain why someone should be able to make money off the likeness of another person without said second person's knowledge and/or permission. Also, if someone were to make and sell a doll of you without your permission and without sharing any of the profits, would you try to stop them?

    6. Re:Normal and good by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't mind if someone made a doll of you without your permission and sold said doll making lots of money and didn't share any of it for you?

    7. Re:Normal and good by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2

      Well, every form of property infringes on some "freedom" or "right." The alternative is anarchy. Jefferson can spit all he wants, but Government and laws by definition swap some liberties for security, so if you want to live in a civil society you have to sacrifice some so-called "rights." What rights a people are guaranteed is dictated by a lot of things, such as who has the guns and what their governing documents are. The Native Americans learned the former the hard way (along with the rest of Jared Diamond's trifecta) but it remains true that the Europeans' concept of "physical property rights" infringed on some of the Americans' less-than-physical concept of "I live here." There's nothing inherently special about tangible property.

      These days, the Constitution spells out pretty clearly what is and what isn't a right. The Constitution dictates copyrights, patents, and privacy, and some other things discussed less often on Slashdot. Those first two are what you call infringing, but things like the Fourth Amendment carry a bit more weight than the "good and useful arts" bit. As I said in my original post, personality rights are a manifestation of personal privacy. Why should your desire to profit off my visage impede my right to privacy? If the concept is confusing, we're lucky to have a common-law system so our system evolves with our society.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    8. Re:Normal and good by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2

      As I said above these things tend to go out the window when it comes to political candidates. There's a reason it's called a "public office."

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    9. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *woosh*

    10. Re:Normal and good by noidentity · · Score: 2

      If having to accept that meant none of these bullshit imaginary property rights, I'd gladly accept it. Even if I objected, that's not sufficient reason to make it illegal. For example, I object to the way my city is run, but that's not sufficient cause to force them to run it differently.

    11. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. Insightful? Really?

    12. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Celebrities like Sarah need to be able to control when their image is used and what is said about them."

      When a person enters politics, he or she gives up such control.

      As for your support of Sarah Palin, I think you must have stumbled on
      Slashdot by mistake. People here are too intelligent to support an incompetent
      poseur like Palin, when she cannot even manage her own children effectively.

    13. Re:Normal and good by happymellon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since you seem to be still trolling, can you give us a reason why someone should be able to have absolute control over their likeness?
      Are you saying that satire should be illegal, or impersonation artists? Down with SNL! Elvis impersonators are evil!

      You do not have absolute control over your likeness, and never had.

    14. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Suppose, for argument's sake, that you are famous enough to merit someone, like me, to decide to tool up a doll with your likeness, and market it with ridiculous/defamatory/maybe even scandalous, libelous, and maybe (or not) malicious characterizations (which you obviously are party to, "noidentity", just try to DENY IT), then I now can basically "own" you and how you are depicted in the media, if my product gets popular enough. Too bad for you (and your specious argument). Go back to your parents' basement.

    15. Re:Normal and good by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Completely on target. As a Sarah Palin supporter...

      Clearly a troll.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    16. Re:Normal and good by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The 1st amendment protections for the press are, in my view, overly generous. A lot of that personal information that the press loves to report on isn't any of our business. It's one thing when they report on things which are sort of grey area such as when politicians have affairs, and quite another when they report on other celebrities engaging in that same behavior.

      And the only reason why it is our business with politicians is that they frequently run for office on the suggestion that they represent us and can do so in an appropriate way and with reasonable integrity.

      Report on conflicts of interest and things which we really need to know, but leave all that crap about what happens behind closed doors of celebrities out of it. Unless there's a legitimate and compelling reason for the people to know. We don't have a right to know everything about a person just because they're a celebrity.

    17. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a major difference between a news report containing factual information and a picture of a person and a someone making a doll of celebrity for the sole purpose of making money of the celebrity's image.

      That news company makes money from that news report. So what exactly is the difference?

    18. Re:Normal and good by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Why should your desire to profit off my visage impede my right to privacy? If the concept is confusing, we're lucky to have a common-law system so our system evolves with our society.

      He's not a private citizen he's the CEO of a well known company. If he sued over privacy rights for things he does in public he might get as much as $1 as an award assuming he won.

      I see no evidence that the dolls were made using information that wasn't publicly available to damn near everybody. And considering that he goes out to publicly announce new products dressed like that, I really don't think he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      But ultimately I would like them to win this just because I do think that a person should have reasonable control over items that use both the name and likeness of an individual. Although it does get a bit insane sometimes like that Zoe Renault suit in France.

    19. Re:Normal and good by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      Why? In both cases money changes hands. The reporter is "selling" his article. The paper is using her fame and taking photos to get readers... It's always about the money.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    20. Re:Normal and good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh please c'mon, nobody can manage their own kids. Besides, there's enough incompetence and general inaptness about Palin that you don't have to reach down to the children issue.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Normal and good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If I was as famous as Saint Steve and had his money? You coul make a sex doll with my likeness for all I cared.

      I hope you see the difference between me, Mr. Random Opportunist, and Steve Jobs, a person who's a wee bit more known.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd bet that Allah and His followers will back you on this one.

    23. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you fail at reading comprehension. The OP said it isn't (the NOT is important) a choice between absolute control and no control at all. This case was a blatant attempt to make money off someone else's name and nothing more. A slightly oversized head does not make it satire. Reporting news about someone is one thing, selling something that looks like an offial product is a whole different matter. I say this not as an Apple fan (I dislike Apple products for the most part), but as a reasonable human being. Replace Steve's face with minee, and I'd not be pleased (you wouldn't sell any since I'm a nobody, but that's beside the point). If you made it humiliating in some way, my attitude might be different (I'm rather odd that way, I suppose, but I think most people take themselves too seriously).

    24. Re:Normal and good by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      There is a difference between news articles about what she does which are covered by 1st amendment rights, and using Sarah Palin's image to sell products without her permission.

      Is there? News articles don't write and publish themselves, that all needs to be paid for. Here on the internet it's long been considered commercial usage by the likes of ICANN and the MAFIAA for a website to run advertisements even if it is just to support the cost of operating the website.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    25. Re:Normal and good by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...would you try to stop them?

      Nope. I would just sell mine for a buck cheaper, and then it would come alive and kill the owner. Get yours now! Operators are standing by...

      Got a changelog handy? I don't see any difference

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    26. Re:Normal and good by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. An arguably powerful man who doesn't know a clever parody of himself is a fool. If Jobs were truly a clever man he'd have recognized a clever marketing gimmick and made some kind of deal with this Chinese company for these figures and made a mint; both Apple and the Chinese firm could have made a fortune selling an iPad collector's edition complete with Jobs figure. The figures themselves are hardly embarrassing, they're just slightly out of proportion, other than that they are quite lifelike and not bad looking at all, I was wanting one as soon as I saw it, and I'm a Linux fanboy.

      Instead A[[le's opted for the dickheaded approach and "banned" something really clever, even if they have the right to do so. As we see time and time again; just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean its a smart move. All this does is make Apple look like the the land of Mordor even more than before.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    27. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Down with SNL! Elvis impersonators are evil!

      Psst... hey, buddy, mayhaps you could have chosen examples that WON'T make us think that's a good idea...

    28. Re:Normal and good by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Slightly oversized head isnt satire, but putting Alan Thicke with a rubber neck in a 10 second Family Guy cutaway is?

      --
      Good-bye
    29. Re:Normal and good by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they skipped the critical step of asking first permission from Apple and Jobs. We don't know if Apple is already in negotiations with another company to launch a similar product.

      Considering the huge ammounts of bootleged and pirate products coming from China, the real news are that the chinese company listened to Apple compliants.

      That said, I must recognize that the guys at MIC Gadget did a fine job.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    30. Re:Normal and good by ZDRuX · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, what exactly are these "personality rights" that you speak of? This is the first time I've heard of these, unless you meant to say privacy rights? I'm not sure, perhaps you can clarify. And these rights "imply" that I have the right to control my "usage" by the media?.. Can you define "usage" in this context? Man, am I the only one who's totally confused by the wording in this post?

      And then you go on to say that these apparently existent personality laws "translate" only to celebrities? First of all, I have no idea what laws you speak of, secondly, there is no law in a free society that "translates" to any one group of people. And I'm guessing by translate you mean "apply to".

      You go on to say that only a celebrities personality is mostly a commodity, who then - appoints a person as a celebrity? This sounds to me like some ad-hoc law with no way to enforce it. Do you see the loopholes and amount of absurdity in that statement? Basically, you're saying we as a society determine who is a celebrity (since there is no actual metric to measure this) and then we apply certain laws to these people that we cannot break?

      If I'm an actor, you're saying someone can't make a painting of me and sell it on eBay?! My face is now somehow copyrighted because of a perceived celebrity status? None of this makes sense, unless of course - I've totally misunderstood your point, at which time I'd like you to maybe rephrase it because it does seem a little back asswards to me.

      You mention in your post that Mr. Jobs is used as a marketing brand, can you show any evidence of this? Or is it just someone's opinion? I doubt Apple bought the right to Mr. Jobs face or "likeness" and has the right to sue over copyright infringement or some stupid "likeness" laws in that state.

      And since the seller is a Canadian, they should just go and stuff it somewhere else. What's next.. they'll request that the U.S. government extradite him?

      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    31. Re:Normal and good by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Sell products without permission? You mean like what newspapers do, when they sell ad space next to someone's picture? Or how about the papers they sell to subscribers, with said faces?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    32. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *woosh* yourself, for thinking the joke went over AC #2's head.

    33. Re:Normal and good by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

      Please explain why someone should be able to make money off the likeness of another person without said second person's knowledge and/or permission.

      That's not what's happening here, though.

      What I see is a bobblehead doll - a parody, even. I'm pretty sure that'd fall under 'artistic license'.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    34. Re:Normal and good by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      So if you slap on the 'parody' label everything is allowed? Someone copies Ubuntu, calls it Cowbuntu, prints a box with Linus Torvalds and Mark Shuttleworth as cows on it, and sells it for a low, low, 699$. And of course no sources. "It was just a parody, your honor. Not providing the sources is part of that. It mocks the crypto-socialist tendencies of the open-source community."

    35. Re:Normal and good by slyguy135 · · Score: 1

      > Some of the comments on TFA are completely off the deep end, and I (foolishly) hope we don't end up with the same.

      And then you join them in the very next paragraph!

    36. Re:Normal and good by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      What if you're as famous as Jobs but don't have his money? A washed up child actor, for example? And your image is the only thing of value you have?

    37. Re:Normal and good by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "absolute control". Perhaps you should go back to school and learn reading comprehension.

      No matter how hard you try to frame the argument in absolute terms, you will fail because this is not a case of absolutes.

    38. Re:Normal and good by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I do see the difference. But, you seem to miss the point. Everyone deserves the right to some control of their own image. Public figures, such as Jobs, lose some control over their image. But, no one should be allowed to make money solely off of another person image without that person's permission.

      You could care less if someone made a sex doll with your likeness, right? Well, what if it were your mother's, or your wife's? What if it were your daughter's image?

      What if you were pro-choice and your images was used in a context that implied you were ant-choice? What is your image was used to promote a product you had never heard of and would never have used (This, btw, is the source of the CA law.)

      Do you see the problem now?

    39. Re:Normal and good by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      What if you didn't want anyone selling them at all?

    40. Re:Normal and good by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and are you part of the mod bombing crew? I wouldn't put it past you.

    41. Re:Normal and good by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "So if you slap on the 'parody' label everything is allowed?"

      In every post some idiot does this. Why? Its not like you can cover your tracks, my post is still available for all to see... You have obviously omitted the "clever" part to make your post needlessly relevant and contrary. The product has to be a CLEVER parody. If you want to argue with me then argue, but don't resort to immature trickery.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    42. Re:Normal and good by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure that asking permission is always necessary. In this case Apple appears to have resorted to a quirk in California law to force the litigation. Without it there may gave been nothing Apple could have done. Comedians are protected from slander suits, why not products? It would truly be a marvelous country if everyone with a stick up his ass sued anyone who said anything about them. Er...

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    43. Re:Normal and good by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Ah, very good.. The dickhead feature does work much better in v2.0

      What "mod bombing" crew are you talking about? Everything has been modded up. And I only mod up... but keep it comin'. I can give you all the attention you crave.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    44. Re:Normal and good by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sucks to be me, then.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:Normal and good by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      So you claim that doll is a clever parody? Really?

    46. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have a right to know everything about a person just because they're a celebrity.

      I have never seen anyone even remotely suggest this. At best you are fighting strawmen.

      As for the implication of your post; [It should be illegal to report facts that are "none of our business"]. You need to take some time to think about these things. What you are supporting is nothing more than fascism. You may not realize how much effect you have on the rest of us, but you and your beliefs are important and make a measurable difference in this world.

    47. Re:Normal and good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you're telling me there aren't Sarah Palin bobbleheads (for those of you on the left).... or Hillary Clinton Nutcrackers (for those of you on the right) on sale?

    48. Re:Normal and good by yusing · · Score: 1

      To hell with selling products ... it ought to be illegal to sell images that make me physically ill !!

      --

      "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  6. HALF PRICE ON EBAY SALE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Turtlenecked Dickhead" action figure.

    Original liver not included.

    1. Re:HALF PRICE ON EBAY SALE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q : How many Apple employees does it take to change a liver?
      A : It depends on how many Jobs it perpetuates.

  7. time to move to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... where there's a bit more freedom to poke fun at Steve Jobs.

    1. Re:time to move to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or sign a deal with this guy http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/3756257143/.

      They cant sue if its a figurine of someone who looks & dresses like Steve Jobs.

    2. Re:time to move to China by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They can sue if they don't like your attitude. Whether they have much of a case is another matter, mind you, but...

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  8. Link to the figure in question by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they did a good job capturing his essence. http://imgur.com/hMuXQ.jpg

    1. Re:Link to the figure in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @cobracommander might have a different take

  9. Pay for the cult of personality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suckers!

  10. Trademark shift/jeans outfit? How about the Apple? by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [...] featuring an oversized head, Steve's trademark black shirt/blue jeans outfit, and a new iPhone 4 like a magical world-saving talisman in Jobs' left hand. The action figure, selling for $79.90, came with an Apple logo stand [...]

    I'd have thought that it was the stand that was violating trademark law, not the outfit.

  11. Don't be ridiculous... by denzacar · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is Slashdot.
    Only company we are allowed to indiscriminately hate and make fun of is Microsoft. Sorry... Micro$oft.

    Other corporate entities are free game from time to time - but never Apple.
    Also, badmouthing Linux, penguins in general and in some cases Natalie Portman will almost certainly get you in serious trouble.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot,
      your allowed to do what you want.

      people may not like it, and your IP may get blocked. But that doesn't stop you doing it.

      dam junk filter kicked in.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    2. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is Slashdot.
      No, this is Patrick.

    3. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is Slashdot.
      Only company we are allowed to indiscriminately hate and make fun of is Microsoft. Sorry... Micro$oft.

      Other corporate entities are free game from time to time - but never Apple.
      Also, badmouthing Linux, penguins in general and in some cases Natalie Portman will almost certainly get you in serious trouble.

      Where have you been? Apple is in the dog house, all the cool kids are turning a blind eye to Google's bullshit now.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    4. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The GEEK cool kids.

      Apple is no longer geek-cool 'cause the joe random cool kids now think it's cool.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have a hell of a lot of editors and sections blocked to have that perversely inaccurate a view of slashdot.

    6. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? Apple is in the dog house, all the cool kids are turning a blind eye to Google's bullshit now.

      Actually, though it's definitely true that a few years back Google was viewed almost entirely positively and the recipient of widespread uncritical fanboyism on Slashdot (circa 2000 to 2005 or thereabouts), I've noticed that this trend has declined significantly in the past few years.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    7. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you (as a Slashdot geek), a Valley Girl, or anyone else buys a product strictly because of someone else's opinino, you're an idiot.

      Posted from my iMac with a GMail window open as well.

    8. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Apple started to lose much of it's geek appeal when they turned from a computer company into a consumer electronics company, and embraced DRM and very restricted products in order to achieve this. That is the point when the geeks started to see them as turning to the dark side. It also made Apple a lot of money.

    9. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Geeks have an interest in things, cool kids (well wana-be's) have an interest in other people.

      Apple is about as Geeky as Fox

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    10. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I prefer to say they lost its geek appeal when they turned from the elitist geek market to the more profitable elitist idiot market.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Geeks have an interest in things, cool kids (well wana-be's) have an interest in other people

      May I steal that quote? It fits well.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      property is theft, I have no idea what you are talking about.

      feel free to use it.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    13. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      you could have this one too if you wanted.

      What's being cool, enlightenment and picking up women got in common? The less you try the easier it is.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    14. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by EvanTaylor · · Score: 1

      The 80s?

      --
      Sleep is for the weak.
    15. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they lost their geek appeal back in the 90's when their computers could generally be described as slow, unreliable, propriety, overpriced garbage.

    16. Re:Don't be ridiculous... by Dellama · · Score: 1

      On line shop: www.android-tablet-pc-wholesale.com Android tablet pc manufacturer from China.

  12. Where's that in the Constitution? by BlackSabbath · · Score: 0

    > 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'

    Sorry. Which amendment to the constitution was that? Or is this from the UN charter of human rights?

    1. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by davev2.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is not in the Constitution and the U.N. charter of human rights doesn't matter. The right in question is a legal right granted by the state of California.

    2. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is not in the constitution, it is in California state law.

    3. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by MBC1977 · · Score: 2

      Which affects a Canadian citizen, how? Cause I believe "Not at all" is the correct answer.

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
    4. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'

      Sorry. Which amendment to the constitution was that? Or is this from the UN charter of human rights?

      Sorry. Are you under the impression that the USA is a constitutional republic? If you have a problem with the way this Federal Republic is run you had better take it up with the Federation. And for the sake of all of us you better do it quickly.

    5. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by kindbud · · Score: 2

      eBay is a California corporation. HTH.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    6. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

      I'm interested. Isn't there some rule or other that State laws cannot trump federal laws? e.g. California can't legislate to enslave hobbits.

      I don't know what the relative status is of covenants by international treaty.

    7. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and how come California state law applies to the entire world? I'm guessing something to do with eBay being in California? Doesn't seem right somehow...

    8. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that person lives in canada. which, last i checked isn't subject to state or federal laws of the united states...

    9. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      Which affects a Canadian citizen, how? Cause I believe "Not at all" is the correct answer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Canada

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    10. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Which affects a Canadian citizen, how? Cause I believe "Not at all" is the correct answer.

      Ebay is headquarters in California isn't it? You'd be right if it was being sold on a Canadian website by someone living in Canada. But as soon as they put it on ebay.com then it fell, at least partially, under California jurisdiction.

    11. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      You have it wrong. The rule is that states cannot make laws that are more lenient than federal law.

      Example: If federal law says that drug smuggling is a 1st degree felony, state law can not make it a misdemeanor nor can it make it a 3rd degree felony.

      But, a state law can be more restrictive, such as federal law saying possession is a misdemeanor and state law saying it is a felony. Or, as a real life example, salvia is legal at the federal and legal in the state of Florida, but it has been outlawed in Pasco County, Florida.

      Got it?

    12. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Per the Constitution of the United States (CUS) Article 6, the Constitution itself, the treaties made by the federal government, and the laws of the federal government are the supreme law of the land. Congress' powers and its ability to make law is defined in the Constitution in Article 2. The Tenth Amendment gives any powers not specifically granted the federal government to the states and/or the people. It can be argued quite convincingly that the founders intended the federal law to be small, lax, and all-encompassing with the states making more and stricter laws. But, Congress has the power to make any laws that are needed to execute the powers defined in Article 2. And, Congress has made many, occasionally contradictory, laws.

      This has led to some interesting situations.

      California claims it can legalize marijuana because no interstate trade (CUS Art 2 Sec 8) is occurring, but that flies in the face of the federal prohibition of marijuana (CUS Art 6). Interestingly, it can be argued that because federal law forbids the sale of health insurance across state lines, the federal government does not have the authority to force people to buy insurance (Art 2 Sec 8 again) because no interstate trade is occurring.

      Part of the problem is that the Supreme Court of the United States has made rulings that are contradictory and in some ways contradict the written words of the Constitution.

      Whether or not this is a problem and how it is a problem depends on what one believes. Democrats are supposed to be for a strong federal government, with lots of federal control, lots of federal programs, and lots of federal laws. Republicans are supposed to be for a small, weaker federal government with most laws, tax collection, and spending at the state level. Sadly, neither party is really living up to the stated ideals.

    13. Re:Where's that in the Constitution? by sosume · · Score: 1

      Hmm, how does Californian law apply to a Canadian selling a Chinese action figure? Do we have to learn each US state's law now?

  13. First Apple commandment by eclectro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Thou shalt not make any graven images of me."

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:First Apple commandment by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      shame I can't see that stand.

      Was it made from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and not just the good that was before it? or forked tongue snake skin, that would be cool.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    2. Re:First Apple commandment by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Too bad they didn't arrive at "thou shalt not steal" yet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:First Apple commandment by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Too bad they didn't arrive at "thou shalt not steal" yet.

      It's not stealing if you convince people to willingly give you their money. Hypnosis, maybe.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. apple by fishingmachine · · Score: 1

    apple will be releasing its own proprietary version of this action figure. you will need to buy a special accessory to move the arms and legs, of course also made by apple. it will cost 3 times as much as the original. but at least it will be shinier and easier to use for people who never use action figures! it can then attack the original action figure maker and portray them as a faceless corporation for squares.

    1. Re:apple by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And it will be in white, stain before you touch it the first time and its name is prepended by an "i".

      We present, the iGod. And in the pants you'll find the iGod Nano.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We're entitled to free speech, but increasingly the world is under the control of companies we can't function without.

    Recently we saw Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and an opportunistic Swiss bank all take advantage of Wikileaks plight to either seize their funds and/or stop them receiving any more funds.

    Now here's eBay stopping people from engaging in perfectly legitimate trade. Satire is Free speech, you know. But who has the money to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court. Only the very wealthy can afford justice.

    With the big end of town merging and competition shrinking I can see the day where you just have a few players (as happened with credit cards) where you can be turned into an unperson just because a handful of big companies decide they don't want to do business with you.

    Don't expect Congress to defend your rights. As we saw in with their Copyright Extension Act (the "Mikey Mouse Act") they always rush to codify the wishes of their biggest donors. Don't expect the courts either. The Supreme Court decided recently that companies can pour as much cash as they like into election campaigns. Roberts & co. aren't going to defend our rights.

    1. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This has nothing to do with free speech.

        It has everything to do lazy, greedy stupidity. Some idiots at a company figuring they can get rich from selling a cheap plastic replication of Jobs (I don't know what drugs they were on when they dreamed it up, and I don't want to know) and then part of Apple's legal division - apparently with nothing better to do - figuring they might make some money in suing said idiots into the ground and, just possibly, buying the dead company in the future; in order to make money on it ala Lucas? WTF?

        Stupidity: Meet Stupidity. May the off of the bottom dwellers feed on each other until nothing is left but the rubber soles of their shoes and a few expensive, indigestible tie clips.

        Both sides of this fracas disgust me. I could express a wish that they'd go find something useful to do with their lives, but I know it would not make a damned bit of difference.

        SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that they've made a likeness which doesn't appear to differ from the original enough to qualify as satire, it uses his name and the Apple logo.

      That last bit is probably what's going to cause most of the problem. The rest of it isn't as cut and dry as that is.

    3. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they could have avoided all of this by including a removable wizards hat and voice bubble that says "I don my mighty wizards cap and cast Reality Distortion Field level 14!"

      That would have put it firmly identified it as satire, and once out of the box, the hat could be left off leaving the doll exactly the same, minus the threat of lawsuit.

    4. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Really? I'd say the humorously oversized head (get it - he's got a big head / over inflated ego) makes it satire. Or just the fact that, even among faithful zealots of the Church of Apple, I've never come across someone who actually liked Steve Jobs.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    5. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News Flash: Apple has *teams* of lawyers on hand, who aren't paid anything extra to send this kind of stuff. They are already on payroll. Salaried. They aren't worried about trying to recoup money from the guy selling the dolls. They are trying to protect their figurehead and their companies' image. And you can be damn sure Apple will protect their image wherever they can.

      Hint: The fucking trademarked Apple logo on the doll they were selling probably had a lot to do with why they were illegal, and got pulled. Please, get a clue. Thanks.

    6. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this different from Jobs appearing on xkcd?

    7. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Now here's eBay stopping people from engaging in perfectly legitimate trade.

      As a preliminary matter, satire is an affirmative defense - in other words, if you're going to claim that your infringement is protected as satire, you have to first admit that yes, you just infringed a trademark or a right of publicity. Which means that while it may be protected, it is not "perfectly legitimate". But that's mere semantics.

      Satire is Free speech, you know.

      That said, where's the satire? "Steve Jobs wears jeans and turtlenecks!" Not really much of a satirical point.

      In order to be a legally protected parody, you have to actually mock the thing you're claiming to parody. Any mocking here is merely due to people already making fun of Steve Jobs. Slashdotters would mock a photo of him - does that mean said photo is satirical? Obviously not.

      No, there's no satire here. This is just an attempt to make money by using a third party's existing popularity. That's infringement of the right of publicity under the Lanham Act, as well as California state law.

    8. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      where you can be turned into an unperson just because a handful of big companies decide they don't want to do business with you.

      I remember an episode of the old Max Headroom series, where Edison Carter has been falsely accused of credit fraud by a rogue AI, and Jeffrey Tambor's character says, "That's worse than murder!"

      That show had a habit of being prophetic (which is nothing more than an extrapolation of existing trends), but it was interesting because many of those trends weren't so obvious a quarter-century ago.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The action figure does have a larger head, so I'd say there's an argument for parody. I think in the future the manufacturer should make it a really big.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      The action figure does have a larger head, so I'd say there's an argument for parody.

      Tough to make that argument - aren't most action figures big-headed? Aren't all caricature action figures big-headed? At that point, you've got a tough road to hoe to say that that's the definitive point that makes your parody legitimate.

    11. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Aren't all caricature action figures big-headed?

      Well, yes, but aren't all caricatures parodies? Isn't that an inherent quality... you can't render someone's likeness by exaggerating their most recognizable features without creating a parody.

    12. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Aren't all caricature action figures big-headed?

      Well, yes, but aren't all caricatures parodies? Isn't that an inherent quality... you can't render someone's likeness by exaggerating their most recognizable features without creating a parody.

      But "big-headed" is not a "most recognizable feature" of a specific person, if all caricatures have the same "big-headed" feature. Instead, it becomes merely a feature of the medium, like "charcoal drawings are black". As such, a caricature that merely has a big head isn't really a parody of anything.

    13. Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item by vux984 · · Score: 1

      In Steve Jobs case though, what is Steve Jobs most recognizable feature?

      Black turtleneck/blue jeans capped by an inflated head... I'd be willing to argue its a parody. :p

  16. Apple interferes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but I find it strange that for a parody of the CEO (i.e. one employee of the firm), the company wastes resources in retaliating. I would have no problem if Jobs went and did these by hiring a private lawyer etc, but isn't this like using your company money to travel on a vacation?

    1. Re:Apple interferes?? by joebagodonuts · · Score: 2

      Steve is apple. His image is the face of the company.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    2. Re:Apple interferes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve is apple.

      Yes, he is, but I've been unable to find a likeness of him for sale. I've Googled "Woz doll" and everything.

  17. dubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this post ends in doubles, Steve Jobs is a fag.

  18. Ya know by CliffH · · Score: 1

    I think it looks like a slightly younger David Letterman. :)

    --
    sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
  19. Not a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is by no means a good thing. Huge wealthy guy and/or company forces a Chinese company to stop shipping a product worldwide because of a California law? I don't know where all you guys work, but the idea of a Chinese company doing the same thing to my employer based on some Yunnan law scares the crap out of me. Yes, stop shipping to California- or heck, don't, and see whether the world actually ends before they have an enforceable judgment of any consequence against you- but don't fold. At least make Apple flex their muscle through their offshored contracts and come at you via Beijing.

  20. What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..all those action figures of Jesus and Moses? I'm pretty sure they didn't agree to have their likenesses used to sell stuff.

    1. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming the law in question isn't a problem with fictional characters that aren't under copyright.

    2. Re:What about... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Yes, however each and every American lawmaker and judge believes that Jesus is not only real but also still alive. Some fuckheaded clergyman can file a lawsuit on his behalf, hilariousness ensues.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  21. Retard mods by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    This should be modded (un)funny but its insightful. Who is really that dense?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Retard mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and about ten others deserve a large woosh. A very large woosh.

  22. I'll tell you what I think... by sgage · · Score: 0

    Fuck Apple, and fuck Steve Jobs.

  23. Re:Dear Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs == Apple

    Steve Jobs is the face of Apple. The closest thing I can think of that's like that with another company would be Richard Branson and Virgin - but Apple's image is too much tied to Jobs. Jobs dies, you can see at least a $100 drop in aapl. Steve is the marketing force behind Apple. Jobs is the World's greatest salesmen.

  24. Re:Dear Apple. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2

    So much so that he managed to jump the line for a liver transplant.

  25. Steve Jobs is an asshole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Flame away, fanboys, and mod me down, but that's the bottom line.

  26. Re:Dear Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a corporation.

    Steve Jobs is a person.

    You do not have standing to take action on behalf of Steve Jobs as a person.

    Stick to your trademark rights over the apple icon and dump the celebrity likeness bullshit.

    He is sort of part of their brand now, if you hadn't noticed. Many companies would do this in similar positions.
    Also, none of this is any of your business.

  27. Hey Apple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dr Fetus says it better than all of us can.. take note... http://www.ltlprints.com/images/0016/1576/161576_tool.png

    Tools

  28. A Canadian eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since when is Canada a US state? Canada won the last war against the US. Maybe somebody should tell Apple...

  29. O RLY??? by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    IMHO it's actually about the way he's holding the phone.

  30. Protected parody by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    IF this is classified or promoted as a parody, could it gain the protection most parody works receive?

    --
    Good-bye
  31. Re:Dear Apple. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    You are just jealous that the shentino action figure didn't sell so well. :-p

  32. Re:Dear Apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, Steve Jobs is the CEO, and is very well known for taking a direct interest in... well... everything... I think we can at the very least safely assume he's authorizing Apple to do this, if not directing it himself.

    Corporations also have a very strong interest in their officers' personality rights not being violated. No, they can't do it by themselves, but they certainly can with the person's permission.

    As a side note, corporations could also easily be pulled into as deep pockets if anything untoward happens with their leading figures.

  33. Umm by j1ggy · · Score: 1

    California statutes don't apply in Canada, sorry.

  34. No resemblence, whatsoever. by phreakincool · · Score: 1

    One looks like a complete douchebag. The other is a bobble-headed action figure.

  35. Now what? by froggymana · · Score: 1

    First he wants control of his own app store to decide what he wants in it and what he wants out. Now he's trying to do the same thing for eBay. Whats next!

    --
    "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    1. Re:Now what? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      First he wants control of his own app store to decide what he wants in it and what he wants out. Now he's trying to do the same thing for eBay. Whats next!

      iBay.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  36. Dear Slashdot by westlake · · Score: 1

    You are a corporation.
    Steve Jobs is a person.
    You do not have standing to take action on behalf of Steve Jobs as a person.

    Standing is for a court to decide.

    But I strongly suspect you'll discover that Apple has licensed Steve Job's image from Steve Jobs - and that will stand up in court.

    There is, however, another argument that can be made:

    That Apple has rights in the image of Steve Jobs because of his iconic association with Apple.

    Who Can Inherit Fame?
    [Merchandising rights to the images of Bela Lugosi and Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy]

    1. Re:Dear Slashdot by shentino · · Score: 1

      Only if apple had an exclusive license or something, and it would still be fuzzy at best.

      Iconic association, not quite sure about, as anything that related back to apple's association would probably already be indicated by trademark.

      As far as "it's for a court to decide", technically true but standing is a common and well precedented concept in the legal realm. it's stable enough that law schools can confidently teach it.

  37. So, what about richard nixon ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    he is a crook, yet, even he doesnt attempt to prevent anyone from selling figures or anything with huge bobble head action figures ?

    what does this tell for steve jobs' character ?

  38. Trademark infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the doll had the Apple logo on it, and Apple obviously has the logo trademarked and/or copyrighted, does it really surprise anyone that they got it pulled?

    News Flash: Apple WILL go after anyone who uses the Apple brand and/or mark to peddle their crap. This is nothing new. Open your eyes.

  39. Can't I just amass my billions in piece and quiet? by bytesex · · Score: 1

    People have the right to parody. Even if it makes them money. I can't see how this would stand up in court.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  40. Could they not just rebrand the figures... by Grumpinuts · · Score: 1

    As Butt Head CEO?

  41. Simple, TOS by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    ...and how come California state law applies to the entire world? I'm guessing something to do with eBay being in California? Doesn't seem right somehow...

    Simple, it is on eBay's terms of service. Perhaps those same figures will appear soon in a Canadian auction site subject to more permisive canadians laws.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  42. Re:Trademark shift/jeans outfit? How about the App by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    I'd have thought that it was the stand that was violating trademark law, not the outfit.

    I'd have thought you were right, and I assumed they used the term colloquially. Perhaps an editor could have picked that one up...

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  43. Re:What goes around comes around by oberondarksoul · · Score: 1

    They never asked him to 'endorse' it. 'Carl Sagan' was a codename, not used publicly to identify that Mac.

    --
    And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
  44. This is SLASHDOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *kicks poor messenger into bottomless pit*

  45. Re:What goes around comes around by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    Cue someone with a clue to clue you in that Carl Sagan was the project codename, not an attempt for product endorsement, since the name was never intended for public release.

  46. This reminds me of a joke in Serbia... by balaband · · Score: 1

    Slobodan Milosevic was walking down the bridge when the huge wind strikes. He falls into river and starts drowning, and three man notice that and rescue him. Milosevic, grateful for saving their lives, ask them anything that they would like to have:

    Guy #1 : "Mr president, I would like 1.000.000 dinars so I can feed my family, pay our debts and buy stuff that my family needs"

    Milosevic: "Ok, that is fine, you can solve financial problem of your family for the rest of your life with that amount"

    Guy #2 : "Mr president, I would like one of the government-owned companies. I'm a capable guy, and I know we can employ a lot of people and make some healthy profit"

    Milosevic: "Oh, that is good, I'll see to it that you get that"

    Guy #3: "Mr president, for me, only thing I want is a little doll in your image"

    Milosevic: "Haha, that is good, I would see to it."

    One year later, Milosevic remembers his saviours, and goes to see how they are doing. So he visits guy #1 and see he is poor, his house a ruin, and his family hungry;

    Milosevic: "What the hell?! I gave you all that money!"

    Guy #1: "Inflation, Mr president...."

    Then he goes to see guy #2. Company he gave him is not working, there are workers in front of it on a strike, and the guy is looking miserable.

    Milosevic: "This company was working perfect; What the hell happened?!"

    Guy #2: "Embargo, Mr president...."

    Milosevic then goes to guy #3; He sees his house and it is huge; there is a Ferrari on the driveway; Inside, half of the place is made of gold! Milosevic is confused, how did this happened?!

    Then he sees his doll and sign underneath it:

    "SPITTING 1 DINAR, PISSING 5"

  47. Re:What goes around comes around by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it named Sagan only as a joke against him?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  48. somewhere else he would be s(h)itting down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love to have a Steve Jobs "caganer", but if he won't allow it, I guess a nice obama will have to do...

  49. I want ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... the Julian Assange action figure.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:I want ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      ... the Julian Assange action figure.

      No doubt it will come with a built-in encrypted flash drive.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  50. Mmmmm... opinino. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    someone else's opinino

    Opinino? It sounds like... some sort of tropical fruit. Mmmmm... opinino.
    And I bet that, just like with apples - that opinino from someone else's garden tastes the sweetest.

    Dammit! Now I have a craving for an opinino.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Mmmmm... opinino. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dammit! Now I have a craving for an opinino.

      Only because someone else mentioned it. That's the odd thing 'bout opininos, you only want one when someone else has one, and it's not so unusual that you want exactly the same one that other person has.

      Fortunately opininos are easily shared, though I prefer to grow my own, they're more juicy than the old, stale ones you get from others.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Mmmmm... opinino. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't mind other people's opininos as long as they are fresh and not all drenched in pesticides and other poisons.

      They also go great with beer. Or any alcoholic beverage for that matter.
      Well, at least that is the general consensus, as so many people just can't keep away from opininos once they had a few drinks.

      Personally, I find that practice rather dangerous, as opinino juice is soluble in alcohol and then it can affect your nervous system which can result in neck spasms.
      I've seen it happen.
      People walking around, not seeing where they are going, noses up in the air...
      I've even seen a couple of chronic cases, where people got their spine all contorted and end up with their heads up their rectums.
      Terrible thing opinino abuse.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Mmmmm... opinino. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I see a meme in the making...

      Funny thing about opininos is that there are people who have only one, don't want any more and are still the ones that are the most affected by their negative effects. Maybe opininos contain some kind of vitamin, you need to get a lot of them to stay healthy. Mentally, that is.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Mmmmm... opinino. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Well, a green opinino CAN lead to a serious case of constipation. Intellectual and otherwise.

      But that's what happens when people can't tell "fresh" from "not yet ripe".

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    5. Re:Mmmmm... opinino. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But red opininos are illegal in the US, or did they relax that law?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Mmmmm... opinino. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I don't think that it has been a "legal" thing in the US since the end of the Cold War. Or ever actually - per se.
      I feel that it has become more of a cultural programming to abhor red opininos and mark them as evil and poisonous like the red-and-black opininos.

      But hey, that's just my view of the US red opiniono situation.
      I had the questionable "luck" to be raised on red opininos and to have almost every other color and flavor of opinino fed to me or shoved down my throat, so that whole US-thing with the red opininos seems to me... well... funny.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  51. Apple logo by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    That is what killed it.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  52. violated a California statute? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    So a California statue is now international law?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  53. Parody by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    Make the same figure with a dumb hat on it and sell it as parody.

    Make it with no pants on and sell it as parody.

    Make it with a removable top of head to reveal a tiny little brain and sell it as parody.

    Give it a removable iPhone, and a slot in his butt to put it in and call it parody.

    It should be completely legal.

  54. Re:Trademark shift/jeans outfit? How about the App by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    It can be both. Personally I think the stronger case would be due to use of Apple's logo without their permission and not the likeness case. Mainly because I would think Steve Jobs would have to assert those rights himself and not through Apple.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  55. I can function fine without credit cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can function fine without credit cards, it's just that in a lot of cases you can't use cash or even registered money orders, crazy as that sounds.

  56. Paradox by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    The only people who'd pay that kind of money are the same kind who will now be apologists for this douchebag legal move.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  57. Re:Android tablet pc on line shop by Dellama · · Score: 1

    Android tablet pc On line shop: www.android-tablet-pc-wholesale.com

  58. You must admit that he is no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chuck Norris!

  59. eSarcasm got it right. by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    I guess Jobs is ruler of his own little China now.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.