Apple Threatens Legal Action Over Upcoming Steve Jobs Figurine

[iPastor]

What Apple Has Become...

Apple has become what they criticized other companies for being: bullies. It is sad, as the company I appreciate is becoming a jerk.

Rather than always suing your competitors, just keep making the product better and let the consumer sort it out. They may buy a Samsung Tab because it looks like an iPad, they'll soon figure out it isn't.

I've said it before, but is worth repeating; rather than always telling what's wrong with your opponent, show what's right about you. It works in business, life, and even politics...

 

[rdowns]

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.

For all we know, the family could be asking Apple to do this.

 

[dakwar]

I heard about this on the radio yesterday but am seeing pictures of it just today. Holly molly this is a very detailed and realistic looking figurine!

Am not supporting the unauthorized making of it. But whoever made it did a great technical job of it!

 

[paul4339]

Did Apple invent Steve Jobs too ? (or was it the other way around?)

 

[HelveticaRoman]

As long as it has Siri....

 

[nick_elt]

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)

Did Apple invent Steve Jobs too ? (or was it the other way around?)

I thought Al Gore invented him?

 

[Kensai]

70 years?!

70 years is too much for a copyright of this kind. Why not lifetime of the person plus 20 years. Twenty years is still a lot of time to take advantage. Then give that [famous] person to the world, where it belongs.

 

[*LTD*]

So, Apple are now claiming to own Steve Jobs' face?

Okay, sure thing, Apple.

It's unauthorized. I'd imagine the estate of Steve Jobs would have something to say about this as well. It depends on who owns the rights to SJ's likeness in terms of products and marketing. It's an IP issue.

For instance, you can't just market a Shaquille O'Neal doll/figurine/product bearing his name without getting the required permissions.

 

[snitchseekers]

Notwithstanding the merits or lack thereof of the appropriation of the likeness of Steve, the iPhone depicted in the toy is probably an infringement of the copyright right to create a derivative work from the (likely) copyrighted artistic design of the iPhone, not to mention using Apple's trademark on the back of the toy without permission for commercial exploitation.

 

[Joos24]

Oh Apple.

I wish they'd give this perpetual lawsuit fever a rest.

Have you thought about it that Steve Jobs himself may have had this situation setup with Apple long ago. The man is an icon, of course companies would try and capitalize on his image. It's probably not "Apple" but more about Steve Jobs having his own image copyrighted and of course the doll is holding an iPhone with the Apple logo.
Geez, give it a rest blaming a company when you don't know all the facts.

 

[MacDawg]

For all we know, the family could be asking Apple to do this.

I would think the family would enlist Apple for this to use their clout, and rightfully so

Whether it is the family, or Apple (SJ may have given them legal custody of his "image", who knows), I personally have no problem with litigation to prevent this from going forward

 

[C00rDiNaT0r]

If they were to make figurines like this, they know people would pay for it even if they charge a premium. So why not invest into better material and processes to hide the joints, so at least it'd look elegant like Apple products? The tech is already there for years.. I remember seeing those Evangelion models with hidden elbow joints from Bandai, more than 10 years ago!

 

[AppleScruff1]

It's unauthorized. I'd imagine the estate of Steve Jobs would have something to say about this as well. It depends on who owns the rights to SJ's likeness in terms of products and marketing. It's an IP issue.

For instance, you can't just market a Shaquille O'Neal doll/figurine/product bearing his name without getting the required permissions.

Would you buy one?

 

[carlgo]

You pull a string and it cries spontaneously and screams at you with fifteen different insults. Caution: combustable and adult language. Not suitable for children or adults with self-esteem.

 

[Apple Key]

At least it looks a little more like him than the bronze statue.

 

[nick_elt]

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)

"so little kid, what do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a lawyer for Apple!"

 

[*LTD*]

Apple has become what they criticized other companies for being: bullies. It is sad, as the company I appreciate is becoming a jerk.

Rather than always suing your competitors, just keep making the product better and let the consumer sort it out. They may buy a Samsung Tab because it looks like an iPad, they'll soon figure out it isn't.

I've said it before, but is worth repeating; rather than always telling what's wrong with your opponent, show what's right about you. It works in business, life, and even politics...

Sorry. IP is IP. Anything bearing the Apple logo and even SJ's likeness has rights and legal considerations attached to it.

It isn't "bullying." Bullying implies the party is acting outside of their rights or exercising their rights beyond reasonable expectation. For Apple (or SJ's family via Apple) to object to this is perfectly understandable, and is nowhere near the kind of "abuse" you're alleging.

----------

Would you buy one?

No.

 

[arkitect]

Geez, give it a rest blaming a company when you don't know all the facts.

Well it seems that you do have all the facts, so please tell…

"so little kid, what do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a lawyer for Apple!"

Excellent.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'm no lawyer. But I can't see how Apple can claim to "Own" the likeness of it's sadly deceased founder.

Do you have a copy of Jobs' Last Will and Testament? If not how can you make this claim? If someone is famous enough then their likeness has value -- take Elvis for example. Do you think all that Elvis kitsch is made w/o a license? Because it's not --> http://www.elvis.com/licensing/

 

[Schranke]

I find the figurine of jobs as really bad taste, respect less for a person and it does look creepy. Would freak me out.

If the family of Steve ask for its production to stop, i think the firm there are making them should.

When apple claim to "own" Steve Jobs image or what ever, i think it is because Steve became so closely tied with the apple brand that no one can mention Steve without apple and the other way around.
Since Steve were the front figure of apple there are something there.
Don't know if there are some laws there would make it possible for apple to stop this madness, but i hope.
if not, i would like to see Sir Jonathan design a nice one and sell the **** out of them

But no way a law in california can be applied any other place in the world.
This might end wit it not being sold in cali, but thats about it.

 

[CylonGlitch]

Everybody knew this legal action was coming once the figurine was announced

I figured the $99 price tag was because of the money they had to pay to get the rights to make it. Guess not.

 

[Rafterman]

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.

Normally, I would agree, but in this case, it isn't a doll of just some random guy named Steve, its Steve Jobs specifically.

My argument would be that its the family of Steve Jobs who "owns" his likeness, not Apple, who should be making the complaint.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

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.

Yes, I head they have the "This sucks" version such as for holding an Android and the "This is insanely great" such as for holding the iPhone as pictured.

 

[Small White Car]

-- take Elvis for example. Do you think all that Elvis kitsch is made w/o a license? Because it's not --> http://www.elvis.com/licensing/

Excellent example. I'm shocked by the number of people here who are surprised by this or seem to think Apple is being evil.

Ok, so Steve assigned Apple to take care of this stuff instead of making his wife do it. I guess that's new news to us, but wow, there are people here who are arguing that that's wrong? What's the argument? That Steve shouldn't have had that right? Why not?

 

[Duncan-UK]

This is hilarious - but they could be onto a winner.

Imagine a whole range of these insanely great toys - maybe sell interchangeable heads showing Jobs over the last 15 years, and with a button on the back of the head for you to press to make the eyes glow yellow and emit a reality distortion field.

Wonder if you can get the hands to hold the iPhone 4 the "wrong way"