Apple Forces Steve Jobs Action Figure Off eBay 233
Hugh Pickens writes "Kevin Parrish writes in Tom's Guide that last month, just in time for Christmas holiday gift-giving, M.I.C. Gadget began the manufacture and sale of a Steve Jobs action figure featuring an oversized head, Steve's trademark black shirt/blue jeans outfit, and a new iPhone 4 like a magical world-saving talisman in Jobs' left hand. The action figure, selling for $79.90, came with an Apple logo stand and cartoon balloons for writing custom messages. Soon a warning letter from Apple stated that the figurine violated a California statute prohibiting the use of a person's likeness in a product without prior authorization and sales ceased. But shortly after production stopped, the figurines began to appear on eBay selling for up to $2,500. Now Apple's lawyers have raided the online marketplace, zeroing in on one Canadian eBay seller who had already sold the figurine for $1,125 and eBay has removed other listings, telling sellers that the object for sale 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just damn! (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Jobs personally doesn't like this, and gave the order.
2. The legal department warned Jobs that failing to protect his image right now may weaken future legal cases, particually in regard to the Apple logo.
3. Apple are concerned that the product may be used to mock Jobs in public (eg, parody movies on youtube) and thus impact their reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple are concerned that the product may be used to mock Jobs in public
A legitimate concern. It's not like he doesn't give people enough to work with..."...you're just holding it wrong..."
Re: (Score:2)
You mean all those former 3dfx graphics card users are still mad about the lack of Mac support?
Re: (Score:3)
Does it come with a chair?
icon (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps we can still use it here on Slashdot, as the icon for Apple stories.
Don't be ridiculous... (Score:2, Informative)
This is Slashdot.
Only company we are allowed to indiscriminately hate and make fun of is Microsoft. Sorry... Micro$oft.
Other corporate entities are free game from time to time - but never Apple.
Also, badmouthing Linux, penguins in general and in some cases Natalie Portman will almost certainly get you in serious trouble.
Re:Don't be ridiculous... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is Slashdot.
Only company we are allowed to indiscriminately hate and make fun of is Microsoft. Sorry... Micro$oft.
Other corporate entities are free game from time to time - but never Apple.
Also, badmouthing Linux, penguins in general and in some cases Natalie Portman will almost certainly get you in serious trouble.
Where have you been? Apple is in the dog house, all the cool kids are turning a blind eye to Google's bullshit now.
Re: (Score:2)
The GEEK cool kids.
Apple is no longer geek-cool 'cause the joe random cool kids now think it's cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to say they lost its geek appeal when they turned from the elitist geek market to the more profitable elitist idiot market.
Mmmmm... opinino. (Score:2)
someone else's opinino
Opinino? It sounds like... some sort of tropical fruit. Mmmmm... opinino.
And I bet that, just like with apples - that opinino from someone else's garden tastes the sweetest.
Dammit! Now I have a craving for an opinino.
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit! Now I have a craving for an opinino.
Only because someone else mentioned it. That's the odd thing 'bout opininos, you only want one when someone else has one, and it's not so unusual that you want exactly the same one that other person has.
Fortunately opininos are easily shared, though I prefer to grow my own, they're more juicy than the old, stale ones you get from others.
Re: (Score:2)
Geeks have an interest in things, cool kids (well wana-be's) have an interest in other people
May I steal that quote? It fits well.
Re: (Score:2)
Where have you been? Apple is in the dog house, all the cool kids are turning a blind eye to Google's bullshit now.
Actually, though it's definitely true that a few years back Google was viewed almost entirely positively and the recipient of widespread uncritical fanboyism on Slashdot (circa 2000 to 2005 or thereabouts), I've noticed that this trend has declined significantly in the past few years.
Normal and good (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of the comments on TFA are completely off the deep end, and I (foolishly) hope we don't end up with the same.
This a good thing. Personality rights like this evolve from the protection of privacy, and imply each individual's right to control their usage by the media. Usually those in elected positions forgo such rights, but for the rest of us it's nice to know that we can try to control some of the usage of ourselves as a commodity. In reality, this right translates almost only to celebrities, which unfairly causes a lot of the vilification of the laws; the fact of the matter is that only celebrities (by definition, perhaps) have their personality commoditized. A celebrity is a business, and just like a business they have the right to control the marketing of their brand.
Re:Normal and good (Score:5, Funny)
Completely on target. As a Sarah Palin supporter, I'm really looking forward to when strong protections against character use like this become the norm. Celebrities like Sarah need to be able to control when their image is used and what is said about them. Think about how much better our political process would be if presidential candidates could expunge anything negative said about them or any negative use of their image. We would have never had to find out that Sarah doesn't know what newspapers she reads. And the world would be a better place. There are going to be whiners who say that it limits speech but who cares.
Re:Normal and good (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between news articles about what she does which are covered by 1st amendment rights, and using Sarah Palin's image to sell products without her permission.
Re: (Score:2)
And the only reason why it is our business with politicians is that they frequently run for office on the suggestion that they represent us
Re: (Score:2)
Why? In both cases money changes hands. The reporter is "selling" his article. The paper is using her fame and taking photos to get readers... It's always about the money.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between news articles about what she does which are covered by 1st amendment rights, and using Sarah Palin's image to sell products without her permission.
Is there? News articles don't write and publish themselves, that all needs to be paid for. Here on the internet it's long been considered commercial usage by the likes of ICANN and the MAFIAA for a website to run advertisements even if it is just to support the cost of operating the website.
Re: (Score:2)
Sell products without permission? You mean like what newspapers do, when they sell ad space next to someone's picture? Or how about the papers they sell to subscribers, with said faces?
Re:Normal and good (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a major difference between a news report containing factual information and a picture of a person and a someone making a doll of celebrity for the sole purpose of making money of the celebrity's image.
The choice is not between total control of one's image and/or likeness and no control at all.
Please explain why someone should be able to make money off the likeness of another person without said second person's knowledge and/or permission. Also, if someone were to make and sell a doll of you without your permission and without sharing any of the profits, would you try to stop them?
Re:Normal and good (Score:5, Insightful)
Since you seem to be still trolling, can you give us a reason why someone should be able to have absolute control over their likeness?
Are you saying that satire should be illegal, or impersonation artists? Down with SNL! Elvis impersonators are evil!
You do not have absolute control over your likeness, and never had.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please explain why someone should be able to make money off the likeness of another person without said second person's knowledge and/or permission.
That's not what's happening here, though.
What I see is a bobblehead doll - a parody, even. I'm pretty sure that'd fall under 'artistic license'.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said above these things tend to go out the window when it comes to political candidates. There's a reason it's called a "public office."
Re: (Score:2)
Completely on target. As a Sarah Palin supporter...
Clearly a troll.
Retard mods (Score:2)
This should be modded (un)funny but its insightful. Who is really that dense?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please c'mon, nobody can manage their own kids. Besides, there's enough incompetence and general inaptness about Palin that you don't have to reach down to the children issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Not more imaginary property. What is a person's usage, can it be owned, and what are the costs of simulating ownership of this conceptual thing? Every form of imaginary property infringes on physical property rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, every form of property infringes on some "freedom" or "right." The alternative is anarchy. Jefferson can spit all he wants, but Government and laws by definition swap some liberties for security, so if you want to live in a civil society you have to sacrifice some so-called "rights." What rights a people are guaranteed is dictated by a lot of things, such as who has the guns and what their governing documents are. The Native Americans learned the former the hard way (along with the rest of Jared D
Re: (Score:3)
Why should your desire to profit off my visage impede my right to privacy? If the concept is confusing, we're lucky to have a common-law system so our system evolves with our society.
He's not a private citizen he's the CEO of a well known company. If he sued over privacy rights for things he does in public he might get as much as $1 as an award assuming he won.
I see no evidence that the dolls were made using information that wasn't publicly available to damn near everybody. And considering that he goes out to publicly announce new products dressed like that, I really don't think he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
But ultimately I would like them to win this just because I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I was as famous as Saint Steve and had his money? You coul make a sex doll with my likeness for all I cared.
I hope you see the difference between me, Mr. Random Opportunist, and Steve Jobs, a person who's a wee bit more known.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they skipped the critical step of asking first permission from Apple and Jobs. We don't know if Apple is already in negotiations with another company to launch a similar product.
Considering the huge ammounts of bootleged and pirate products coming from China, the real news are that the chinese company listened to Apple compliants.
That said, I must recognize that the guys at MIC Gadget did a fine job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"So if you slap on the 'parody' label everything is allowed?"
In every post some idiot does this. Why? Its not like you can cover your tracks, my post is still available for all to see... You have obviously omitted the "clever" part to make your post needlessly relevant and contrary. The product has to be a CLEVER parody. If you want to argue with me then argue, but don't resort to immature trickery.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you go on to say that these apparently existent personality laws "translate" only to celebrities? First
Link to the figure in question (Score:5, Funny)
I think they did a good job capturing his essence. http://imgur.com/hMuXQ.jpg [imgur.com]
Trademark shift/jeans outfit? How about the Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd have thought that it was the stand that was violating trademark law, not the outfit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought that it was the stand that was violating trademark law, not the outfit.
I'd have thought you were right, and I assumed they used the term colloquially. Perhaps an editor could have picked that one up...
First Apple commandment (Score:4, Insightful)
"Thou shalt not make any graven images of me."
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they didn't arrive at "thou shalt not steal" yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they didn't arrive at "thou shalt not steal" yet.
It's not stealing if you convince people to willingly give you their money. Hypnosis, maybe.
Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently we saw Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and an opportunistic Swiss bank all take advantage of Wikileaks plight to either seize their funds and/or stop them receiving any more funds.
Now here's eBay stopping people from engaging in perfectly legitimate trade. Satire is Free speech, you know. But who has the money to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court. Only the very wealthy can afford justice.
With the big end of town merging and competition shrinking I can see the day where you just have a few players (as happened with credit cards) where you can be turned into an unperson just because a handful of big companies decide they don't want to do business with you.
Don't expect Congress to defend your rights. As we saw in with their Copyright Extension Act (the "Mikey Mouse Act") they always rush to codify the wishes of their biggest donors. Don't expect the courts either. The Supreme Court decided recently that companies can pour as much cash as they like into election campaigns. Roberts & co. aren't going to defend our rights.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with free speech.
It has everything to do lazy, greedy stupidity. Some idiots at a company figuring they can get rich from selling a cheap plastic replication of Jobs (I don't know what drugs they were on when they dreamed it up, and I don't want to know) and then part of Apple's legal division - apparently with nothing better to do - figuring they might make some money in suing said idiots into the ground and, just possibly, buying the dead company in the future; in order to
Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item (Score:5, Insightful)
That last bit is probably what's going to cause most of the problem. The rest of it isn't as cut and dry as that is.
Re: (Score:2)
That would have put it firmly identified it as satire, and once out of the box, the hat could be left off leaving the doll exactly the same, minus the threat of lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now here's eBay stopping people from engaging in perfectly legitimate trade.
As a preliminary matter, satire is an affirmative defense - in other words, if you're going to claim that your infringement is protected as satire, you have to first admit that yes, you just infringed a trademark or a right of publicity. Which means that while it may be protected, it is not "perfectly legitimate". But that's mere semantics.
Satire is Free speech, you know.
That said, where's the satire? "Steve Jobs wears jeans and turtlenecks!" Not really much of a satirical point.
In order to be a legally protected parody, you have to ac
Re: (Score:2)
where you can be turned into an unperson just because a handful of big companies decide they don't want to do business with you.
I remember an episode of the old Max Headroom series, where Edison Carter has been falsely accused of credit fraud by a rogue AI, and Jeffrey Tambor's character says, "That's worse than murder!"
That show had a habit of being prophetic (which is nothing more than an extrapolation of existing trends), but it was interesting because many of those trends weren't so obvious a quarter-century ago.
Ya know (Score:2)
O RLY??? (Score:2)
IMHO it's actually about the way he's holding the phone.
Protected parody (Score:2)
So, what about richard nixon ? (Score:2)
what does this tell for steve jobs' character ?
Can't I just amass my billions in piece and quiet? (Score:2)
People have the right to parody. Even if it makes them money. I can't see how this would stand up in court.
This reminds me of a joke in Serbia... (Score:2)
Slobodan Milosevic was walking down the bridge when the huge wind strikes. He falls into river and starts drowning, and three man notice that and rescue him. Milosevic, grateful for saving their lives, ask them anything that they would like to have:
Guy #1 : "Mr president, I would like 1.000.000 dinars so I can feed my family, pay our debts and buy stuff that my family needs"
Milosevic: "Ok, that is fine, you can solve financial problem of your family for the rest of your life with that amount"
Guy #2 : "Mr pr
I want ... (Score:2)
... the Julian Assange action figure.
Re: (Score:2)
... the Julian Assange action figure.
No doubt it will come with a built-in encrypted flash drive.
Apple logo (Score:2)
That is what killed it.
violated a California statute? (Score:2)
So a California statue is now international law?
Re:"Celebrity"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, would you like someone else to make money off of a doll made in your image? Remember, you get none of the money and they did not ask your permission.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not you (or I) like something should have no impact on legality. I'm sure Steve Jobs also doesn't like when we make fun of his ridiculous turtleneck outfit and his RDF abilities either.
Re:"Celebrity"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Now, would you like someone else to make money off of a doll made in your image? Remember, you get none of the money and they did not ask your permission.
Everyone seems to be missing the pedistal which is using the Apple logo without a license.
Re: (Score:3)
"Everyone" apparently including Apple. Which is odd. That's a trademark, much more solid that this "celebrity likeness" bullshit I (AMNAL) would have thought.
But maybe they thought they'd just take off the logo and sell the Jobs figure anyway, so they went for that first.
Re: (Score:2)
celebrity
[suh-leb-ri-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties for 1.
1. a famous or well-known person.
2. fame; reknown.
Yup... as painful as it may be, it fits.
Re: (Score:3)
"All she ever did"? That sounds like plenty to me.
Re: (Score:2)
No, she was already famous, if only minorly. Now she's a famous whore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to supply-side fame.
This is the way of the world now, I guess. And why I don't own a television.
Re: (Score:2)
It worked for Sarah Palin.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really think its new so awful much as I remember the same behavior from pr0n-stars from the 70s.( Still active social BUTTerfly Ron Jeremy is a fine example.) Come to think of it Rome at its peak had similar features to todays professional attention whores.
Y'know, come to think of it, it makes all the little old lady and bored housewife demographic driving this trend seem quite sleazy through their voyeurism. Purchasing Grocery store tabloids and watching Entertainment revue television to follow t
Re:"Celebrity"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The right term is parenthetical phrase [wikipedia.org], and while you're correct, I also feel like it's not quite right. Maybe it's the way it's led with a preposition, making it sound like it's part of the sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Ebay also owns some of the most used Ebay-like sites in certain countries in Europe.
Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm interested. Isn't there some rule or other that State laws cannot trump federal laws? e.g. California can't legislate to enslave hobbits.
I don't know what the relative status is of covenants by international treaty.
Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (Score:4, Informative)
It is not in the constitution, it is in California state law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
eBay is a California corporation. HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
Ebay is headquarters in California isn't it? You'd be right if it was being sold on a Canadian website by someone living in Canada. But as soon as they put it on ebay.com then it fell, at least partially, under California jurisdiction.
Simple, TOS (Score:2)
...and how come California state law applies to the entire world? I'm guessing something to do with eBay being in California? Doesn't seem right somehow...
Simple, it is on eBay's terms of service. Perhaps those same figures will appear soon in a Canadian auction site subject to more permisive canadians laws.
Re:time to move to China (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are just jealous that the shentino action figure didn't sell so well. :-p
Dear Slashdot (Score:2)
You are a corporation.
Steve Jobs is a person.
You do not have standing to take action on behalf of Steve Jobs as a person.
Standing is for a court to decide.
But I strongly suspect you'll discover that Apple has licensed Steve Job's image from Steve Jobs - and that will stand up in court.
There is, however, another argument that can be made:
That Apple has rights in the image of Steve Jobs because of his iconic association with Apple.
Who Can Inherit Fame? [time.com]
[Merchandising rights to the images of Bela Lugosi an
Re: (Score:2)
Only if apple had an exclusive license or something, and it would still be fuzzy at best.
Iconic association, not quite sure about, as anything that related back to apple's association would probably already be indicated by trademark.
As far as "it's for a court to decide", technically true but standing is a common and well precedented concept in the legal realm. it's stable enough that law schools can confidently teach it.
Re: (Score:3)
So much so that he managed to jump the line for a liver transplant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And it will be in white, stain before you touch it the first time and its name is prepended by an "i".
We present, the iGod. And in the pants you'll find the iGod Nano.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, however each and every American lawmaker and judge believes that Jesus is not only real but also still alive. Some fuckheaded clergyman can file a lawsuit on his behalf, hilariousness ensues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cue someone with a clue to clue you in that Carl Sagan was the project codename, not an attempt for product endorsement, since the name was never intended for public release.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't it named Sagan only as a joke against him?
Re: (Score:2)
First he wants control of his own app store to decide what he wants in it and what he wants out. Now he's trying to do the same thing for eBay. Whats next!
iBay.