If you got it, flaunt it. She is making at least $100,000 per year via checks from Google.
But you have a point, I hardly see anyone giving away Apple products anymore. I see many Xbox and PS3 giveaways.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Clamps Down on iOS Device Giveaways
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you got it, flaunt it. She is making at least $100,000 per year via checks from Google.
But you have a point, I hardly see anyone giving away Apple products anymore. I see many Xbox and PS3 giveaways.
-Rolls eyes-
Sorry Apple, but you don't make the laws. Your guidelines DO NOT trump federal law.
If someone or some company wants to say "Free iPod with purchase", you have no legal grounds to stop them or hold them responsible for not following your arbitrary guidelines.
The world doesn't revolve around you.
LOL! Well said... (Slap Apple in the face) Now, imagine Steve Jobs as President of America, we would need to actually study law to understand him.
Oops, iJustine is being sued!
Didn't she know that the lowercase 'i' before a word is copyrighted by Apple?
Apple is also suing 'iCarly' for the same reason.
We are doomed!
These guidelines are for companies that have signed a contract with Apple. Therefore, yes, these guidelines are most certainly enforceable. If a company violates its contract with Apple by not following the guidelines for using Apple IP, then Apple can terminate the contract.
Or did you think really think Joe Consumer, who walks into an Apple Store and buys an iPod, has an Apple Account Manager?
Or did you think really think Joe Consumer, who walks into an Apple Store and buys an iPod, has an Apple Account Manager?
-Rolls eyes-
"iPad, iPhone and the iPhone Gift Card may not be used in third-party promotions."
Once a company has taken the money for the product/gift card, they have NO legal jurisdiction to say what happens to the product in terms of ownership.
California especially, (where Apple is located) in terms of gift-cards, has some DAMN clear laws. They CAN NOT be expired, so Apple HAS to honor them regardless of how the end user procured them.
If Apple is actually refusing to honor their own gift-cards they're SO setting themselves up for an open and shut lawsuit.
Additionally while, some of the items they state in their 'guidelines' are valid... they're merely Apple rehashing state and/or federal Copyright and Trademark law, so are not Apple's OWN guidelines.
Most of the rest though is BS Apple has sprinkled in, but is totally not enforceable regardless of what Apple may claim.
Examples of blatant BS:
- Only the most current Apple products may be featured
(If a company is giving away or catering to owners of previous versions, then it would be ILLEGAL to follow this guideline. Apple can not enforce false advertising.)
- Do not place within decorative cases, etc.
(Apple, if a company is selling protective cases for Apple's GLASS handset, they can't stop them from demonstrating final appearance of their product.)
- Always show products on a plain background
(Most hilarious and non-enforceable one. Apple doesn't get to dictate other company's advertising methods)
- Do not clutter Apple product photos with props, models or marketing messages
(See previous)
- Images may not be used on disposable packaging, nor on promotions within the food industry. In this case, please use the product name in text only
(Notice the 'please'? It's clearly a request. Totally not enforceable. Especially since in this wording they are not clearly stating the images as being of Apple products or Apple IP.)
Sorry Apple, but you don't make the laws. Your guidelines DO NOT trump federal law.
If someone or some company wants to say "Free iPod with purchase", you have no legal grounds to stop them or hold them responsible for not following your arbitrary guidelines.
The world doesn't revolve around you.
It seems like Apple might just be on the road to becoming what they were making fun of or warning us against with their famous 1984 ad. And yes, I know that OllyW beat me to it by posting that picture of that ad. Good one. I wonder if people like Steve ever come to this website to see what people think about the company and its products?
So if I wanted to hold a contest in my class and the winner was to receive an iPod touch, I'd have to submit everything to Apple and buy 250 of them
no, you can give away what ever you want.
but you can not print flyers with apple logos and ipad photos on it to promote your contest since the apple logo and ipod photos are registered trademarks. in order to use them you will have to follow apples guidelines.
right. they can give away free ipods. but they can not use the fonts, logos and photos.
Exactly. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the words themselves (iPod, iMac, etc) also trademarked? Kind of hard to give away an iPod when you can't tell people you're giving away an iPod without violating trademark laws.
This is not entirely correct. It's called nominative fair use. If the only way to clearly and readily describe/identify a product is to use the product's trademark then you are legally allowed to do so.
Well guys, it's been fun here on MacRumors, but it looks like I'm going to jail. I just ordered a couple of iPads and some iPods to give away as prizes in a contest at work.
See you all in 7 to 10 years, or whatever Apple deems as an appropriate jail sentence for my crimes.
See you all in 7 to 10 years, or whatever Apple deems as an appropriate jail sentence for my crimes.
Are you printing promotional materials to be used in public advertising for this contest, and if so, do you have a contract with Apple as a supplier? If not, this story has absolutely nothing to do with you.
While it sounds like semantics, there's a big difference between saying "you can't give away an iPhone" and "you can't run a public advertising campaign with pictures of iPhones and various Apple trademarks and brand marks all over it." Apple is only saying the latter, and the reasoning is very obvious--they don't want 3rd party promotions masquerading as Apple promotions, as you see frequently in sketchier web ads that look very much the same as an Apple ad and offer "free" iPads (with a boatload of fine print not in the ad itself).
As RogersDA notes, there is legal precedent to argue that Apple is wrong and you can, indeed, do the latter--that if you're giving away an iPad, and the only legitimate way to describe it is "an iPad", then it's fair use. That still leaves Apple quite a bit of leeway when it comes to the reproduction of their logo, and whatever current US trademark law allows you to trademark in terms of fonts, styles, images, etc.
I'm not going to say that US trademark law isn't messed up, because it has some serious issues, but given that the law is what it is, Apple's not really doing anything particularly insane when it comes to trying to keep a tight grasp on the brand they're building. An extreme example would be the Nike "swoosh"--their entire company is built on nothing but that logo, and I'm sure they have a platoon of lawyers ready to assault anybody who tries to do something with it that they don't approve of.
Apple can only enforce these things as a requirement of the right to use their trademarks in a promotion. Apples only grounds for legal action would be based on the misuse of their trademarks.
Man, talk about a need for laws that are more common sense... no wonder costs of goods and services are so high - even a small business needs to have a lawyer review your promotions it seems these days!
Loved this from the PDF link:
Images may not be used on disposable packaging, nor on promotions within the food industry. In this case, please use the product name in text only.
Had a good laugh over this one, most any other industry, as long as they follow Apple's rules, can have pictures. But the food industry can only have text. ????
And how is any company to know about these regulations from Apple? I mean a small business owner goes to the Apple Store and buys an iPad to give away. Don't remember seeing any signage or such saying that the product can not be used in a give-away.
Loved this from the PDF link:
Images may not be used on disposable packaging, nor on promotions within the food industry. In this case, please use the product name in text only.
Had a good laugh over this one, most any other industry, as long as they follow Apple's rules, can have pictures. But the food industry can only have text. ????
And how is any company to know about these regulations from Apple? I mean a small business owner goes to the Apple Store and buys an iPad to give away. Don't remember seeing any signage or such saying that the product can not be used in a give-away.
+435345345
I can't believe all the people in this thread who don't seem to get that but instead want to go on a "STEVE WANTS TO CONTROL THE WORLD" tirade for no reason what so ever.
Read this and *then* comment:
http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/apple_3pp_guidelines_1-1-11.pdf
http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/apple_3pp_guidelines_1-1-11.pdf
Even though the doctrine of nominative fair use is virtually the exclusive creation of the Ninth Circuit, it remains a fascinating approach to a difficult policy question arising out of the classic fair use doctrine established by the Laham Act. For those interested in exploring the topic a bit beyond name calling, here's a link to the seminal case: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/integrity/Links/Cases/newkids.html
Last edited:
Love all the "lawyers" on here.
So many people state "facts" with no education as to the relevant law. I'm betting Apple hires some pretty good lawyers, and is very aware of what statements it can make about use of it's products and image in "promotional" material. This is not about you listing an iPad on eBay. Of course you can use the name for that. This is about using prominent Apple images, trademarks and products to promote something other than the actual Apple product (which is normally being given away in the marketing tie-in). There is a difference.
So many people state "facts" with no education as to the relevant law. I'm betting Apple hires some pretty good lawyers, and is very aware of what statements it can make about use of it's products and image in "promotional" material. This is not about you listing an iPad on eBay. Of course you can use the name for that. This is about using prominent Apple images, trademarks and products to promote something other than the actual Apple product (which is normally being given away in the marketing tie-in). There is a difference.
-Rolls eyes-
Sorry Apple, but you don't make the laws. Your guidelines DO NOT trump federal law.
If someone or some company wants to say "Free iPod with purchase", you have no legal grounds to stop them or hold them responsible for not following your arbitrary guidelines.
The world doesn't revolve around you.
I TOTALLY agree with you!
I, personally am SICK of Apple's crap! They have become and EXCEEDED everything they criticized in the "1984" ad.
I bought a Motorola Xoom, instead of an iPad, because of Apple's incessant bickering with Adobe over Flash. I completely acknowledge Android's far fewer choices in their app store. That's not the issue, for me.
I've got an iPhone 3GS and it's been a great product, but when it dies, I won't be buying any more Apple products. Their products are okay but their dictatorial MEGALOMANIAC corporate mentality is disgusting.
Enough is enough!
Did you read any of the messages that actually refutes what you are ranting about? Your Flash comment reveals you really don't know what you are talking about considering Flash has only been available on Android devices within the past 6 months (with side affects) and people have been complaining about Apple's lack of Flash support for 4+ years now.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think this is correct. I believe it has to do with some sort of partner/promotion agreement.
adrian.oconnor said:
I think this is correct. I believe it has to do with some sort of partner/promotion agreement.
Of course the only reason we didn't see that was because the original iPad wasn't available in White
Wow!
Wow!
Apple has gotten too big for it's britches.
If Apple is a donating the product, fine, they can have some negotiated say in the giveaway.
But if the giver bought the product at retail, Apple can have no say whatsoever.
This is just one more example of Apple threatening frivolous lawsuits against smaller entities, just because it can make it costly for them to defend against and intimidate them.
Great design, but pure evil at heart.
Wow!
Apple has gotten too big for it's britches.
If Apple is a donating the product, fine, they can have some negotiated say in the giveaway.
But if the giver bought the product at retail, Apple can have no say whatsoever.
This is just one more example of Apple threatening frivolous lawsuits against smaller entities, just because it can make it costly for them to defend against and intimidate them.
Great design, but pure evil at heart.
What's that? You don't understand the twisted thoughts of the convoluted control-freak brain of Steve Jobs? You must need more Apple flavored Kool-Aid, my friend.
It's bad enough that Apple tries to enforce their will for software through licensing agreements, but it's something else to try and tell people to whom they can and cannot 'give' their bought and paid for hardware to (which people 'own' unlike software which you supposedly only 'license'; I find that BS too on many levels, but that's another bag of hurt altogether). I'm guessing this falls under some kind of discounted corporate purchase agreement or something. Otherwise, I can't imagine what legal ground Apple has to stand on.
It's a little difficult to give an iPad away as a prize at a fundraiser, for example, if you cannot let people know that the iPad is the prize.... I don't see how anyone that isn't mentally challenged could think that say McDonalds giving an iPad as one of their "Monopoly" prizes is somehow connected with, related to or otherwise impacting either direction Apple themselves. It's a freaking prize. Crap like this should have no legal bearing either way. It seems like 'freedom' is becoming a rare commodity in a country that claims to be about freedom, IMO.