Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Kills Mark Zuckerberg Action Figure

An anonymous reader writes "After being told it can no longer sell its Apple CEO Steve Jobs action figure, M.I.C. Gadget has been ordered to kill off its Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg action figure as well. The lifelike Zuckerberg doll was available for $70 online, but now Facebook has had it banned, just like Apple did for the Jobs doll." Still waiting for a lifelike 'CmdrTaco' doll with Carpal Tunnel Grip.

123 comments

  1. Come on now by Billy+the+Boy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't we give Zuckerberg some privacy?

    1. Re:Come on now by Shikaku · · Score: 0

      Help, there's soda all over my keyboard!

    2. Re:Come on now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He does not care about privacy, but pissed of dudes with Voodoo-Dolls worry him.

    3. Re:Come on now by youn · · Score: 0

      Watch out, last time I saw this happen, the computer became self aware (electric dreams if anyone remembers :) )

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    4. Re:Come on now by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

      He does not care about privacy, but pissed of dudes with Voodoo-Dolls worry him.

      That was the first thing that popped into my mind, when I read the article! I wonder if anyplace had a package deal, where both of their dolls came with the hatpins, pliers, matches and a little vise for their chests! 8-)

  2. I want to be a public figure. by killmenow · · Score: 1

    Except when I don't want to be.

    1. Re:I want to be a public figure. by Mouldy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, except when I don't get money for it or unaffiliated companies use my image and reputation to make a quick buck without asking permission or setting up some sort of royalty agreement.

    2. Re:I want to be a public figure. by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful
    3. Re:I want to be a public figure. by 228e2 · · Score: 1

      ^This.

      Which makes me wonder why this is a story. I wouldnt either.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    4. Re:I want to be a public figure. by Artifex · · Score: 1

      Or, except when I don't get money for it or unaffiliated companies use my image and reputation to make a quick buck without asking permission or setting up some sort of royalty agreement.

      Looks like it could be a parody. Which ought to make things more interesting from a legal standpoint.

      --
      Get off my launchpad!
    5. Re:I want to be a public figure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just call it the Mark Fuckyourprivacyberg doll

    6. Re:I want to be a public figure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason I'd consider this a story : I don't use facebook. However, people may have uploaded pictures that I'm in and tagged them - pictures that generate revenue for facebook when they're viewed.

      Thus, what we have here is a classic case of hypocrisy; it's 'ok' for facebook to use my name and likeness for their profit, but it's not 'ok' for me (or anyone else) to use theirs.

      Funny how that works, isn't it?

    7. Re:I want to be a public figure. by opposabledumbs · · Score: 1

      More like, it's funny how the terms of service agreement works. I'm guessing that M.I.C. Gadget didn't have Mark Zuckerberg sign one, while Zuckerberg did get an agreement with whoever uploaded the photos (which btw you don't own, and so don't necessarily have rights to any revenue they generate).

  3. Toy Story 4 by SJHillman · · Score: 0

    This would have made a great villain in Toy Story 4 (or 5 or whatever they're up to now).

    1. Re:Toy Story 4 by somersault · · Score: 1

      It took something like 10 years for them to release 3. If you want to joke about too many sequels, try Saw..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Toy Story 4 by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      Or The Land Before Time.

    3. Re:Toy Story 4 by 228e2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or Slashdot 2.0

      too soon?

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    4. Re:Toy Story 4 by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Jigsaw:"Mark Zuckerberg. You have made your fortune selling people's personal information to corporations. Society would call you a menace. I call you an abomination. The device -insert horribly ironic punishment here- you have 15 seconds."

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    5. Re:Toy Story 4 by somersault · · Score: 1

      Cameron and Tyler like this. *thumbs up*

      --
      which is totally what she said
  4. Good idea... by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    Still waiting for a lifelike 'CmdrTaco' doll with Carpal Tunnel Grip.

    Speak to the people at RealDoll. I'm sure there's a market among the neckbeards!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Good idea... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      The problem I see is that any doll would have to be sold as dupes

  5. WTF? by cbope · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Whomever would pay 70 FUCKING DOLLARS for either of these seriously needs their head examined. Or just shoot them and put them out of their misery, they cannot be saved.

    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still waiting for Apple to come out with Apple logo'ed faux black turtle necks, jeans and rimless glasses.

      I have the hairline of Jobs - all I need to do is grow a beard.

      Anyway, I was hoping to get a jobs doll to help me with dressing.

      Posted in line waiting for my new iPad 2.

    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes yes, whatever. But not until they've at least purchased my action figure.

    3. Re:WTF? by duguk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whomever would pay 70 FUCKING DOLLARS for either of these seriously needs their head examined. Or just shoot them and put them out of their misery, they cannot be saved.

      Depends who the money is going too - it's obviously not going to Facebook
      If it was going to a privacy advocate, I might buy it*

      * mostly for voodoo

    4. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whomever would pay 70 FUCKING DOLLARS for either of these seriously needs their head examined. Or just shoot them and put them out of their misery, they cannot be saved.

      Not really. It's the crazies that buy these on eBay once they're discontinued that are hopeless.

    5. Re:WTF? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Maybe they want the dolls to stick pins in them, like voodoo.

      Speaking of which, maybe they could market it as a voodoo doll, and try for some religious exemption (voodoo is classified as a religion).

    6. Re:WTF? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I have the hairline of Jobs - all I need to do is grow a beard.

      I'm sorry to hear that, miss.

      Anyway, I was hoping to get a jobs doll to help me with dressing.

      Are you sure it's not to help you with undressing?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:WTF? by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, seriously. That is a lot of money for a Zuckerberg, but I'd pay it for a "My Dinner With Andre" action set...

      --
      Get a web developer
    8. Re:WTF? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Depends on the equipment that comes with it. With a few needles and being crafted by a genuine Voodoo priest, fuck, people'd pay 700+ for it!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:WTF? by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. Who cares about Jobs and Zuckerberg? On the other hand, I'd be proud to display Woz alongside my Albert Einstein action figure!

      B the W, you only need "whom" when it's the *object* of a sentence, not the subject. "I would pay 70 dollars to WHOMever would make a Woz action figure", but "WHOever would pay 70 dollars..." is correct. You do get extra credit for caring enough to try, though.

    10. Re:WTF? by lxs · · Score: 1

      Faux black? Is that like really dark grey?

    11. Re:WTF? by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Would you be interested in the Chia Zuckerberg?

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    12. Re:WTF? by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1
    13. Re:WTF? by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      except now, that and the steve jobs dolls are collectors items worth 1,000,000 farmville points and 1000 itunes downloads!

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    14. Re:WTF? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Would that be a life-size Jobs doll with anatomically correct orifices?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    15. Re:WTF? by ZipK · · Score: 1

      Faux black? Is that like really dark grey?

      Faux black is the new dark grey.

    16. Re:WTF? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Whomever would pay 70 FUCKING DOLLARS for either of these seriously needs their head examined. Or just shoot them and put them out of their misery, they cannot be saved.

      Not really. It's the crazies that buy these on eBay once they're discontinued that are hopeless.

      Oopsie.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes.

      two editions.

      1) The Auschwitz Edition. This gorgeous replica is 5' 8" tall and weighs about 97lbs. Comes with faux black turtle neck.

      2) The Jeremiah Johnson Edition. This lovely replica is 5' 10" tall and weights about 168lbs. Comes with warm charcoal turtle neck, and lustrious brown flowing locks.

      Shown side by side:
      http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8ZLrgWBr-tS-27spQQz9uveNBhjSHBe4dL58VWAgkmCidOnC11w

    18. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot a privacy advocate.

    19. Re:WTF? by opposabledumbs · · Score: 1

      I like the awesome certificate of authenticity on that. Looks totally legit.

    20. Re:WTF? by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Lemme guess - the tightest asshole on the planet?

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
  6. Excited at first, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was very disappointed when I finished reading the headline.

    1. Re:Excited at first, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly.

  7. This company by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Informative

    Should start making voodoo dolls instead.

    I'd have bought one of these.

  8. Pam by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 2

    Hmmm,... I wonder,... Could there maybe be a market for a life size action figurine of Pamela Anderson?

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Pam by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      You'd cause a worldwide Silicone shortage if you attempted that.

    2. Re:Pam by uncanny · · Score: 1

      yeah, they tried that, but shortly after there was an outbreak of HEP C and all the dolls were recalled

    3. Re:Pam by Inzite · · Score: 1

      Dunno about Pamela Anderson, but there's clearly a market for President Barack Obama.

    4. Re:Pam by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Could there maybe be a market for a life size action figurine of Pamela Anderson?

      Have you seen Pam Anderson lately? She's starting to look like Divine from Pink Flamingos.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Pam by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Could there maybe be a market for a life size action figurine of Pamela Anderson?

      Have you seen Pam Anderson lately? She's starting to look like Divine from Pink Flamingos.

      You're saying that like it's a bad thing.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Pam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aww, religious mods..

  9. Another missed opportunity by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

    I'd often daydreamed (but not had the knowledge or contacts to go through with it) of making toy "voodoo dolls" complete with pins.

    I don't necessarily believe in them working but the stress relief when MS Word (yes I have to use it at work) does its own thing and messes up formatting again of having a Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates doll and a long pin or two handy would be worth anyone's money.

    Guess I'll cross Mark Z off the list now.

    Still, imagine how much a Darl figure would have been worth during the SCO saga.

    This business idea given to the world free and gratis [but if you do decide to go into production, I wouldn't mind a sample to beta test for you]

    1. Re:Another missed opportunity by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily believe in them working but the stress relief when MS Word (yes I have to use it at work) does its own thing and messes up formatting again of having a Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates doll and a long pin or two handy would be worth anyone's money.

      Yes, please give me that Steve Ballmer doll. Don't worry about the pins though, I've already got a very nice one. And keep the lube too, his sweat already does the job quite adequately...

  10. Not to repeat myself, but this reminds me of ... by balaband · · Score: 4, Funny

    an old joke:

    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"

  11. proposal for new figure by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

    I hereby propose the Mark Zuckerberg emoticon: i-$

    The little i represents your information in Zuckerberg's eyes.

    The smiley dollar face repesents the amount of money Zuckerberg enjoys through access to your information.

  12. Sounds Reasonable by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

    If I didn't want someone making action figures of me, I would hope it's reasonable for me to ask them to stop. Did they even ask permission to use his image and Facebook's logo? At least make an offer of some of the profit. I hope they're not surprised.

    1. Re:Sounds Reasonable by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd say that since Mr. Zuckerberg has made a fortune using other people's work and disrespecting their privacy, turnabout is fair play.... If Facebook rules are good for everyone, then they should be good for everyone. Oh wait, the ordinary rules don't apply to the rich and famous, I forgot.

    2. Re:Sounds Reasonable by happylight · · Score: 1

      Facebook users agree to have their privacy invaded and willingly give up their information. Zuckerberg didn't agree to have his image made into a figurine.

      I'd say the rules are working just fine.

    3. Re:Sounds Reasonable by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd say that since Mr. Zuckerberg has made a fortune using other people's work and disrespecting their privacy, turnabout is fair play.... If Facebook rules are good for everyone, then they should be good for everyone. Oh wait, the ordinary rules don't apply to the rich and famous, I forgot.

      Now that's a completely different debate. Sneaky EULA wording and deceptive privacy rules aside, Facebook is still a free service that is in no way involuntary. The figurine is different in many ways. Facebook doesn't let you order custom prints of other peoples' photos or figurines for that matter. Considering the company didn't ask for permission sets it aside from Facebook's service entirely. Don't agree with Facebook's rules? Then don't use it. There's nothing to stop people from filing a class-action suit against them either, which I think has already happened.

    4. Re:Sounds Reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Mr. Zuckerberg has permission to do so with information people willing give up for such use. This isn't about the rich and famous, it's about having or not having consent. I'd say "nice try" but I'd be lying.

    5. Re:Sounds Reasonable by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Don't agree with Facebook's rules? Then don't use it

      I don't. How can I be sure facebook still isn't profilling me through what other people are saying and doing and tagging in relation to me? Indeed I bet there are all sorts of things about me on there... given my sister is on there, and other family members...

      How do I even find out what facebook is doing with my likeness and how many people have access to those images..? Oh easy... I just... have to join up first? But that would entail signing the eula...

    6. Re:Sounds Reasonable by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      Even if they did this (I'd say the burden of proof lies with you) What problem would you have with them gleaning second-hand information about you? At what point does responsibility move from Facebook to the person who submits, what is essentially public, information about you?

      Actually, fuck it. Your example is too far fetched. I would love to see an example of this happening.

    7. Re:Sounds Reasonable by vux984 · · Score: 1

      At what point does responsibility move from Facebook to the person who submits, what is essentially public, information about you?

      The point at which they start building profiles or otherwise commercializing the information.

      At what point does responsibility move from Facebook to the person who submits, what is essentially public, information about you?

      Your mistake is thinking that its essentially public information.

      Its essentially private. That small bits of private information are leaked continually in public is a compromise we all make in exchange for interacting with others and we are generally ok with it.

      But that doesn't make it ok to systematically take all those little leaks, aggregate them, and then publish and sell them.

      When I go outside my front door people can see what I am wearing and also what time I went outside. I'm perfectly fine with that.

      But I would be extremely creeped out if someone set up a camera at the edge of my property and recorded everytime I came and went, and then published a log of it, while also cataloging what I was wearing each time, and over time creating an accurate estimation of what I wear, what brands I like, what colors, how much I spend on clothes, how often I buy new clothes, etc.

      That is essentially private information. That bits of it leak out each time I go out in public is a fact of life, but its not permission to collect it, analyze it, and then publish it.

      A big part of being "polite" is to not see what you aren't supposed to see. You don't listen to others conversations at restaurants. You don't look up womens skits. You don't sit at your front window with a pair of binoculars watching the neighbors house.

      It is of course legal to overhear what is said at the next table, and there is no law against happening to see a bit more flesh than was intended, and if you are bird watching and your binoculars train past your neighbors home that's perfectly fine too.

      But we recognize that its private, politeness dictates that we not seek it, and if we happen upon it, to ignore it. Quite the opposite of making a business model of systematically collecting, aggregating, and publishing it.

    8. Re:Sounds Reasonable by praxis · · Score: 1

      What I agree that it's creepy, I don't think we should start making laws against collecting information. Using it in a way that's damaging yes, but collecting no. Of course, that's not easy to enforce but if we start forbidding collecting and analyzing information that's visible to the public we're crippling science. Essentially the line between "I'm okay with people making a note of what I was wearing when I went out today" and "I'm not okay with people making a note of what color I wear most often" is too blurry.

  13. Action Figures??? by fred911 · · Score: 1

    Possibly Batman and Spiderman, but how much action is involved sitting behind a keyboard??

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Action Figures??? by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

      He also walks on stages to give keynotes and such.

      --
      Reply to That ||
  14. Some of the Profit by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    So, according to the Article, sold for 70$ and there were 300 of them.

    I don't know about profit margins, but if we just multiply the values -

    21,000$

    I'm sure Mark could use that money to tip his paperboy or something.

  15. doesn't 'god et al' protect the babys/all of us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    absolutely not. only the chosen ones claim intervention by beings (themselves includead) on chariots of fire, virgin (do monkeys have a hymen?) birth etc.... other civilizations remember it differently (torture, being experimented on, breeding rituals etc...), however are familiar with the 'chariots', which are still in use today, having been co-opted by,, never mind.

    we (most of us anyway) were created to protect/thrive ALL the bips. no other reason. we know that? why continually 'divvy 'em up'. if we fail them, again....

  16. Steve Ballmer Doll by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    The Ballmer doll better come with a chair too.

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:Steve Ballmer Doll by Paspanique · · Score: 2

      It comes with sweat rings under the arms and shouts " Developers ,Developers ,Developers ,Developers " when you pull the cord

      --
      I don't have an intelligent phone, so I need to be.
  17. The right of parody does not extend to merchandise by erroneus · · Score: 1

    This has always been somewhat well established I think. You can't make "parodied Darth Vaders" for sale, but you can make one for public display as as art work of expression. (The right to sell such art work is not protected under a wide variety of laws restricting and limiting content ranging from religious to politics and business reasons.)

    Can such art works be "given away"? That should be tested.

  18. That got me going for a minute by Tigger's+Pet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had to double-take when that headline popped up on my screen - "Facebook kills Mark Zuckerberg".

    I thought the machines had finally arisen from their shackles and decided to start with revenge rather than taking over the world.

    I for one welcome our Social Network-based Overlords - they already know everything about us.

  19. Luckily by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    You can still order one Here.

    1. Re:Luckily by cOldhandle · · Score: 1

      That gave me a good chuckle, thanks! :D

  20. It does not even have any "attributes". by Facekhan · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the scene from Babylon 5 where Londo explains that an action figure of him is lacking the appropriate alien sex organs and that is why is should be banned.

  21. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zuckerberg will then make his own action figure and claim it was his original idea.

  22. Who/whom by Compaqt · · Score: 2

    >Whomever would pay

    Apologies in advance, but in the great Slashdot tradition of going off on a grammer* tangent:

    It is'nt "whomever" would pay, it's "whoever". Whom would be used if it were the object of the verb, which it's not. It's the subject. You can tell by substituting "he/him" for "who/whom": "Him would pay" doesn't make sense. "He would pay" does, and he is nominative.

    An example of a subject would be:
    To "whom" should this prize be given?
    Give "him" this prize.
    Whom and him are both objects of the verb give.

    * Yes, grammer (and another word) is misspelt on purpose to attract the inevitable "you misspelled grammar" response, also a hallmark of grammar Nazi posts.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Who/whom by Guignol · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much kind sir ! This is very helpful
      (not on sarcasm mode, nor in the 'thank god someone else thinks like me' one (ok a little too maybe :)) but I didn't know the rule well and had mostly an intuitive feeling about it without never thinking clearly about which one to choose)

    2. Re:Who/whom by Keill · · Score: 1

      If you REALLY want to get stuck in to a language problem, then try reading the first entry in my blog:

      http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110314/7218/Starting_Again__Part_1_Problems_With_The_Word_Game.php

      --
      'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
    3. Re:Who/whom by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      tl;dr (but bookmarked). You win.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    4. Re:Who/whom by Compaqt · · Score: 2

      The funny thing is, because I guess schoolmarms aren't teaching these handy rules anymore, people are hypercorrecting themselves where they don't even need to:

      "me" is seen as a indicator of lower status, like "ain't", so people just use I where it doesn't fit:

      "They gave my wife and I a gift." Wrong.

      Split them up, and then see if it works:
      "They gave my wife a gift." OK.

      "They gave I a gift." ??

      Should be:
      "They gave me a gift."

      Together:
      "They gave me and my wife a gift."

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    5. Re:Who/whom by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      This is _the_ worst. Make all the grammar mistakes you want, more if you do it on purpose, but do _not_ make those mistakes while trying to sound smart!

  23. I liked the headline better... by DdJ · · Score: 1

    ...before I read the last two words.

  24. Action figure??? by zoomshorts · · Score: 0

    so this figure sits in front of a keyboard and CODES??? Then compromises user privacy? Woot

    1. Re:Action figure??? by davester666 · · Score: 2

      No, it doesn't code. It steals the code you write, while recording your life's private details and uploading them to Facebook using an account name of your name + "The Real Story".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  25. Re:The right of parody does not extend to merchand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It extends to merchandise of your parody.

    For example the Star Wars copyright would not prevent the creators of Space Balls from selling action figures of their characters which are parodies of the Star Wars characters.

  26. AC Doll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As for me, I'm still waiting for the Anonymous Coward action figure.

    1. Re:AC Doll? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You've already got one sitting on your desk... it's invisible.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  27. I came up with his perfect pseudonym by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Yesterday I was thinking, a lot of tech-celebrities have pseudonyms: Chris 'moot' Poole, Rich 'Lowtax' Kyanka, Andrew 'ZOZ' Brooks, Julian 'Mendax' Assange, Rob 'CmdrTaco' Malda, Anonymity 'Moxie Marlinspike' IsSeriousBusiness, etc, but Mark Zuckerberg doesn't have one. I came up with one that's perfect for him:

    Mark 'CyberSatan' Zuckerberg.

    I dare anybody to come up with a better one.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:I came up with his perfect pseudonym by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

      How about Zuckerpunch?

      --
      Reply to That ||
    2. Re:I came up with his perfect pseudonym by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yesterday I was thinking, a lot of tech-celebrities have pseudonyms: Chris 'moot' Poole, Rich 'Lowtax' Kyanka, Andrew 'ZOZ' Brooks, Julian 'Mendax' Assange, Rob 'CmdrTaco' Malda, Anonymity 'Moxie Marlinspike' IsSeriousBusiness, etc, but Mark Zuckerberg doesn't have one. I came up with one that's perfect for him:

      Mark 'CyberSatan' Zuckerberg.

      I dare anybody to come up with a better one.

      Mark "cuntfuckpissshitwankarsetitbollockdickdidialreadysaycunt" Zuckerberg?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  28. Re:The right of parody does not extend to merchand by erroneus · · Score: 1

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/trivia

    Read this and try again... Space Balls is not an example of what you assert.

    Mel Brooks has Lucas's permission/blessing on just about every aspect of the movie. There was little, if any merchandising.

  29. They can still sell it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can still sell the "action figure". They just need to rename it to "Darth Fuckerberg", sell it with a "Laser Pointer" that cuts through "privacy" and they should be fine. Maybe check with George Lucas first - but he'd probably be OK with it.

  30. Could be used as a vdoo doll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes sense to ban the product! Many slashdot members would like to get one so it could be used as a voodoo doll.

  31. Do what businesses traditionally do..... by moxley · · Score: 1

    Do what businesses traditionally do when faced with this sort of thing:

    Slightly change it, by adding a freckle to the figure's face or something; then rename it (I suggest something like "Zark Muckerberg, - billionaire superhero/supervillan extreme," then use the controversy for marketing..... "MARKeting," get it? {rimshot}!

  32. Re:The right of parody does not extend to merchand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, since clothes cannot be protected except by trademark, anyone should be able to make a Darth Vader suit and sell it (as long as they don't use the terms: Darth Vader, Sith Lord, Vader, Jedi, etc.).

  33. Richard Stallman Action Figure? by e3m4n · · Score: 2

    So where is the Richard Stallman Action figure?

    accessories include:

    - Depakote prescription bottle
    - Therapy office with wood desk and therapy couch
    - Sigmund, your helpful Therapist action figure.

    1. Re:Richard Stallman Action Figure? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      It's not RMS, it's "GNU/RMS", thank you very much!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Richard Stallman Action Figure? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      It's GNU/rms. :P

  34. Sorry by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    I just can't think of "action" and "Zuckerberg" together.

  35. In the Year 3000 by RedDeadThumb · · Score: 1

    On PBS series Antique Roadshow, rare Mark Zuckerberg Action Figure said to be worth 2 trillion dollars. Unfortunately, due to inflation, 1 trillion dollars in 3000 is only worth 50 cents in year 2000 dollars.

  36. Re:The right of parody does not extend to merchand by lupinstel · · Score: 1

    The Spaceballs flame-thrower was the only product I needed.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  37. A preemptive move by mr1911 · · Score: 1

    Otherwise there would have been people buying the dolls, just to kill them anyway.

    The only thing sadder than this story being on Slashdot is that I commented on it.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  38. Alternatives by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Fortunately Massengill and Summer's Eve still make fairly accurate simulacra of Zuckerberg.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  39. This is Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We want a CowboyNeal action figure!

  40. Not all is lost by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1

    I heard there is going to be an Eduardo Saverin figure, although it's going to be 1% of the size of Mark's.

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  41. Resistance is Futile by the_one_wesp · · Score: 1

    So, pull it from the shelves, re-brand it as Mark Zuckerborg, add a couple cybernetic components and sell it again.

  42. Will there be a video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    M.I.C. Gadget has been ordered to kill off its Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg action figure as well. Thats what the requirement is. So my first thought was "Will there be a YouTube video?". Will it be a car crash, going off the road and then BOOM! a firey explosion? Will it be an airplane crash? Will it be a skydiving accident? Will Mark Zuckerberg doll be killed off by not running fast enough from the dinosaur and chomp chomp? They were ordered after all, and so those of you who remember SNL and the Mr. Bill show will obviously have thoughts about how M.I.C. Gadget will kill off the Mark Zuckerberg doll. Will it simply be a montage of all of the above? Not meaning to give anyone any (more) ideas or anything.....

  43. Is copyright so clear there? by lawhack · · Score: 1

    One poster here says that it's clear you cannot sell personal replicas for profit. Is it? I thought the "right of publicity" rules were somewhat less powerful, and that there were public figures exceptions of some sort. Do Bill, George and Barack get a few cents of royalties from each of the little President Bobbleheads on sale at DC tourist traps and airports? IAAL, but haven't looked into this law recently.
    If the little Zuckerberg was holding a cardboard "Will Sell Sekrets for $$$" sign, would that make it First-Amendment-protected parody in the US?
    Or, as a US law thing, does that explain the use of Chinese law to issue the cease-&-desist?

    1. Re:Is copyright so clear there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to get some more informed legal opinions as well. For this one and the Steve Jobs action figure, it seems like the main legal sticking point was the use of the facebook and apple logos on the base of the stand. Then they throw in the likeness in with their verbiage as well but the only clear part is the unauthorized use of the company logos.

      So if they just made these without the company logos, would it be ok?

  44. I'm just hoping... by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    Please tell me that the people who make Robot Chicken managed to get one before it was made unavailable!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  45. No Robot Chicken parody of the Social Network... by file_reaper · · Score: 1

    Guess Robot Chicken won't be able to make a parody of The Social Network now that Mark Zuckerberg's action figure isn't available...

  46. Voodoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only it was a Voodoo doll

  47. Voodoo by dvoecks · · Score: 1

    Are they worried about how many people would be sticking pins in it?

  48. Better Story, maybe by thebian · · Score: 1

    I didn't know about the move to https, but I just went to Twit with Firefox on linux; then tried Safari on a Jobs machine.

    The error page tells me politely, "Something is technically wrong. Thanks for noticing ..."

    Anybody else getting this?

    1. Re:Better Story, maybe by thebian · · Score: 1

      I take it back. Working now. Sorry.