Slashdot Mirror
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."
Personally I think it will make a good addition to the sequel to Team America World Police.
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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.
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.
The one thing Apple is better at than designing closed computers is suing people.
I could do so many things with one of those...
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.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
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.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, never!
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.
Apple has a patent on dolls?
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...
US laws are not enforceable outside the US, but of course the US is trying to bully other countries!
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
warning! this product contains a likeness known to the state of california to cause lawsuits and frivolous torts.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
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.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Hypocrisy.
Apple is guilty of the far more serious crime of having dead celebrities endorse their products in TV commercials.
Typical Apple, talking the talk, without walking the walk. Again.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
It wasn't the doll as much as the "Nuclear Medicine" Playset complete with "Mr. Chemo" microwave oven that put them off.
I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.
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. ;)
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
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.)
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.
Did they acquire rights from the families of the celebrities as well as from the photographers? If not, they're still hypocritical.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
US law is world law, pushed through economic bullying and enforced by the world police.
How on earth does this get to be a criminal offense rather than civil one?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Didn't all this happen last year? The unauthorized Steve Jobs doll. The sketchy Chinese manufacturer. The lawsuits.
It's the mini lovechild of Steve Jobs and Stanley Tucci. That's kinda creepy in itself I guess.
Ah, but Apple has aquired a patent on lawsuits
Make SELinux enforcing again!
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....
And how exactly does a California law have any bearing whatsoever in China?
The figurine is packaged in a rounded rectangluar box...
FTFY. Incoming injunction.
AccountKiller
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.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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...
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?
but Apple being litigious bastards from the get go will most likely prevail and get sale prohibited in US
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
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.
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...
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
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Do you mean articulation or a disturbing attention to anatomical detail?
Blank until
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.
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)
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?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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 based on user account deletion
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: That Apple thinks it has any right to stop this... or that there will genuinely be a market for this toy.
Believing something doesn't make it true. Not believing something doesn't make it false.
Could I point out that you are simpy replying to first post to get your post more noticed? Please mod this guy down.
...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.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Sounds like an iBargain to me!
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?
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.
Dilbert RSS feed
"leave Steve Jobs alone"-fanboy video coming out? Some guy wrapped in sheets with apples on crying hysterically..
Is there any other kind?
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.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
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.
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.
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.
may cause cancer..... ;-)
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.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
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.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
He has the answer, croudsourcing small Jobs.
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.
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.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
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?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Hang on, I thought people wanted jobs exported from China to the U.S? Geez, there's no pleasing some people.
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
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)