Apple Threatens Legal Action Over Upcoming Steve Jobs Figurine

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    The Telegraph reports that Apple has threatened legal action against Hong Kong company In Icons, which has been taking pre-orders for a realistic-looking Steve Jobs figurine set to launch next month. The 12-inch figurine, which is being sold for $99.99 plus shipping, is a posable, highly-detailed reproduction of Jobs' likeness wearing his signature black mock turtleneck, blue jeans, and New Balance sneakers.
    [​IMG]


    Personality rights in the United States are addressed on a state-by-state basis, with California's laws covering unauthorized usage of a person's likeness, voice, or signature throughout their lifetime and for a period of 70 years following their death.

    Article Link: Apple Threatens Legal Action Over Upcoming Steve Jobs Figurine
     
  2. AppleScruff1 macrumors G3

    AppleScruff1

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
  3. MacDawg macrumors Core

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #3
    Everybody knew this legal action was coming once the figurine was announced
     
  4. jonnysods macrumors 603

    jonnysods

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    There & Back Again
    #4
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

    Soon Apple will be suing people who call their kids Steve or calling employment websites job websites.
     
  5. Chopper9 macrumors regular

    Chopper9

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
  6. Macman45 macrumors G5

    Macman45

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
    #7
    I'm no lawyer. But I can't see how Apple can claim to "Own" the likeness of it's sadly deceased founder. Tasteless? for sure, but if people buy it, then I guess that's life.

    Personally, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole....Kind of creepy.
     
  7. Amazing Iceman macrumors 68040

    Amazing Iceman

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Location:
    Florida, U.S.A.
    #8
    Does this mean that it cannot be sold in the State of California?
    I don't believe California law applies outside California.

    Either way, the wrists of the SJ doll look messed up. Even the cheapest Barbie doll rip off has much nicer jointing points.
     
  8. xnu macrumors 6502

    xnu

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    #9
    Huh

    It is a pretty good doll, I mean as far as the likeness....
     
  9. 576316 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    #10
    So, Apple are now claiming to own Steve Jobs' face?

    Okay, sure thing, Apple.
     
  10. srxtr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    #11
    Wow from the corner of my eye I thought I was looking at the front cover of the bio.

    Looks amazing, but too creepy to buy.
     
  11. lamerica80 macrumors 6502a

    lamerica80

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    #12
    Apple, wipe your tears with a few hundred million 1000 dollar bills and chill.
     
  12. johndallas999 macrumors 6502a

    johndallas999

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #13
    Jeeze, is there anything Apple doesn't threaten legal action on these days? This company has gotten a bit rediculous lately, their lawyers probably work harder than their design engineers do!
     
  13. Johnf1285 macrumors 6502a

    Johnf1285

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2010
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #14
    So Apple owns the rights to what Steve Jobs looked like? That's insane!
     
  14. Amazing Iceman macrumors 68040

    Amazing Iceman

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Location:
    Florida, U.S.A.
    #15
    Which proves to us that there's a business opportunity in every direction we look. :D
     
  15. WannaGoMac macrumors 68020

    WannaGoMac

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    #16
    Actually who does own his image rights? Actors have control over use of their names and image, so wouldn't Steve Jobs estate own his?
     
  16. nick_elt macrumors 68000

    nick_elt

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #17
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Hes holding the phone wrong!
     
  17. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #18
    Yup. Considering that the site says final product might differ, this would be a good thing.


    Probably, but they can assign anything to any lawyer (such as that of Apple's)
     
  18. arkitect macrumors 603

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #19
    Oh Apple. :rolleyes:

    I wish they'd give this perpetual lawsuit fever a rest.
     
  19. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #20
    I recall a segment on either Nightline or 60 Minutes about this law. I believe it was after Michael Jackson's passing.

    Not moe enough...
     
  20. takeshi74 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    #21
    Not as ridiculous as spelling the word "rediculous". Any company that doesn't aggressively attempt to protect its IP risks losing it.
     
  21. tarasis macrumors 6502a

    tarasis

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Location:
    Here, there and everywhere
    #22
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B5127c Safari/7534.48.3)

    I though the figure looked more like Ben Kingsly in a number of shots but generally impressive.

    To the person complaining about the wrist joints, you realise you can change the hands? Seething which I believe you can't do with Barbie.
     
  22. longofest Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #24
    I have to agree. I don't claim to be an expert of CEO-Corporation law, but it seems really weird that a company would have the rights to have any say on this matter.

    I mean, Steve was also a board member of Disney... What is Disney was in favor of the figurine?

    Really, this kind of thing should be in the realm of Steve's estate (i.e. his family). They should have the say on whether or not the figure goes forward or not, and they should get a cut of the profits if it does.
     
  23. arkitect macrumors 603

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #25
    And in this case those IP rights would be… which ones exactly?
    :confused:
     

Share This Page