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

[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

[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.

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?

[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]

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?

[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

Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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.

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: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: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: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.