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 Threatens Legal Action Over Upcoming Steve Jobs Figurine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure what to make of this - a little bit tasteless, yet kind of well done, yet kind of creepy?... 
Regardless, wouldn't Steve's "image rights" belong to his estate if anything, not to Apple? Can companies claim such ownership over their founders and past CEOs? That wouldn't seem logical to me.
Regardless, wouldn't Steve's "image rights" belong to his estate if anything, not to Apple? Can companies claim such ownership over their founders and past CEOs? That wouldn't seem logical to me.
that shuts me up! i guess as he got thinner he needed the belt. i don't think he wore a belt when he first started that look...but thanks for correcting me.
Duty
Here's the thing. If you believe you own the right to something you have an obligation to shareholders to protect that property. In this case it's the Icon of Apple and someone we all admire. So if Apple feel they have a case I say go for it. Personally I think the doll idea is in bad taste. If it were of Sarah Palin I would feel different. Next thing you'll hear is Samsung is making a copy of it. Go for it Samsung. Your copypad is horrible so why not make dolls.
Here's the thing. If you believe you own the right to something you have an obligation to shareholders to protect that property. In this case it's the Icon of Apple and someone we all admire. So if Apple feel they have a case I say go for it. Personally I think the doll idea is in bad taste. If it were of Sarah Palin I would feel different. Next thing you'll hear is Samsung is making a copy of it. Go for it Samsung. Your copypad is horrible so why not make dolls.
Sigh... this is at least the second post where you say that Steve's likeness is IP. IP is intellectual property, that which is thought up with the brain. Unless SJ was a test-tube baby that some geneticists formulated, his likeness is NOT IP. Please at least get that right.
If anything, Apple has been entrusted by the estate of SJ to protect his likeness. Apple, the company, has no other case. Even the assignment of his likeness to the corporation is shaky - Apple is required to do right by shareholders, not SJ. If a conflict should arise, the shareholders win out. Steve's estate should be entrusting his likeness with a law firm, really. If I were a shareholder of Apple stock, I'd want the company to protect its rights, and not be wasting cash in court defending a prior CEO's likeness. SJ's estate surely has enough to afford their own suit without involving the company.
That's what I would think. I don't see how Apple would own Job's image. Furthermore, this isn't an open and shut case as some of the laws are fuzzy. For example, I believe that since Steve was a public figure, I can legally use his image in artwork if I'm not selling the artwork. Once I sell copies (as this company obviously is) image rights come into play. But since this company isn't U.S. based, that also changes things.
One thing Apple might be able to get them on is not the image of Steve, but making that miniature iPhone.
However, just the threat of a lawsuit from Apple might shut this down. If this is a small company, they might not be able to defend a lawsuit even if Apple is in the wrong.
Personally, I think Apple should just let it go. I think they'll garner an incredible amount of negative publicity by going after this company.
Last edited:
I don't believe Apple owns the rights to "Steve Jobs" the person. If anyone should be threatening legal action it should be Steve Jobs' estate. It sounds weird for Apple to be getting involved. I don't think Apple would have any standing.
Because it is.
http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide26.htm
Personality Rights is an area of intellectual property that has gained most attention in the US for protection of pop culture idols such as Elvis Presley and that poses interesting challenges for internet publishing.
A range of US states have devised legislation aimed at preventing unauthorised commercial use of an individual's name or likeness, giving that person (or their estate) an exclusive right to license the use of the identity for commercial purposes. Celebrities, with some success, have sought to use such legislation or court rulings about 'passing off' to provide protection from media intrusions.
http://www.dww.com/?page_id=1034#V.c
c) Assignment and Licensing of Personality Rights
Personality rights may be licensed or assigned.47 Personality rights devolve to heirs, so a license or assignment should also bind heirs and successors.48 Most other types of intellectual property rights can be precisely defined, for example, by reference to a government registration number or technical aspects of the intellectual property. Personality rights are not subject to a registration system and the extent of personality rights have not been well defined by courts. Clear definition of the transferred rights is critical. In a licensing deal, the licensed uses (commercial or non-commercial) for an image or other personality right should also be clearly defined.
Copyright and trade-mark issues should also be considered. A license or assignment of copyright and moral rights may be needed from either the person with property rights in the personality or a third party (such as a photographer). Taking an assignment or license of personality rights does not grant the right to infringe a copyright. If the image of a living individual (or image that suggests a connection with a living individual) is being purchased for an intended use in a trade-mark, this type of trade-mark use is prohibited by Trade-marks Act.
Further reading:
http://www.iposgoode.ca/category/ip/trademarks/personality-rights/
http://www.jurispub.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=9134
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/merchandising.htm
http://www.blakes.com/DBIC/guide/html/canada-31.htm
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer, but I've developed rights management software applications for the last seven years and as far as the clients are concerned, image likeness is most definitely treated as IP. Whether the image is the one we were born with or one made up (such as Jack Pierce's Frankenstein monster makeup for Universal's 1931 version of Frankenstein) makes no legal difference as far as the media and publishing companies who I've worked with are concerned. One of our applications was for a major sports league and there's no difference between the way a team logo or the likeness of one of its players is licensed and handled.
If you guys went to the manufacturer's web page, they are taking $99 pre-orders and say "refunded if out of stock". How do we know that the images aren't simply CGI renderings and that this company isn't simply scamming people for $99? When the figurine never actually ships due to Apple's threat, the company keeps your money saying "we have plenty of stock, Apple just won't let us ship it". Try to get a refund from an overseas company trying to rip you off... good luck with that!
1) You don't get voted down because you disagree with Apple.
2) You get voted down because you like to hijack threads.
3) 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.
4) But sure, the down votes are only because we like Apple.
1) I did not say "I get voted down" in my post I clearly stated "anyone" because that's how it is. Try reading the post you are responding to.
2) You couldn't be more wrong. Or perhaps the definition of "hijack" escapes you. My response is specific to this thread. Followed by a comment based on how others post.
3) Stop making up stories. To quote you:"and 50 words about how we all suck."
I didn't say you all suck... You did.
4) Yes, many people come across that way.
Why not lighten up, I searched the forum and no where does it state having a sense of humor and enjoying oneself is against the rules...
I would buy it simply for its resale value on eBay after this company is shut down. Remember the Steve Jobs figure that came out last year before it was shut down? Some people who did get their hands on them re-sold them on eBay for thousands of dollars each. That particular figurine is now a collector's item as I'm sure this will be if a few pieces ship before Apple (or whomever) shuts them down.
Cha-ching!
Even with the RDF, I still suspect that that for USD $99.00 you are getting off cheap.
You know that the Steve Ballmer doll is going to be at least $250.00 by the time they get it to sweat and scream "developers, developers, developers".
You know that the Steve Ballmer doll is going to be at least $250.00 by the time they get it to sweat and scream "developers, developers, developers".
It's an action figure, not a figurine, because it uses two AA batteries and creates a Reality Distortion Field.
.
Attachments
Excellent post!
It's quite nice to hear from the voice of intellect, common sense, and right thinking.
Cheers...
Due to my connections as an "insider" in the "movie industry", I've managed to dig up a few frames of just that...
The shots below are scenes from "Stevie: The Consolidationing".
Scared the hell out of me, that's for sure. I mean in today's economy...
Last edited:
we should all get life, leaving 100+ comments on the post about action figurine of SJ is just insane