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 $1,125 and eBay has removed other listings, telling sellers that the object for sale 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'"
And I was going to buy one to stick pins in!
Perhaps we can still use it here on Slashdot, as the icon for Apple stories.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Some of the comments on TFA are completely off the deep end, and I (foolishly) hope we don't end up with the same.
This a good thing. Personality rights like this evolve from the protection of privacy, and imply each individual's right to control their usage by the media. Usually those in elected positions forgo such rights, but for the rest of us it's nice to know that we can try to control some of the usage of ourselves as a commodity. In reality, this right translates almost only to celebrities, which unfairly causes a lot of the vilification of the laws; the fact of the matter is that only celebrities (by definition, perhaps) have their personality commoditized. A celebrity is a business, and just like a business they have the right to control the marketing of their brand.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
I think they did a good job capturing his essence. http://imgur.com/hMuXQ.jpg
I'd have thought that it was the stand that was violating trademark law, not the outfit.
This is Slashdot.
Only company we are allowed to indiscriminately hate and make fun of is Microsoft. Sorry... Micro$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
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.
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
"All she ever did"? That sounds like plenty to me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Obviously, his sig was being played by William Shatner.
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.
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.
So much so that he managed to jump the line for a liver transplant.
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
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.
"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.