I wonder if your children would feel the same about someone using your face? Famous people don't have different rights in law than unfamous people. Everyone is known in their circles, how large those circles are is irrelevant to the spirit of the law.
Faces aren't copyrightable. Only images of faces are copyrightable, this is why a photograph is by default owned by the photographer and not the subject.
California has a Right of Publicity act granted to estates, meaning they can determine how to use a likeness. This is also how celebrities sue paparazzi.
[more]
- Steve is for all intents and purposes, the face of Apple.
- The statuette recreates how Steve looked while giving keynotes, his "business" persona. It is in Apple's interest to prevent people from knocking off "CEO" merchandise.
- It is entirely possible for the Jobs family to use Apple to express their rights. Whether they win or not is entirely separate. This is the Cease & Desist phase, not the courtroom phase. Similar things happened with Princess Diana.
- It is also possible that Steve willed certain rights to Apple to act on behalf of his estate. This used to be done in Hollywood when celebrities had no estate to take on the rights, but the studios were still earning money on their likeness. The Lugosi rulings upheld that before the act was implemented to favour estates.
