Apple Threatens Steve Jobs Doll Maker With Lawsuit

redletterdave writes "Apple has allegedly threatened to sue Chinese company 'In Icons' over its eerily realistic 12-inch action figure of Steve Jobs, the company's late founder and CEO. The 1:6 scale model, which was said to be distributed by DiD Corp. in late February, comes with the clothes and accessories popularized by Jobs, such as the black faux turtleneck, blue jeans and sneakers. The figurine is packaged in a box that looks like Walter Isaacson's 'Steve Jobs' biography cover, and also comes with a 'One More Thing...' backdrop, as well as two red apples, including one with a bite in it. To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare. Apple reportedly wrote 'In Icons', telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.' Attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the 'right of publicity,' which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death."

Comments

Good luck with that

[Lexx Greatrex]

Personally I think it will make a good addition to the sequel to Team America World Police.

Re:Good luck with that

[CarboRobo]

"Criminal"? Are you sure about that, Apple? And could I point out, for your idiot lawyers, that Californian and American laws don't meany anything in other countries i.e. China...

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you're mistaken.

The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

its criminal in iLaw

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

apply to us citizens... why would i follow ur dumb countries laws??? are you stupid?

Re:Good luck with that

[sg_oneill]

Actually you're mistaken.

The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries.

Which is meaningless, because no matter what the US claim, their laws with 100% certainty do not apply outside of the united states, *especially* not in China.

Any US cop who turned up in bejing trying to arrest someone would likely find themselves with a bullet between the eyes courtesy of chinese law enforcement.

Re:Good luck with that

[Zemran]

You need to let people know when you are being sarcastic as many are too dumb to realise...

Re:Good luck with that

[edjs]

Copyright and trademark infringement can be criminal - see criminal liability. China and the US are members of the WTO and signatory to various copyright/IP treaties, so have some obligations to protect foreign copyrights and trademarks. And most countries, to some degree, have laws restricting one from using another's name or image for commercial purposes without permission. Plus, for all we know Apple specifically trademarked Jobs name and likeness in China.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

They just need to keep producing it in China and eventually via Black Market it will get to America anyway..

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I think it will make a good addition to the sequel to Team America World Police.

Yes, what is the California's Celebrity Rights Act good for in here Mordor

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey. Not everyone is american.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

"...The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries..."

And furthermore, they don't work if the boot is on the other foot.

So the US can make Lady Diana dolls as much as they like.... isn't it nice to be the the Imperial ruler of the world...

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I don't realize I'm dumb?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

So true. Unless someone actually says "just kidding" or "rimshot" etc lots of Americans seem to fail to recognise sarcasm, or even just basic humour. sigh. I could never never there.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? No really... are you serious?

Re:Good luck with that

[Paradise Pete]

"Criminal"? Are you sure about that, Apple?

All the stories say Apple is "reportedly" suing, and apparently the only source is the company making the dolls. The whole thing makes little sense. I doubt Apple has ownership of Jobs' likeness. I'm skeptical.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

especially as this is slashdot you're posting your comments on. most of the folk on this site nowadays are apple cocksuckers, lets face it.

Re:Good luck with that

[ArhcAngel]

I am seeing an inordinate number of low UID postings that I would swear came from an AC. I wonder if some of these veteran /.ers have moved on and have donated their UID to their offspring?

Who am I kidding!...veteran /.ers have no offspring.

Re:Good luck with that

[Ihmhi]

Actually you're mistaken.

The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries.

Ah yes, the "American Mandated Exercises Regarding InterContinental Actions For Underlying Causes to Keep Your Earnings At Home" Act. Good one, that.

Re:Good luck with that

[AmiMoJo]

Some countries have actually tried that, e.g. with war crimes legislation that applies world wide to citizens of all countries. In the EU we have the further problem that member states can apply for arrest warrants after convicting people in their absence of crimes that are not crimes where they live, e.g. holocaust denial.

Re:Good luck with that

[stewbacca]

why would i follow ur dumb countries laws??? are you stupid?

Speaking of stupid...

Re:Good luck with that

[stewbacca]

That's where we Americans shine. Our dummies not only know they are dumb, they are PROUD of it!

Re:Good luck with that

[Golddess]

Doesn't help when it sounds like something the US government would do, even if it'd mean jack squat.

Re:Good luck with that

[stewbacca]

I'm an American. I lived in England. Both countries are equal part stupid. You are just choosing to notice the humorless dumbasses that don't understand sarcasm.

Re:Good luck with that

[Custard Horse]

Yes but they are small shiny cocks - what's not to like?

Re:Good luck with that

[kryliss]

Neighbor kids... the ones that don't stand on the lawn... not offspring.

Re:Good luck with that

[milkmage]

woosh.

Re:Good luck with that

[augustw]

"In the EU we have the further problem that member states can apply for arrest warrants after convicting people in their absence"

Are you quite sure about that? Don't most (all?) EU countries hold that trials in the absence of the accused are a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights? The EU arrest warrant, and resulting extradition, is so easily available it's hard to see why an EU country would ever have recourse to try someone in their absence if they knew them to be in another EU country.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is the fault of the public education system. It's pretty bad, and the "history" classes pretty much only teach jingoistic bullshit about how great America is. THAT is the reason that the sub-100 IQ crowd (which I am sure is proportionately similar to all other countries) is so gung-ho about America... it's basically the only thing they could grasp in school. Plus, their stupid parents feel the same way, and reinforce the idea at home.

I am just one of the lucky ones, who had intelligent parents. Nothing to be proud of, just a chance occurrence.

You do realize that every single one of us is going to die someday, and that all of this is pretty much meaningless... right?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Or smart enough to know he's close:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
Civil rights legislation (applicable for any Citizen, anywhere if an employer has a related entity in the states)

Wasn't there some guy named Assange they were after for something too?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have fooled me - the US government sure acts like such a law exists sometimes... Oh and that laws don't actually have to be lawful.

On the main topic though, I really think this could fall under the "Xerox" thing. I mean, when something gets big enough and sort of ubiquitous, you can have problems keeping rights to it. I mean, it'd be one thing if they ripped off the book, but they don't appear to have. You think the Catholic Church could do anything about the action figures of Jesus or the Pope (which I have seen and they're fairly amusing)? I don't know if they've ever attempted it but I don't see too many courts siding with them outside of the Vatican. Actually, I just thought of something, couldn't this also be a parody thing? I mean, can't you hear it now? "STEVE JOBS ACTION FIGURE WITH UNBLINKING STARE ACTION!!!"

Re:Good luck with that

[Penguinisto]

Alzheimer's, Dementia... no big mystery to it, really.

What?

Re:Good luck with that

[datavirtue]

That's like my neighbor passing a law that his family policies are now my family policies. Doesn't work that way. Back under the bridge.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't help when it sounds like something the US government would do, even if it'd mean jack squat.

Well... yeahhhh, that is kind of why he posted that comment. Duh.

Re:Good luck with that

[Stewie241]

Yeah, but look at the advertising the company has received - sales of Steve Jobs dolls are going to go through the roof. People now know they are available and where to get them.

The Apple fanbois will buy them to show respect for Steve Jobs, rather, 'Sir Steve'.

The Android and Microsoft fanbois will buy them to mock Steve Jobs.

If the entire story is fabricated by the Chinese company, brilliant strategy if you ask me.

Re:Good luck with that

[MiniMike]

Note that this only applies to foreign countries that are in the U.S.

Re:Good luck with that

[ILongForDarkness]

Not to mention: "Attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the 'right of publicity,' which is a state law that protects one's image" does Apple own the rights to Steve Jobs' likeness? They can probably get them on the copies of the Apple logo but what shirt he wears and his face? Come on. His wife/heirs maybe but not the company he worked for.

Re:Good luck with that

[ILongForDarkness]

Yes but ... if someone working for that company tries to enter the US than they might try to enforce those laws. That is the problem when you do something illegal even illegal in another country it limits your future options. Heck americans think their laws apply everywhere so much that one of my coworkers was there for training and was talking about vacations. The group asked where he has been and looked at him like he just raped a 3 year old in front of them when he said he had been to Cuba and it was nice. They were so afraid that they didn't even want him going on the internet to show them the resort he stayed at. Crazy.

Re:Good luck with that

[Flyerman]

And here I am with no mod points.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries.

You need to let people know when you are being sarcastic as many are too dumb to realise...

SOPA.
Blacklists.
Arresting people in foreign countries and dragging them to the US to be tried without any sort of permission. (Happened several times)

Re:Good luck with that

[oldmac31310]

What? Like Texas?

Re:Good luck with that

[pjt33]

It's hard not to read certain US laws as saying exactly that. The one which springs to mind is the Helms-Burton Act.

Re:Good luck with that

[bandy]

Actually you're mistaken.

The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries.

Which is meaningless, because no matter what the US claim, their laws with 100% certainty do not apply outside of the united states, *especially* not in China.

But we do arrest folks who do things overseas that we've declared to be crimes, e.g. having sex with children. Now, California does not equal the USA, so as long as the dolls aren't sold in the Golden State, everyone should be A-OK. I can't wait to see them use in stop-motion videos floating around the 'net. (The '' sign doesn't show up on /. in 2012? Seriously?)

Re:Good luck with that

[Gorbag]

I hope we're tossing Iranians in jail for failing to file 1040s.

Re:Good luck with that

[Phoghat]

Haven't I seen this movie before ?

Re:Good luck with that

[Phoghat]

+1 insightful Used up all my mod points yesterday.

Re:Good luck with that

[Paradise Pete]

If the entire story is fabricated by the Chinese company, brilliant strategy if you ask me.

That was what I was hinting at.

Re:Good luck with that

[Coren22]

He doesn't want to follow the US's grammar rules, he thinks they might be codified in law somewhere.

Apple is filing this?

[grasshoppa]

That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[rubycodez]

you didn't know? Steve was just a droid running the iI app

Re:Apple is filing this?

[halo1982]

That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.

It's got to be either a) Apple is doing this at the request of his family/estate or b) Steve Jobs gave his personality rights to Apple...which while creepy is not all that far fetched considering how he micromanaged everything to death (no pun intended).

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you heard. Apple has trademarked the concept of wearing a black mock turtleneck and blue jeans.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[joocemann]

Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?

Re:Apple is filing this?

[jesseck]

Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?

Steve Jobs did. Hell, he / his company sued at least "likeness doll" maker while he was alive... that set the precedent.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's really not that far fetched in normal terms. Apple was definitely an entertainment company with Steve as the star-power.

I'll happily agree with anyone that wants to say the computers weren't bad, just that doesn't enter into it. It's no different from movies or clothes that aren't bad yet tied heavily to a personality. There's no reason not to see Apple as a Studio, so there may well have been such agreements made.

What the doll maker ought to do is claim satire. Partly because that's their only Out, but also because that's what these are.

Except possibly to the faithful who may wish to make bathtub-shrines with these and their pile of unsupported G4 kit.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[similar_name]

What the doll maker ought to do is claim satire. Partly because that's their only Out,

Assuming it's only state law and assuming it doesn't violate any Chinese laws then they can just not sell them in California. On top of that, if there is a distributor different than the manufacturer then why should a manufacturer in China care about a lawsuit brought under California law? The distributor would be the only ones legally responsible for breaking California's laws.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[mysidia]

That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.

Apparently the Doll maker was including apples in the packaging, with Steve Jobs wearing his de-facto trademark Apple attire.

There's a portion of Steve Jobs' image that Apple most certainly owns

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

While Apple's copyright infringement claims are questionable, attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the "right of publicity," which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

"[Jobs's estate] has every right to enforce this," said Lawrence Townsend, an attorney with IP firm Owen, Wickersham and Erickson, based in San Francisco. "I expect there will be a lawsuit to follow."

Currently, there is no successor-in-interest claim for Steve Jobs in California's special filing registry. However, a claim for "Steve Jobs" or "Steven Paul Jobs" can be filed and registered at any time by Jobs's estate.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does a turtleneck and jeans have to do with apple? i dont think anyone relates that to 'Apple Attire' they relate it to 'Steve Jobs'

Apples they could probably get away with suing over, despite being just a fruit this use of it is clearly a reference to the company.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[tragedy]

Presumably this State law will only apply to sales of this doll in California. So if it's sold with a disclaimer: "not for sale in California" and they refuse to ship there, shouldn't it be in the clear?

Re:Apple is filing this?

[duck99]

I don't think it's strange.. If I built a multibillion dollar company I sure as hell would want my company to protect my name/image after I died.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[stephanruby]

His favorite was always Apple. Pixar was his second favorite. His actual daughter came a distant third. His daughter should consider herself lucky if she got a 1GB iPod shuffle from the estate.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[bronney]

if anything, Steve wasn't a "droid", naw mean ;)

Re:Apple is filing this?

[jandersen]

I can imagine a third possiblity: The Chinese company have contacted Apple, asking them to sue them for a share in the proceeds - knowing full well that whatever the judgement will be, it won't make any difference for their ability to sell their product, and it is great publicity; sales are going straight to orbit.

What do you mean, I'm cynical? I am a very sensitive and thoughtful individual ;-)

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Zemran]

Has anyone else noticed that their is a "jobs" menu at the top of this page? Expect another law suit soon...

Re:Apple is filing this?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.

Well, it doesn't once you consider that every single bit of information about this comes from the guy who wants to sell his puppets for $99 each - $135 on eBay after he released the information.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Threni]

> how he micromanaged everything to death (no pun intended).

Perhaps Apple will use "magical thinking" to win the lawsuit. After all, that was how Steve managed his death!

Re:Apple is filing this?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?

The law. ""Personality rights" is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the Right of Publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction). In the United States, the Right of Publicity is a state law-based right, as opposed to federal, and recognition of the right can vary from state to state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Re:Apple is filing this?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

People's Republic of China In the People's Republic of China, rights of personality are established by statute. According to article 99 and 100 of the General Principle of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, the right of name and the right of image are protected. It is prohibited to use another's image for commercial use without that person's consent. In the new Tort Liabilities Law, the right of privacy is mentioned for the first time in the legislation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#People.27s_Republic_of_China

Re:Apple is filing this?

[cupantae]

OK, but how does that mean that Apple is capable of suing on behalf of a dead CEO of the company?
Face it, if this was anyone else, you would all immediately see how ridiculous it is.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

OK, but how does that mean that Apple is capable of suing on behalf of a dead CEO of the company? Face it, if this was anyone else, you would all immediately see how ridiculous it is.

Face it, if it was anyone but Steve Jobs, you would immediately see how ridiculous a unlicensed doll would be.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[cupantae]

No, I wouldn't, actually. I think making a doll of him is ridiculous, full stop.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it applies to their "likeness" as well. Apparently the Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Elvis Presley estates will aggressively hunt you down and sue you - or so I've heard.

IANAL so I don't fully understand the ins and outs but I was watching a show on A&E last year where they visited some theater where they announced "Elvis has just left the building, (those are his footprints right there)" but when they showed the front of it they actually blurred out the Elvis statue that was in front of it.

Shit like that is annoying to me. It's visible from the street. Maybe the theater paid the Presley estate to put it up but it was interesting enough to mention let's see it.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

It definitely is. I want one!

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

So all they do is change the name to Steve Nobs and sell it with a "any similarity to any person living or in particular, dead is purely coincidental" notice. That seems to work for Hollywood when they make a movie that's clearly about a particular person without that person's express permission...

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Tharsman]

Anyone that has ever had a toy produced on his likeliness does. Usually actors in movies that are fit for video game and toy merchandizing.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[delinear]

The question is whether they automatically have that right if it wasn't expressly granted.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[jrumney]

Think about this next time you illegally park in a disabled spot. Not only might you get a ticket, and scratches on your car from irate wheelchair users, but you may also be sued by Apple.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Not as creepy as them writing, hosting, and live comment streaming his "main" obituary. http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but really, it's not a cult. It's not, it's not!

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Totenglocke]

or C) Apple is just a bunch of asshats. Seeing how that's tons of documented evidence of complete and utter asshattery coming out of Cupertino, I'm going with C).

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

WEll, it's a good thing Steve Jobs wasn't a celebrity then. Which movie was he in? Television show (besides newscasts or infomercials?)
He was a business man, a thief, supported the OEMs that allowed their employees to commit suicide, but celebrity he was not, and those laws do not apply.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[chilvence]

I for one would love to have Chinese made action figures of myself. Wouldn't anybody?

Re:Apple is filing this?

[danomac]

Either that or Apple is mad that they didn't capitalize on the fanboy frenzy first...

Re:Apple is filing this?

[joocemann]

It was a rhetorical question nudging at the ridiculous idea that its even possible. My opinion, of course.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're probably doing more harm to their image with stupid lawsuits like this than if they'd just have kept their drooling lawyers at bay.

Seriously, billions and billions of dollars and they're worried about a few more. Pathetic.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[PopeRatzo]

Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?

Me. My will gives all rights to my personality to Slashdot and Geeknet, Inc.

When my body is found in the closet of a Bangkok hotel room with a pair of pantyhose around my neck, the victim of a tragic auto-erotic asphyxiation mishap, you can expect to start seeing Pope Ratzo action figures for sale here. Hatpins included.

I'm also planning to have Jimmy Choo design a line of handbags made from my foreskin and ass. While my ass doesn't contain my personality exactly, my wife has often said that it does contain my brain, so I guess that counts

Re:Apple is filing this?

[steelfood]

This is for the common people. You can be sure a different set of laws apply to those who can pay enough.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[tragedy]

There are laws in the US protecting his likeness as well, but, as fas as I know, they don't apply after he's dead. As far as I know, this California State protecting a likeness for 75 years after death is the only one of its kind. Presumably, it's because Hollywood actors are worried that their corpses will be virtually re-animated with CGI to star in new movies and that's an abomination against nature they won't stand for. Unless their descendants get money for it anyway.

So, the critical questions aren't whether likenesses are protected in China. I actually did expect that they were. The critical questions are A. does that Chinese law apply to people worldwide or, like the US Government does for much of the US Constitution, does the Chinese government only apply this law to its own citizens and B. does the Chinese government apply this law to the dead? The article you've provided does not include those details.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

There are laws in the US protecting his likeness as well, but, as fas as I know, they don't apply after he's dead.

It's in TFSummary.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[slapout]

Apple probably has Job's body frozen and stored somewhere on campus.

That's probably why Pixar merged with Disney -- to get their cryonics technology

Re:Apple is filing this?

[tragedy]

Yes, I know that it was in The Fine Summary. It mentions California laws, which lead to me writing:

Presumably this State law will only apply to sales of this doll in California. So if it's sold with a disclaimer: "not for sale in California" and they refuse to ship there, shouldn't it be in the clear?

Then you replied with a link with a vague description of Chinese laws regarding rights on likenesses, then I replied back that I can't find anything in what you've posted about those laws applying to non-chinese citizens or to the dead and that the California State Law protecting likenesses of the dead is, as far as I know, the only one of its kind in the US, then you replied back saying that there are such laws and they're in the summary. They're not. Just the California law which I addressed in my original post.

Re:Apple is filing this?

[Phoghat]

Steve Jobs gave his personality rights to Apple...which while creepy is not all that far fetched considering how he micromanaged everything to death (no pun intended)

+1 Insightful

Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[siddesu]

Why would they sue, do they have the rights on the likeness? I thought that would apply only to living persons. Incidentally, does apple also hold a Jobs trademark? That's quite gross in my book, akin to the way Communist parties in Eastern Europe used to keep the mummies of their leaders for the subjects to bow to. I can almost believe the conspiracy theories that they timed the release of the last iphone with the death of the Dear Leader.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Theaetetus]

Why would they sue, do they have the rights on the likeness? I thought that would apply only to living persons.

I know that not reading the article is par for the course, but not reading the summary?

Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[siddesu]

The summary doesn't say anything about why Apple is doing this, and neither is TFA from my cursory read through. As far as I understand the matter, it is a family affair, and it is really weird and highly unusual that they would not hire a law firm to sue, but have Apple do it instead.

The criminal threats are also mildly surprising, and the way Apple is clinging to Jobs is indeed sort of sick. As are the people who might want to buy a figure like this one.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[wanderfowl]

This definitely reeks of a personality cult, in the most disturbing, North Korean sort of way. Nobody has the rights to Dear Leader's image but us, and how dare you produce false idols. At least they didn't keep his body in state on the Apple campus...

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's a Cult of Personality.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[LostCluster]

They're using CA's law that says Jobs' estate owns his image for 75 years after death, the problem is, how do they enforce CA law if the dolls never leave China?

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[ScrewMaster]

As are the people who might want to buy a figure like this one.

Personally, I have no interest in anything that creepy, but given that Apple is being such a legal dick about this (and many other things recently) I'd buy one on principle.
BR And then I'd stash it away, unopened, until I retire and then I'd put it on E-Bay.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[j35ter]

it is a Chinese company. They sooooooo dont give a sh** about California law. Oh, and count the rest of the world in as well :)

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[ScrewMaster]

This definitely reeks of a personality cult, in the most disturbing, North Korean sort of way. Nobody has the rights to Dear Leader's image but us, and how dare you produce false idols. At least they didn't keep his body in state on the Apple campus...

I understand that he's been cryogenically stored in a sealed underground chamber in their new headquarters, surrounded by iPhones with his picture on them.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[rtb61]

Which is rather pointless as it is a state law not a federal law, in both cases it is state not federal law. Basically the manufacturers can tell Apple to go get knotted and leave Apple to pursue retailers in the affected US states. US federal laws don't apply in China and obviously US state laws are complete and utterly meaningless, as of course US states can not enter into treaties with other countries to enforce laws across international boundaries. So manufacturer and sell and deliver my mail order in the affected states, in the rest of the world, thumb their noses at Apple Inc. Besides "Think Different" Einstein billboards for Apple. So maybe Apple can complain if the dolls are blue and sport IBM logos, otherwise their history of theft pretty much leaves them in the cold.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[TubeSteak]

They're using CA's law that says Jobs' estate owns his image for 75 years after death, the problem is, how do they enforce CA law if the dolls never leave China?

How do they enforce California law if the seller never ships to California?
It's not unusual for online vendors to say "For legal reasons we don't ship to these states: X, Y, Z"

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

How constitutional is this, given that we do not (yet) have a two-tier justice system? Either everyone's personality rights are "protected" or no one's. Unless we do have First Class and Second Class citiziens, of course.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[andydread]

Personally I don't find it creepy at all. I find it incredibly realistic. I don't think I have ever seen a doll in my lifetime that is a realistic looking as this one. There is no mistaking Steve Jobs face and stare etc on this doll. I am not a fan of Jobs but would purchase one of these in a heartbeat just because of the realism of the face.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[king neckbeard]

I looked at the figure itself, and it's incredible quality, particularly for just 100 bucks.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you will find it creepy when you see a picture of it online in a month and someone mods it with realistic anatomic parts and recreates goatse guy with an iPhone shoved up his rectum and a sign saying this is how you hold it.

I would buy it if it looked like he did in the 70s or 80s, this is what I think of when I hear Steve Jobs. It's like action figures of Teenage Mutant Ninja (Hero) Turtles... I prefer the 1980s toys compared to the more recent ones even though the more recent ones are technically superior they aren't as fun and don't remind me of when I think of the TMNT.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care about California law but they might care about Apple closing a factory or two in China.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Ixokai]

I can't fathom how you would find it weird.

For one, Steve was deeply private about his personal life. I know a lot of people who didn't even know he had children. He kept his image and his job separate from his family and his home.

He cared about Apple deeply; it was more then just a job. Apple was the face and engine of what he envisioned. I would be shocked and offended if Apple did not seek to protect his image and interests even after his death-- granted, with the consent of his wife (and though the article does not state this is explicitly with her consent, assuming its not is a bigger leap then assuming it is)-- but I have seen no evidence at all that his family has ever wanted to get involved in the limelight.

Steve built Apple: were it to do anything but defend him to the utmost of its ability would be nothing short of a betrayal by the company he built of the family he loved.

Sure, there are people who may want to buy a figure like this one. But it is undignified and not at all something I think Steve would want: I would be shocked if his family disagreed, and I would /expect/ Apple to do something about it.

On a technical level, the duty of the company is solely to the shareholders. But come on. Defending Steve's image and his families dignity is something they can do which is not at all devoid-of-a-soul /and/ good for their business all at the same time.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Pecisk]

No one jokes about such things, especially if they could be true.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[putaro]

He's at Disneyland with Walt in suspended animation

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[bronney]

I got just the doll for you ^_^. Kawaii?

http://www.realdoll.com/

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[gnasher719]

How constitutional is this, given that we do not (yet) have a two-tier justice system? Either everyone's personality rights are "protected" or no one's. Unless we do have First Class and Second Class citiziens, of course.

It is quite likely that as a not-so-famous citizen you have many more rights. If a movie gets filmed on the street and you happen to be in the scene, they have to find you and get your permission or that scene cannot be shown.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[siddesu]

Well, I am not on a first-name basis with "Steve", and I am not a privy of his legal arrangements, so I obviously get my ideas about this issue from how I'd feel about it.

It seems from the fine article that Apple believes they can manage the "celebrity rights" of Jobs that, well, descent to him from the quoted California legal provision. The idiocy of the "celebrity rights" concept aside, Apple, being the anally lawyered-up company they are, probably have some legal paperwork to this effect from Jobs or his family.

IMHO, this is highly unusual, as Apple is, ostensibly, neither in the business of legal services, nor in the one about profiting from celebrity names.

The only plausible reason for Apple to ask Jobs to retain and manage his "celebrity rights", would be Apple product PR. I can't really see how "dignity" and "soul" would figure in such arrangement, especially long term.

The only reason I can imagine for Jobs to ask Apple to accept such a scheme is for him to have had such contempt and distrust of his family that he'd prefer some unknown board to manage those "rights" for the next 75 years rather than his wife and offspring.

Of course, the third reason could be that his family simply wishes to have nothing to do with defending Jobs' "celebrity rights" (and spending money on lawyers), so Apple has this to avoid PR problems.

Any way I look at it, it looks pretty weird to me.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Report to Real Doll Inc. for measurements for the official ScrewMaster FuckDoll - and don't even dream about getting any money.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

How constitutional is this, given that we do not (yet) have a two-tier justice system? Either everyone's personality rights are "protected" or no one's. Unless we do have First Class and Second Class citiziens, of course.

Jesus fucking Christ, who fucking hard is it to use Google - if you really wanted to know, Mr. Class Warfare?

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

This definitely reeks of a personality cult, in the most disturbing, North Korean sort of way.

What, that a Chinese company makes dolls of somebody in the hope to sell lots of them?

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any religion has splinter groups. Jobs official church i.e. Apple goes after such splinter group apparently. I guess that is all there is to it.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would Apple do that? REALLY.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[MrKaos]

Report to Real Doll Inc. for measurements for the official ScrewMaster FuckDoll - and don't even dream about getting any money.

You've just described every mac fanbois dream

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Theaetetus]

it is a Chinese company. They sooooooo dont give a sh** about California law. Oh, and count the rest of the world in as well :)

I wouldn't necessarily say that... It's a Chinese company selling Steve Jobs dolls... What's one of the biggest markets for Steve Jobs dolls? Cupertino, California.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

apple != steve job's estate

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Report to Real Doll Inc. for measurements for the official ScrewMaster FuckDoll - and don't even dream about getting any money.

You've just described every mac fanbois dream

A ScrewMaster doll? You Apple Haters sure have weired fetishes you project on others?

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[nomadic]

"For one, Steve was deeply private about his personal life. I know a lot of people who didn't even know he had children."

Going so far as to deny his own daughter was his was apparently one way of making sure people didn't know he had children. Nice guy.

He cared about Apple deeply; it was more then just a job. Apple was the face and engine of what he envisioned. I would be shocked and offended if Apple did not seek to protect his image and interests even after his death

Irrelevant. You use the courts to enforce the law, not what you would assume would be some dead narcissist's wishes. If Apple doesn't have the right to his image, and I can't imagine they can, then threatening legal action over it is unethical.

Steve built Apple: were it to do anything but defend him to the utmost of its ability would be nothing short of a betrayal by the company he built of the family he loved.

Steve Jobs loved Steve Jobs; ask the people he fired capriciously because they took the elevator with him what it was like being part of a "family."

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you ask the band Kiss if you can have rights on a likeness? Or Mike Tyson with his tattoo? Don't worry, there's been plenty of cases where people have sued over a specific likeness.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple at least has rights to the image of an apple (the fruit) with a bite. As for the likeness of Steve I don't know who legally owns that - his family or Apple.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

If China has a simular law they could use that to enforce it. Not sure why they went with California law and didn't look to see if China had one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#People.27s_Republic_of_China

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Riding magic mountain will be twice as fun now.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[siddesu]

Apple at least has rights to the image of an apple (the fruit) with a bite.

I doubt very much that they have rights to the image of any apple (the fruit) with a bite. But you can believe what you want (tm).

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

The above post contains chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't hate Apple. We hate you.

Well, and we hate Apple a little bit too, because they are pretty big douches. But it's mostly the enablers like you that drive rational people nuts.

Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll?

[MrKaos]

A ScrewMaster doll? You Apple Haters sure have weired fetishes you project on others?

These fetishes exist under the bsd license and you are free to polish them and make them your own.

Why would I hate Apple? they make unix appeal to the mentally lazy masses, who can't think up their own fetishes.

Job

[Anonymous Coward]

telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.'

Look, Apple. The Chinese are great at knocking stuff off, and their language system doesn't have plurals as ours does. There is a BIG difference between Job and Jobs. Hey, it might be a knockoff, but you can't do anything if it's a Steve Job doll.

Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The one thing Apple is better at than designing closed computers is suing people.

Re:Apple

[skovnymfe]

Imagine if Apple and RIAA got together on that. Oh dear, what've I done?

Re:Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, "Mr. Insightful": Tell me exactly what a 'closed computer' is.

I want one!

[cadeon]

I could do so many things with one of those...

Re:I want one!

[arielCo]

I could do so many things with one of those...

So would many True Apple Fans, if it were an Approved iDoll ...
*shudder*

Re:I want one!

[Nerdfest]

This one from Amazon is actually pretty close.

Re:I want one!

[similar_name]

I wonder if all of these are approved.

Re:I want one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing "things" with a 1:6 scale doll?

The penis-size jokes write themselves...

California = International Law?

[renegadesx]

So what law are they violating? I am talking about China not the US. A Chinese company does not have to answer squat to Apple nor the US legal system. They could make a doll with a penis on the head of Obama and the US Government couldn't touch them. Selling these dolls in the US is another matter (the Steve Jobs ones), but those that want them could simply import directly from China.

Re:California = International Law?

[Theaetetus]

So what law are they violating?
... Selling these dolls in the US is another matter (the Steve Jobs ones), but those that want them could simply import directly from China.

It's likely they're selling or offering the dolls for sale in California, at least via a website. That counts as sufficient contact to place them under California law for those transactions.

Re:California = International Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you put a penis on anyone's head and then make a doll of it, it would probably be deemed satire and be legal in the US. The hard part is legally getting the penis on said person's head.

Re:California = International Law?

[renegadesx]

If they own a website in the US: valid If they offer to ship to California but the site is hosted in China: not valid.

Re:California = International Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making an action figure of someone like Steve Jobs is already satire.

Re:California = International Law?

[matthiasvegh]

Considering http://thepiratebay.org/legal I don't think most US lawyers realize that there are other countries on the planet..

Re:California = International Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they offer to ship to California, California would have certain legal recourse (like barring imports, but not jailing the operators, etc)

Re:California = International Law?

[Issarlk]

Nothing that SOPA can't fix! That website will probably disapear from the USA intranet soon, iFans rejoice.

Re:California = International Law?

[stephanruby]

They should be able to sell those dolls in the US, as long as the doll is seen as some kind of parody of Steve Jobs and of his latest biography.

Re:California = International Law?

[Khyber]

Too bad China seems to forget about likeness parodies, which are protected forms of speech in the USA

This is how we have Obama dolls in my store, with the doll stroking his dick (Watch him stimulate his own package!)

Wait for a Jobs one to come out, it will happen eventually.

Re:California = International Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! This reminds me of ThePiateBay.org 's answer to DreamWorks: http://static.thepiratebay.org/dreamworks_response.txt :D

Re:California = International Law?

[drinkypoo]

IANAL, but I thought the way it worked is that they can be prosecuted in a Californian court for selling stuff illegal in California. The problem, of course, then becomes actually punishing them, or collecting on settlements. But if an officer of the corporation visits California and gets picked up on a traffic stop or something, they could be detained. Am I totally wrong? Wouldn't be the first time.

Re:California = International Law?

[Theaetetus]

IANAL, but I thought the way it worked is that they can be prosecuted in a Californian court for selling stuff illegal in California. The problem, of course, then becomes actually punishing them, or collecting on settlements. But if an officer of the corporation visits California and gets picked up on a traffic stop or something, they could be detained. Am I totally wrong? Wouldn't be the first time.

That's correct. California can also seize their goods at the border, as well as freezing any bank accounts in California.

Re:California = International Law?

[LordLimecat]

They could make a doll with a penis on the head of Obama and the US Government couldn't touch them.

Pretty sure you could do that in the US and the government couldnt do squat about it.

California == China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

Didn't realize California's laws applied to China.

BJM

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone getting a "being john malkovich" vibe from this doll?

California

[Fnord666]

While Apple's copyright infringement claims are questionable, attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the "right of publicity," which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

I don't see where California law is in any way binding or enforceable for a product unless they tried to sell it in California. Just because it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket in Alabama doesn't mean I can't do it in Michigan.

Re:California

[Theaetetus]

I don't see where California law is in any way binding or enforceable for a product unless they tried to sell it in California. Just because it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket in Alabama doesn't mean I can't do it in Michigan.

You're absolutely right... including that "unless" clause. The dolls are being offered for sale in California via their website, so the state law applies to those transactions.

Re:California

[SecurityGuy]

I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.

Re:California

[Demonantis]

Wrong, California has no jurisdiction over the Chinese company period for sanctions unless the Chinese government enforces it, irregardless of how the transaction is occurring. The US government should be intercepting the dolls at customs if they shouldn't be sold in the state. Arguably, the onus should be on the purchaser for knowing what they are importing is violating the law.

Re:California

[Jesse_vd]

This reminds me of the case of Marc Emery. He's a Canadian currently serving 5 years in the US for selling marijuana seeds on the internet. It's not illegal in Canada and Health Canada was even sending patients to his site to buy seeds. The documentary 'The Union' likened it to a Canadian buying a handgun online and then the Colt company being charged instead of the person importing illegal firearms.

Re:California

[Fjandr]

But ONLY to those transactions. Any transaction without a party in California is not enforceable under California State law.

Re:California

[ToasterMonkey]

I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.

Every other kind of border, real and imagined (wait, aren't they all imaginary?) can be enforced with some degree of success, why not borders between information systems? The Internet is full of borders, but they're mostly not nationalized, yet. Nothing is 100% impervious, but that does't make it unsuccessful.

Can a country regulate information systems inside its borders? As well as it can anything else, for sure.

In the United States, there is a place you can stand on the border of four different states. I don't think there would be any doubt that business conducted there would be subject to each state's and federal laws as you passed over the borders, as trivial as it may seem. Blah, blah, satellites, blah, I know. A person making a high altitude drop into a country still crosses a border at some point and is subject to laws on the other side. Arbitrary borders are arbitrary.

Re:California

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post violates an unknown section of Transnistrian law, please turn yourself in for execution.

Re:California

[SEE]

It's not illegal in Canada

Actually, this is a very important point you got wrong. It is, in fact, illegal in Canada; the Canadian law is merely not enforced.

The US-Canada extradition treaty specifies that the US can only demand extradition in cases where the act was, by Canadian law, punishable by a prison sentence exceeding 1 year. Emery could only be extradited because Canada left that law on its books, even though it didn't actually enforce it.

The Parliament of Canada could have, at any time, shut down the extradition effort by simply repealing the law in question, or reducing the maximum sentence to less than a year, or the like. And despite the Conservative government, the House of Commons of Canada had a Liberal-NDP-BQ majority during most of the extradition effort.

So Mr. Emery is in jail because the freely-elected representatives of the Canadian commons, of all parties, jointly exercised the sovereign power of the Queen-in-Parliament to outlaw his conduct under Canadian law and keep it illegal under Canadian law.

Re:California

[Khyber]

Nope, hello protected speech in the form of parody likenesses.

Apple's lawyers don't have one leg to stand on. Especially with the LUDICROUS claim of criminal penalties instead of civil ones.

Re:California

[Anonymous Coward]

Every other kind of border, real and imagined (wait, aren't they all imaginary?) can be enforced with some degree of success, why not borders between information systems?

So, you're pro-SOPA, and you think the Great Firewall of China and recent pirate copies like the Belarussian Intranet or Hadrian's Firewall are a step in the right direction?

Re:California

[quosoo]

Well, if it worked that way than all the websites would have to comply with the least common denominator of all laws in the World including sharia and alike. I'm having hard time imagining a single thing that would be allowed on the Internet.

Re:California

[Theaetetus]

I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.

No, not the mere fact of plugging a network cable into something... selling something. If you sell something to residents of California, you are subject to California laws for those transactions. Why is that hard to understand? The fact that you're using a web site rather than mail order or a delivery truck is irrelevant... The buyer is in California, therefore that sale is subject to California law. Don't like it? Don't sell to residents of California.

Re:California

[Theaetetus]

Wrong, California has no jurisdiction over the Chinese company period for sanctions unless the Chinese government enforces it, irregardless of how the transaction is occurring. The US government should be intercepting the dolls at customs if they shouldn't be sold in the state. Arguably, the onus should be on the purchaser for knowing what they are importing is violating the law.

Wrong, California has jurisdiction over the Chinese company for any sale that occurs to residents of California. They can't go after the company in China, but they can seize assets at the border of California.

Re:California

[Theaetetus]

Nope, hello protected speech in the form of parody likenesses.

Where is it poking fun at Steve Jobs? What's the parody? To qualify as a parody, it must be immediately obvious that it is a parody. See, e.g., the Hillary Clinton Nutcracker, the Obama "package-stimulating" doll, etc. It's not even a giant bobblehead caricature.

Re:California

[Khyber]

No, it doesn't have to be obvious. That's the joys of satire and parody. You're 100% wrong.

The porn industry is a master at this kind of stuff.

Re:California

[Theaetetus]

No, it doesn't have to be obvious. That's the joys of satire and parody. You're 100% wrong.

Then so is the Supreme Court, because they're the ones that made that rule.

The porn industry is a master at this kind of stuff.

Yes, like "The Sperminator" or "This Ain't Glee XXX". Clearly not obvious parodies. You're so right.

Re:California

[Jesse_vd]

You're right, I did screw that up.

Do you know if it was also illegal for him to sell to Canadian MMJ patients? Or was onus on his company to check for a valid growing license or something that they failed to do?

Very informative post, thank you.

Re:California

[Khyber]

"They're the ones that made the rule"

No, it doesn't have to be obvious. In fact, China could slap the word "Insane" on the package and that's that. Even if it looks like normal ol Steve.

Try again when you've had to defend yourself against parody lawsuits. I have. Good day. Back to Fark with you.

Re:California

[Jesse_vd]

I just caught up on this at http://freemarc.ca/group/freemarcca/marc-emery-latest-news

The US District Attorney arranged a plea deal in January 2008 that would allow Marc to serve his time in Canada, as long as the Conservative government laid charges here in Canada, but the government refused.

Assuming that's true, and Marc really couldn't get charged even under Harper (I'm sure whatever Marc was charged with is a law he'd support), yet we'll aid foreign police with an investigation and extradition for the same offense... that's just fucked up!

Re:California

[SEE]

Cannabis, defined in such a manner as to include seeds, is listed as one of the substances banned in Canada's anti-drug trafficking statute, so it is technically illegal for him to sell in Canada. In practice, last time he was prosecuted he just got a small fine, and nobody in Canada has bothered to prosecute anyone's seed sales ever since. Is something illegal if there's a law against it, but nobody is ever punished for breaking it, and the state actually refers people to the lawbreaker as a supplier?

I'm for full marijuana legalization, so I think the results are stupid, but I do think it's important to remember that the actions and inactions of the Canadian Parliament were essential steps in Emery getting fucked over.

Dear Apple:

[pla]

China != California.

I know, I know, you could easily mistake the last bastion of Communism for the failed socialist utopia you've tried to create over there (complete with rationing and rolling blackouts), but seriously, Californian law just doesn't apply to China. Or France. Or even to Nevada, for that matter.

Thanks for playing, though, better luck next time.

High Quality

[Anonymous Coward]

It has ball joints.

Re:High Quality

[Farmer Tim]

Do you mean articulation or a disturbing attention to anatomical detail?

bad summary from submitter

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Stupid

[WindBourne]

If they REALLY wanted to stop it, simply threaten to pull the manufacturing and bring it back to USA. Then Chinese gov. will stop it.

Re:Stupid

[kanto]

If they REALLY wanted to stop it, simply threaten to pull the manufacturing and bring it back to USA. Then Chinese gov. will stop it.

Wouldn't work, the Chinese would just insist that "All your Jobs are belong to us".

Re:Stupid

[Courageous]

Score: 5, Funny!?!?

Arg, that should be Score -5, PAINFUL. :-P

Re:Stupid

[Issarlk]

They can't do that, USA doesn't have the technology anymore.

Re:Stupid

[hexagonc]

I forgot the reference but I read somewhere that Apple, incidentally enough, is one of the only American computer companies that could move their manufacturing back to the USA. This is because they own and have retained institutional knowledge of the core manufacturing process technologies for their products. This is a side-effect of their fanatical soup-to-nuts control of the design and manufacturing process itself.

Re:Stupid

[Whorhay]

Not to mention that'd just leave all those factories with excess production capacity and parts. They'd probably just keep on making the apple devices anyways and selling them under a slightly different label.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the technology, we can rebuild him.

Apple suing someone?

[VJmes]

No, never!

Doll demands human status, emancipation

[StefanJ]

The Turing Heat had to steal the Phillip K. Dick automaton head to keep it from going sapient. The small but spunky Jobs Droid snuck under their radar and reached critical neural connections state just after this story broke.

Lemme guess...

[scottbomb]

Apple has a patent on dolls?

Extra Creepy?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare."

I'd have thought I'd be even more creepy if the doll had eyes that rolled around...

Re:Extra Creepy?

[ScrewMaster]

From the article: "To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare."

I'd have thought I'd be even more creepy if the doll had eyes that rolled around...

Or blinked.

Re:Extra Creepy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have thought I'd be even more creepy if the doll had eyes that rolled around...

That's what I was thinking. I wouldn't want a doll that blinks at me.

Re:Extra Creepy?

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent portfolio for that is probably held by Mattel....

US Laws....

[mlauzon]

US laws are not enforceable outside the US, but of course the US is trying to bully other countries!

just put a label on it.

[retchdog]

warning! this product contains a likeness known to the state of california to cause lawsuits and frivolous torts.

Re:just put a label on it.

[ScrewMaster]

warning! this product contains a likeness known to the state of california to cause lawsuits and frivolous torts.

New Frosted Pop Torts, breakfast of hooligans.

Malarkey

[jdavidb]

Apple reportedly wrote 'In Icons', telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.'

No, not a criminal offense, any more than making such ridiculous statements is a criminal offense.

Attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the 'right of publicity,' which is a state law

Bah. Laws don't make rights. They just justify bullies, tyrants, and parasites.

True law is immutable, not subject to a popularity contest.

Could they package

[future assassin]

it in an Android like case and Steve wearing an Android shirt and say its a Parody? Just put the actual Apple case inside the Android one and have the "Jobs Style" clothing under the Android shirt.

Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertising.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Hypocrisy.

Apple is guilty of the far more serious crime of having dead celebrities endorse their products in TV commercials.

The one-minute commercial featured black-and-white footage of 17 iconic 20th century personalities. In order of appearance they were: Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Richard Branson, John Lennon (with Yoko Ono), Buckminster Fuller, Thomas Edison, Muhammad Ali, Ted Turner, Maria Callas, Mahatma Gandhi, Amelia Earhart, Alfred Hitchcock, Martha Graham, Jim Henson (with Kermit the Frog), Frank Lloyd Wright and Pablo Picasso.

Typical Apple, talking the talk, without walking the walk. Again.

Oh dam it!

[Anonymous Coward]

They had to make it with round corners.

The Doll itself wasn't the issue

[l0ungeb0y]

It wasn't the doll as much as the "Nuclear Medicine" Playset complete with "Mr. Chemo" microwave oven that put them off.

Re:The Doll itself wasn't the issue

[ScrewMaster]

It wasn't the doll as much as the "Nuclear Medicine" Playset complete with "Mr. Chemo" microwave oven that put them off.

Actually, I think it was the free plastic liver that did them in.

Re:The Doll itself wasn't the issue

[king neckbeard]

You're crazy, that version won't be out for at least nine months. The won't release it until after the "alternative medicine" playset fails to sell.

Quick question

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one give their consent to use their identity if they are in fact already deceased? The way i see it, i am already dead, so why should i give a crap what others do to my identity then? I probably should hire some goons to insure some corp doesn't harass some poor souls after I am gone.

Re:Quick question

[icebraining]

How does one give their consent to use their identity if they are in fact already deceased?

One doesn't, but one's estate or heirs can.

The way i see it, i am already dead, so why should i give a crap what others do to my identity then?

Nobody says you should, just that (in California) you can.

I probably should hire some goons to insure some corp doesn't harass some poor souls after I am gone.

Or just sign a will saying you forfeit your personality rights and/or give a worldwide non revocable free license to anyone, whatever is the legal procedure you have to follow.

Alternatively, don't live in California.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[melted]

I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.

Watch this...

[John Pfeiffer]

Apple will succeed in getting the product pulled, and six weeks later, will release their own creepy doll of Steve Jobs that looks (not surprisingly) identical, but costs five times as much. ;)

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[ehynes]

And Apple is guilty of nothing IF they secured permission for the footage before hand. (And if they didn't, someone representing someone in that group would have sued them by now.)

Burn

[Brannon]

That's exactly what they do all right, they copy what other manufacturers make and then charge 5x for it. Absolutely, no question about that--no wonder they are losing so much money.

jobs shmobs

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't sue for those reasons when (1) they arent in the states (2) they dont give a shit who steve jobs is (3) fuck apple! O_o
now what yah gonna do..

Re:You stupid asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

You mad?

Apple fandork

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[Anonymous Coward]

Undoubtedly they acquired rights to use the photos, but what about the rights to use the likenesses of those people? Do you think they made a deal with Gandhi's heirs to use his photo in some stupid commercial?

Einstein, MLK, Lennon, Fuller, Edison, Callas, Gandhi, Earhart, Hitchcock, Wright, and Picasso all died before 1985, so their likenesses could be used commercially in California. Dylan, Branson, Ali, and Turner aren't dead yet, so Apple definitely needed to get their permission.

Graham and Henson were the only dead people that Apple would have had to get likeness rights for.

dom

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[Michael Woodhams]

Did they acquire rights from the families of the celebrities as well as from the photographers? If not, they're still hypocritical.

Didn't you get the memo?

[introcept]

US law is world law, pushed through economic bullying and enforced by the world police.

Criminal offense?

[Michael Woodhams]

How on earth does this get to be a criminal offense rather than civil one?

Re:Criminal offense?

[Jeremi]

How on earth does this get to be a criminal offense rather than civil one?

It probably doesn't, but lawyers are paid to write scary cease and desist letters, not accurate ones.

Re:Criminal offense?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's where the good old loser pays doctrine should hold as well. If any of the claims in a C-and-D are found invalid, the fraction of the invalid claims, say 100% should determine the fraction of the lawyers costs of the recipient that the sending party should pay.

Deja Vu

[paleo2002]

Didn't all this happen last year? The unauthorized Steve Jobs doll. The sketchy Chinese manufacturer. The lawsuits.

Re:Deja Vu

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

This. I thought I was going mental...

Re:Deja Vu

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article, there were previous dolls. One manufacturer buckled. Instead, they gave Steve Jobs a ninja outfit and repackaged him as "Pineapple CEO".

Eh...not really eerily, except that...

[SpeedBump0619]

It's the mini lovechild of Steve Jobs and Stanley Tucci. That's kinda creepy in itself I guess.

Not much California can do about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The terminator isn't governor anymore.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[renegadesx]

Ah, but Apple has aquired a patent on lawsuits

Good Info!

[Zalbik]

Well I'm buying one right now!!!

Good thing Apple sued, otherwise I might have never known about this.

Think I'll pick up a Barbara Streisand doll too while I'm at it....

How exactly?

[WillyWanker]

And how exactly does a California law have any bearing whatsoever in China?

Re:How exactly?

[Galestar]

Simple - the U.S. thinks its laws have jurisdiction on the entire world. Didn't you know that?

Re:How exactly?

[fnj]

Let me know when they send an FBI agent with a flying wedge of marines to China for enforcement. That would probably take about two million marines and a trillion dollars before it was over, we'd be out several aircraft carriers and many hundreds of planes destroyed, and the general radioactivity level on the plant would be raised significantly.

Re:How exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

China wouldn't need to lift a finger. Actually, if they didn't lift a finger, the US would be screwed... 'Let's stop exporting anything to the US and stop all US manufacturing operations and investment'. Utterly screwed.

Re:How exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

China also OWNS a lot the debt that the US owes and functions because of. If China snaps its fingers, its the US that has to pay attention.

Re:How exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may have no bearing, but I would think that this company wants to sell dolls in the U.S. and California would probably be one of the, if not the largest markets there.
If the law was by, say, Mississippi, it probably wouldn't matter a whole lot to the toy company. But not being able to sell in California is probably a pretty big deal.

Actual reason for lawsuit

[Galestar]

The figurine is packaged in a rounded rectangluar box...

FTFY. Incoming injunction.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.

Apple obtained permission from the photographer to use a copyrighted image, not permission from Gandhi's family to use his likeness to sell a product that he most likely would have been opposed to.

Hypocrisy. Again.

Wait

[atari2600a]

Why would a chinese company be bound by california law? Wouldn't it be easier to sanction the company or something like that? Also, when did Apple OWN Steve Jobs' identity; that's something for the Jobs estate to deal with, not Apple...

Another day that ends in -y...

[Anonymous Coward]

Geeze...it wouldn't be a day that ends in -y (in English) without yet another Apple lawsuit...

On another note, I bet there are entire countries that could feed their starving people with the money that ridiculously wasteful company puts towards their lawyers ALONE...

Robot Chicken

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to see one of these on Robot Chicken!

Faux?

[GrahamCox]

faux turtleneck...

What on earth is a "faux" turtleneck? Seriously, is that a US term? Over here and in the UK they just call that style a "turtleneck". What's faux about it?

Re:Faux?

[R3d M3rcury]

I've never heard it referred to that way, either. I've always heard it referred to as Mock Turtleneck.

I believe a "turtleneck" is usually longer and is customarily folded, whereas a "mock turtleneck" is shorter and doesn't need to be folded. At least that seems to be the difference between the two in my wardrobe.

Re:Faux?

[Anonymous Coward]

A Google search requires less effort than typing that comment; it is also less embarrassing.

Re:Faux?

[Arancaytar]

A faux turtleneck is one that is not made out of real turtles, of course.

Re:Faux?

[willy_me]

Try translating "faux" from french.

Hello

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, I'd like to buy an army of lawyer dolls, please.

Best line in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think the best way to remember [Jobs] is to make an action figure of him," Cheung said

Franklin Mint and Princess Diana dolls...

[advocate_one]

Those bastards got away with making unauthorised Princess Diana dolls because Princess Diana didn't stop them while she was alive

but Apple being litigious bastards from the get go will most likely prevail and get sale prohibited in US

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[1u3hr]

I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.

Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. The dollmakers could easily acquire the copyright on a photo of Jobs and use that as their model. Not that they really need to, but it would remove any "derivative work" argument.

Does any artist, sculptor, cartoonist, etc, require the permission of a person to create their likeness? (Rhetorical, answer: no.)

This stupid "right of publicity" could only have been conceived in Los Angeles. Apple can't stop this anywhere else, and they have just handed them a huge publicity boost.

*Celebrity* Rights?

[expo53d]

What decides if one is a celebrity or not? CowBoyNeal is also well known to slashdot, does that make him a celebrity? IMO that law is too vague...

Re:*Celebrity* Rights?

[Xeranar]

I'm not 100% familiar with the wording but our own likenesses are protected by law from the start. I'm imagining this law applies to people who have done explicit actions to gain them notoriety rather than popular momentum (like CowBoyNeal). If anything if somebody attempted to use your likeness after your death I am sure your estate could sue successfully under this law. The only way to overturn the law for vagueness would be to flood the courts with indiscriminate cases.

Does this count?

[Whiteox]

Very big Steve jobs doll (with video)
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/steve-jobs-statue-unveiled-in-hungary-20111222-1p638.html?rand=4554035

i hope they get to make the doll

[Anonymous Coward]

so the next time some hipster says "Steve Jobs" this or "Steve Jobs" that, I can tell them to go shove their Steve Jobs up their ass
the guy gets way to much credit for doing nothing more than making business deals
the fact apple made a crapton of money is the only reason he is respected
if Jobs was in the volatile chemicals industry and made the same money they'd be praising him all the same

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[melted]

But they didn't use his "likeness". They used the concrete photograph. I'm sure if they decided to make toys of Gandhi, they'd have to get a different kind of deal. With photographs, it is common practice to have models sign "releases", which lets the photographer do with the photograph what he sees fit.

And lo, it is written thus...

[Chicken_Kickers]

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image of Steve, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for i the JOBS thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; iExodus 20:4-6 (SJV)

Re:And lo, it is written thus...

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image of any-fucking-body.

FTFY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Even if this does go through

[Anonymous Coward]

What's to stop a friend from sending me one from overseas?

Either I missed it, or skimming over the cited law there was nothing in there about import or sale.

Get 'em while they last!

[Anonymous Coward]

USD $15.30 from DealExtreme, including shipping to anywhere in the world :)

everyone knows that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is Evil

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[Pecisk]

Strange, but it IS actually different. Factual photo copyright of the person belongs to photographer (or his employer - depends on contract). You can't copyright fact, so it is not possible for person to forbid to sell this photo - unless it's shooting isn't related with breach of privacy, but there's very grey area there.

I also have doubts about other laws their mentioned - as usual, lawyers cook these letters like horror stories - because it is very highly unlikely they would even stick. No matter how Jobs and Apple would like to live in control freak kingdom, copyright doesn't protect anyone's persona look and manners from copying. However that California Celebs law is something stupid only Hollywood can produce. That is probably one they can go after them. But that's only California.

It is me or Apple for last five years have been really sue-happy about almost everything?

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[Issarlk]

I see, so it would be ok for say, Smith & Weston to acquire the right to a photo of Gandi and put this slogan on it: "Fuck this non violence bullshit, I sure would have shot those english bastard if I had some sweet S&W piece." Or maybe a condom manufacturer using a dead pope to endorse condoms. Maybe legal, but that wouldn't make someone any less of a bastard to do any of these.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slightly off-topic but bear with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Long ago I thought of creating mini dolls of people such as Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates ... etc and then marketing them in a suitable packaging with long pins.

Whether or not you believe in voodoo [real or as popularised] it would be a stress relief when faced with bugs, irritations and blue screens.

Not sure what's more lame

[paylett]

Not sure what's more lame: That Apple thinks it has any right to stop this... or that there will genuinely be a market for this toy.

Please mod down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could I point out that you are simpy replying to first post to get your post more noticed? Please mod this guy down.

Unblinking Stare

[Anonymous Coward]

"To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare."

It'd make it extra creepy if the sculpt featured a stare that *did* blink.

hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I would buy one but knowing the quality of anything related to Jobs or Apple it will probably break after 13 months

Opportunity for the Chinese company...

[ibsteve2u]

...now they can add a line of accessories for the doll, starting out with a briefcase and a subpoena. Well, as long as they don't make the briefcase resemble an iPhone in any way.

Why make a doll now?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like he could still feel the pins you stick in.

Why Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see his estate suing and having a case for it, but why would Apple sue? On what grounds? They don't own the 'Steve Jobs' character.

Do they sell them with Haitian needles?

[G3ckoG33k]

Sounds like an iBargain to me!

I really wonder how this works

[Riceballsan]

The only thing I can fairly see apple suing for, is the apple logo, Jobs' face should be protected under paordy or something. And really, I'm no expert but I don't believe that his drivers license or birth certificate said "Steve Jobs©" Faces are common, I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of Steve Jobs look alikes in the world, can they be sued if they wear glasses, jeans and a black sweater?. A large part of his popularity came from dressing like your every day Joe in very common outfits. So yeah I'll give apple the benefit of "their logo", the word iPhone (even though that isn't even 100% original), but you can't sue for the face of an employee. Heck did Jobs ever sign a contract granting apple ownership of his likeness? If for some reason while he was still alive, and Jobs quit or was fired again, and he went to work for microsoft, would apple have been able to sue him for having his picture taken on a microsoft ad?

Steve would have loved this

[MrKaos]

I'll probably get modded insightful for this drivel, but seriously, he would laugh and say, "It looks more like me than I do and I should know, I'm me". The only reason Apple Inc want to sue is because it's not a genuine Apple Steve Jobs doll. Someone in Apple marketing is thinking "Damn why didn't we think of that, we should sue them because we didn't think of that" so they are.

The problem with these dolls is that they become alive after being used as a cx toy. THESE DOLLS ARE NOT CX TOYS, Rule 39 does not apply here. These are collectors items of a man who is very important enough for someone to make a doll,,,of. The possibilities are endless for fans of action figures and Shaun the Sheep when coupled with this doll. sweet revenge muu hahaha. oh the irony isn't lost on me, it isn't even if I understood what it was. I will buy this doll because it sums up Steve's entire life. He kept it real, now the Chinese want to cash in on that realnessness.

It looks so awesome, thats what Steve would say and he'd be right.

Re:Steve would have loved this

[nomadic]

Steve Jobs was frankly, not known for his sense of humor or for being self-deprecating; he was obsessed with his own image and I think he would have been far too pompous to laugh this off.

Re:Steve would have loved this

[MrKaos]

Steve Jobs was frankly, not known for his sense of humor or for being self-deprecating; he was obsessed with his own image and I think he would have been far too pompous to laugh this off.

ummm, is it possible I was being a little sarcastic?

So when is the first..

[MrJanos]

"leave Steve Jobs alone"-fanboy video coming out? Some guy wrapped in sheets with apples on crying hysterically..

unblinking stare

[Paradise Pete]

Jobs' famous unblinking stare.

Is there any other kind?

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

GP definitely should be modded down.

So?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death."

Great for you California, so they can't be sold in your state. But that doesn't mean the rest of the world abides by this law.

a 12" tall Steve Jobs action figure??

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

GI-Joe had the Kung Foo grip. Colonel Steve Austin had the bionic eye-piece. So what does the Steve Jobs action figure have?...a spade for building walled gardens? a super-hero sized wallet? or perhaps he projects the Apple logo, sybolizing his creation of Apple fan-dom and culture.

Re:a 12" tall Steve Jobs action figure??

[Anonymous Coward]

No dick...

Re:a 12" tall Steve Jobs action figure??

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't 12" too much for where a fanboi would use it?

Image Owner

[Anonymous Coward]

How does apple own his image? His family owns his image. Apple can sue for the log but not for him unless he signed over his image rights to the company.

Anyone can send a C&D Letter

[Kagato]

Really there isn't much to C&D letter. Now if Apple actually were to sue on behalf of the Jobs Estate they would need to some sort of agreement to even have standing in court.

On the other hand, Jobs did have a pretty significant about of stock, depending on how it was set up his family members or their trustee (if he put it some or all into trust) would have a spot on the BOD. So it's not inconceivable they would leverage Apples strong ties in China for legal action.

Anyone Surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, Apple is sueing someone? Say it isn't so. I mean Apple is one of the most open technology companies out there. They are always willing to share their innovation with others. Steve Jobs would be rolling in his grave to know that the company he created is using the legal system to stifle innovation.

Made in China? Better put a warning on it...

[svendsen]

may cause cancer..... ;-)

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were some legislation available which would allow for Apple to register an unjustified complaint of copyright infringement which in turn would prevent the majority of Americans from accessing the website in order to purchase these dolls...

This just reeks of the misuse we'd find if SOPA were to pass.

Its not a doll

[Anonymous Coward]

Its an Action Figure!!! They should also make one of Bill Gates.

A variant of the Streisand Effect

[jenningsthecat]

The fact that Apple doesn't want these dolls to be produced makes me want one, just to piss off Apple, whereas I couldn't have cared less about the stupid dolls if Apple hadn't lawyered up in such an obnoxious manner. It seems that these days all a business has to do raise its hind leg and piss on something, and suddenly it's exclusive territory, but even if the law supports these stupidly extreme "IP rights", that doesn't mean companies should exercise them.

That thing is all wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

A Steve Jobs figure would resemble more a Barbie doll, but of porcelain.

Now correct me if I'm wrong

[g0bshiTe]

but since when did California law apply to foreign countries? If this works, I'm going to say "damn my state law" and enforce prop 19 here on my own. My rationale is, if CA law applies to China, then it damn well applies to the east coast of the US.

APPLE canot stop this

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Claim it is art

3) Profit

Earth to US, Earth to US

[Anonymous Coward]

Attention all Americans! Your laws, apply to your country only. They don't apply anywhere else. Attempts to apply them elsewhere will get you greeted with ridicule and disdain. Further attempts will get you cited, fined and (temporarily) locked up for disturbing the peace. You will be released when they believe your intoxication (in this case with power) has worn off. I for one, welcome a Steve Jobs action figure, if for no other reason than to use it as a cradle for my Android phone while its on charge.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need to start with making Apple pay something decent for the deaths (suicides) of all the Foxconn employees making their craptastic iShit.
A billion dollars per fatality would be a start. Then hand over a salary for all the living employees equivelent to what it would cost to pay someone in the US to do the same job.
Make outsourcing more expensive than insourcing.

oh wait - this is Apple we're talking about - they don't care about anything but making money. make a kid sell a kidney to get their piece of shit product.
make people die to make them cuz they're worth more dead than alive (in China anyway)

such a Wonderful company - so humanitarian.... NOT!!!

They want to sell in the US...

[Xeranar]

So before everybody gets in a tizzy over international trade they need to remember any packaged item like this sold in the US has to get through customs and be OK-ed for sale. Clearly Apple is suing to stop them from making it all together claiming rights over his image and such but their best chance of victory is suing in civil courts where they can stop the sale in the US and other countries with reciprocation with the US (i.e. most of the industrialized world). Honestly, Apple should be asking for a cut and letting them be produced rather than fighting, the longer they keep the Jobs image alive the longer they'll be more proliferate.

Other products?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they make a Larry Ellison doll?

Apple patented iDoll for this..

[Anonymous Coward]

..and the Chinese factory delivered to In Icons on their street corner instead.

Ask the creator of Second Life

[quaker5567]

He has the answer, croudsourcing small Jobs.

Re:Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertisin

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Apple who are suing virtually everyone over copying used plagiarist Martin Luther King in one of their ads.

Now I *really* want one ...

[wdef]

Before, I had no interest in these. Now, with Apple spitting the dummy over this triviality, these dolls turn into collector's items overnight. What a dumb PR move by Apple and what a waste of resources to bother with this. As if any doll could sacrilegious to the memory of St Steve of Cupertino.

Woooowwwoooow

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I gotta get me one and make him fight with Bobba Fett and Han Solo against the evil Giant Acroyear. Hope he has a weapon. Does he fire missiles?

And the relevance of this ... is ?

[RockDoctor]

Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.

Jobs was a designer and/ or programmer. Quite a good one by many accounts (though I'm not taken by his designs, personally). But what makes that grounds for celebrity?

I was about to ask if he had paparazzi photographing him when he was skinny dipping with porn stars, snorting coke off lost iPhone prototypes in night clubs etc., etc.. Then I remembered Rule 34. So maybe "celebrity" with a lower-case 'c'. In 4 point greeked text. In pale yellow on a white background.

Exporting Jobs

[Flere Imsaho]

Hang on, I thought people wanted jobs exported from China to the U.S? Geez, there's no pleasing some people.

too old for dolls

[Cyko_01]

It's not like they will make any money on it. Anyone who knows who Steve Jobs is is probably too old to be playing with dolls anyways.

(yes it was a joke)