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 $1,125 and eBay has removed other listings, telling sellers that the object for sale 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'"
Honestly, look at the picture. It does look like a dildo, or maybe that's just how Jobs looks like.
And I was going to buy one to stick pins in!
Really?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Perhaps we can still use it here on Slashdot, as the icon for Apple stories.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Some of the comments on TFA are completely off the deep end, and I (foolishly) hope we don't end up with the same.
This a good thing. Personality rights like this evolve from the protection of privacy, and imply each individual's right to control their usage by the media. Usually those in elected positions forgo such rights, but for the rest of us it's nice to know that we can try to control some of the usage of ourselves as a commodity. In reality, this right translates almost only to celebrities, which unfairly causes a lot of the vilification of the laws; the fact of the matter is that only celebrities (by definition, perhaps) have their personality commoditized. A celebrity is a business, and just like a business they have the right to control the marketing of their brand.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
"Turtlenecked Dickhead" action figure.
Original liver not included.
I think they did a good job capturing his essence. http://imgur.com/hMuXQ.jpg
I'd have thought that it was the stand that was violating trademark law, not the outfit.
This is Slashdot.
Only company we are allowed to indiscriminately hate and make fun of is Microsoft. Sorry... Micro$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
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.
It is not in the constitution, it is in California state law.
"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"
Which affects a Canadian citizen, how? Cause I believe "Not at all" is the correct answer.
Regards,
MBC1977,
eBay is a California corporation. HTH.
Edith Keeler Must Die
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
This should be modded (un)funny but its insightful. Who is really that dense?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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.
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.
So much so that he managed to jump the line for a liver transplant.
Flame away, fanboys, and mod me down, but that's the bottom line.
Since when is Canada a US state? Canada won the last war against the US. Maybe somebody should tell Apple...
IMHO it's actually about the way he's holding the phone.
IF this is classified or promoted as a parody, could it gain the protection most parody works receive?
Good-bye
You are just jealous that the shentino action figure didn't sell so well. :-p
California statutes don't apply in Canada, sorry.
One looks like a complete douchebag. The other is a bobble-headed action figure.
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
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]
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 ?
Read radical news here
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.
As Butt Head CEO?
...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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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"
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.'"
... the Julian Assange action figure.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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
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.
That is what killed it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So a California statue is now international law?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Android tablet pc On line shop: www.android-tablet-pc-wholesale.com
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?
I guess Jobs is ruler of his own little China now.
I am not devoid of humor.