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.'"

Comments

"Celebrity"?

[PopeRatzo]

Really?

Re:"Celebrity"?

[davev2.0]

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.

Re:"Celebrity"?

[gman003]

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.

Normal and good

[Amorymeltzer]

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.

Re:Normal and good

[jonbryce]

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.

Re:Normal and good

[davev2.0]

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?

Re:Normal and good

[happymellon]

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.

Trademark shift/jeans outfit? How about the Apple?

[noidentity]

[...] 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.

First Apple commandment

[eclectro]

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

Re:time to move to China

[FooAtWFU]

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

Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item

[hedwards]

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.

Re:Just damn!

[Nocuous]

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?

Re:Just damn!

[SuricouRaven]

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.