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.
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.
Obviously, his sig was being played by William Shatner.
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.
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.
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.