Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Threatens Legal Action Over Upcoming Steve Jobs Figurine

re original article

they should have obtained a licence from aapl

but the company sure makes damn realistic dolls

i wouldnt mind if they could make one of me
 
longofest said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Apple owns the rights, it's because Jobs or his estate contracted them to Apple...
 
couldn't they still do this, but just not have any Apple logos on it at all and not call the figurine "Steve Jobs". But could call it "Visionary CEO" or "God of Hipster-Douchebags" (depending on what side of the fence you fell) or something like that.

Even though the likeness is totally Steve Jobs, if they don't call it that or even refer to that in any of it's packaging or advertisements, couldn't they get away with it? Hell, they could even angle it as a parody of something and totally get away with it.

There was an artist some years ago that made a sculpture of a pregnant Britney Spears in a very unflattering pose. I don't think he was sued or given a C&D.
 
Joos24 said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What if you happened to look exactly the same as him. Could Apple bar you from appearing in any kind of advertisement of movie?
 
completely agree

iPastor said:
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...
Click to expand...

Very well said iPastor. If the product is great all you need is great word of mouth and folks will buy it.

Honestly, all these lawsuits are ridiculous. I could understand Steve's family having an issue with this figure (which is very creepy).

I wouldn't buy it. I buy figures of fictional characters, not real folks.

I do not like the direction Apple is going in myself...it's almost embarrassing.
 
Chopper9 said:
Relax Apple... its not that big a deal.
Click to expand...

The "Action Figure Doll" is just hilarious.

Sadly Apple & many of it's followers have no sense of humor, much less the desire to relax. One look at the anger spewing posts in the forum reveals that.

Anyone who thinks for themselves and dares to express anything other than total agreement with Apple becomes a target.

This is dead serious business for them.
 
Surely this is a lawsuit for the Jobs family, and not Apple. A company cant own a persons likeness...

(Sidenote: Sorry but if you even for a minute would consider buying this, you have issues...creepy as hell!)
 
Anyone here consider the possibility that SJ assigned the rights of his likeness to Apple?

And either way isn't our appearance our own? Why should some random action figure company have the right to make a quick buck off of Steve's legacy?
 
A company's ridiculous claim to owning the likeness rights to their deceased founder aside.....who in their right mind would actually buy this thing?
 
Pity, I was hoping to purchase one of these…
After all, It's a standard 12'' figure… It would go nicely with my other figures…
 
ugahairydawgs said:
A company's ridiculous claim to owning the likeness rights to their deceased founder aside.....who in their right mind would actually buy this thing?
Click to expand...

I don't know...I'd buy one. If anything, if this get's shut down and these things become rare, I'd store it somewhere and my grand-child 50 or 60 years from now could go on Antiques Roadshow and get it appraised. :D
 
vitzr said:
The "Action Figure Doll" is just hilarious.

Sadly Apple & many of it's followers have no sense of humor, much less the desire to relax. One look at the anger spewing posts in the forum reveals that.

Anyone who thinks for themselves and dares to express anything other than total agreement with Apple becomes a target.

This is dead serious business for them.
Click to expand...

You don't get voted down because you disagree with Apple.

You get voted down because you like to hijack threads. Like, say, coming into a thread about an action figure and writing 7 words about the doll and 50 words about how we all suck.

But sure, the down votes are only because we like Apple. :rolleyes:


EDIT: Your post reminded me of a comment I made yesterday. Yeah...check out all the negative votes I got for that one!
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/14109918/
 
Last edited:
vitzr said:
The "Action Figure Doll" is just hilarious.

Sadly Apple & many of it's followers have no sense of humor, much less the desire to relax. One look at the anger spewing posts in the forum reveals that.

Anyone who thinks for themselves and dares to express anything other than total agreement with Apple becomes a target.

This is dead serious business for them.
Click to expand...

Cavalier treatment of someone's likeness in this regard is always a problem. You seem to think IP is just one big free-for-all. It isn't. And if the facts have a pro-Apple bias in this case, then that's what the facts happen to be.

Do you honestly think anyone can just use SJ's likeness (or any public figure's - past or present) without consulting Apple or his estate? Get real. Exercise a little common sense.
 
Johnf1285 said:
So Apple owns the rights to what Steve Jobs looked like? That's insane!
Click to expand...

People are allowed to copyright their own likenesses. Sports stars and celebrities do this either to protect themselves or get royalties when companies make action figures. My guess is that Steve Jobs copyrighted his likeness and either granted Apple rights to it or entrusted it to them as a executor to prevent others from using it after his death.
 
Only a deceased megalomanic like Steve Jobs would ensure that his company owns the rights to his likeness after he dies.

Usually we here about the estate or a foundation setup perserving the rights of a dead person and their properties, but it doesn't surprise me that Apple probably has rights to every inch of Steve's life after his passing.
 
*LTD* said:
Cavalier treatment of someone's likeness is always a problem. You seem to think IP is just one big free-for-all. It isn't. And if the facts have a pro-Apple bias, then that's what the facts happen to be.

Do you honestly think anyone can just use SJ's likeness (or any public figure's - past or present) without consulting Apple or his estate? Get real. Exercise a little common sense.
Click to expand...

If some random guy on the street or even someone in this forum were to see their photo or likeness on some advertisement without their consent, they'd scream bloody murder. But if someone like Jobs or some other celebrity does the same thing they call that person a douche or whatever.
 
ksgant said:
couldn't they still do this, but just not have any Apple logos on it at all and not call the figurine "Steve Jobs". But could call it "Visionary CEO" or "God of Hipster-Douchebags" (depending on what side of the fence you fell) or something like that.

Even though the likeness is totally Steve Jobs, if they don't call it that or even refer to that in any of it's packaging or advertisements, couldn't they get away with it? Hell, they could even angle it as a parody of something and totally get away with it.
Click to expand...

If the likeness is too obvious, they likely wouldn't be able to sell it in the US or countries with similar laws.

ksgant said:
There was an artist some years ago that made a sculpture of a pregnant Britney Spears in a very unflattering pose. I don't think he was sued or given a C&D.
Click to expand...

Art can qualify as "fair use." If the artist had made thousands of copies and wanted to sell them commercially, he might have needed permission. It gets tricky with things like photos. If someone takes a picture of someone in a public place, the photo belongs to the person who took it (and not the subject).

I recall the AP getting into a legal dispute with the artist who drew the iconic Obama silkscreen painting in 2008 (the "Hope" one), since they claimed it was based on a news photo they had taken at a press conference.
 
longofest said:
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.
Click to expand...


Great example and you should probably delve deeper, because I do believe Disney Corp has control over the use of Walt's likeness.
 
KPOM said:
If the likeness is too obvious, they likely wouldn't be able to sell it in the US or countries with similar laws.



Art can qualify as "fair use." If the artist had made thousands of copies and wanted to sell them commercially, he might have needed permission. It gets tricky with things like photos. If someone takes a picture of someone in a public place, the photo belongs to the person who took it (and not the subject).

I recall the AP getting into a legal dispute with the artist who drew the iconic Obama silkscreen painting in 2008 (the "Hope" one), since they claimed it was based on a news photo they had taken at a press conference.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see the distinction now. That makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back