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

Im going to order one as soon I get paid, do you know how much this doll is going to be worth in 10 years? ALOT, more if they win the lawsuit and stop producing them. The only dolls outthere will be pricelss.
 
I am saddened that there is not a Bill Gates one. Maybe an Al Gore one (I have lots of fireworks left over).
 
faroZ06 said:
A generalization. There are pirating sites hosted in Russia
...
And SOPA will allow the US government to force US ISPs to block offending IPs, including foreign ones.
Click to expand...

why do you think this sites is for US users? they are for post-USSR audience
SOPA is only american iron curtain
 
EricBrian said:
This is a Chinese company. US laws do not apply in China. So, they can present all kinds of US laws but if there is no comparable Chinese law, then tough luck. So, anybody know if there is a similar Chinese law?
Click to expand...

The "personality right" isn't recognised by any of the international copyright conventions, so they are effectively US only laws that have no equivalent in virtually any other country in the world.

Which will present Apple's legal team with very significant problems. They can try to do some stuff around trademarks, but a suitable disclaimer and not using Jobs' name on the actual packaging more or less sidesteps them.

Phazer

EDIT: Actually, having checked this China IS one of the few countries that also implements one (you can count them on one hand, but I knew I should have double checked). If the company moved to virtually any other nation on Earth though, Apple are legally screwed.
 
Last edited:
The Phazer said:
The "personality right" isn't recognised by any of the international copyright conventions, so they are effectively US only laws that have no equivalent in virtually any other country in the world.

Which will present Apple's legal team with very significant problems. They can try to do some stuff around trademarks, but a suitable disclaimer and not using Jobs' name on the actual packaging more or less sidesteps them.

Phazer
Click to expand...

I would assume that while it is about them not wanting there to be a Steve Jobs action figure, they will go after the iPhone accessory. Which seems fair enough as otherwise any toy manufacturer could use the iPhone and Apple's branding in their products.
 
This is silly. The other Steve Jobs figurine someone made a while back was not allowed for sale either. So why would this one be any different?

The maker of this new figurine should have known the story of the last one and got all the legalities squared up before he went into production.
 
I'm getting one...He can stand right between my detailed Boba Fett and Lone Wolf and Cub figurines

----------
Umbongo said:
I would assume that while it is about them not wanting there to be a Steve Jobs action figure, they will go after the iPhone accessory. Which seems fair enough as otherwise any toy manufacturer could use the iPhone and Apple's branding in their products.
Click to expand...

Apple just wants a cut of the profits....and if they get it these will be on Apple store shelves
 
Sounds like a fight for Mr. Jobs' estate as the owner to his likeness/endorsement. Is Apple suing over an Apple product this is in the figure's hand?
 
cdesigns said:
Im going to order one as soon I get paid, do you know how much this doll is going to be worth in 10 years? ALOT, more if they win the lawsuit and stop producing them. The only dolls outthere will be pricelss.
Click to expand...

I saw the last version of the Steve Jobs figure selling for around $500 on eBay prior to his death. I believe those sold for around $100 before they had to halt production as well.
 
*LTD* said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

zoetmb said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've both just proved my point I was trying to make.

IP is intellectual property. Likeness is just that - likeness. It may be treated *LIKE* IP, but it is NOT IP. Period.

Celebrities have an "act" which can be easily bucketed into IP. Lady Gaga, a rapper's image - all an act which is thought up by the brain. A likeness is NOT an act or IP. However, likeness is still not able to be used by just anyone since someone owns that likeness - the person who is being "replicated".

There is a very clear difference, and if you were to say a likeness was IP in a court room, you'd probably get a very confused and surprised glance from most of the lawyers in the room. Sure, it's treated the same way, because the laws are applicable to both. You're still using something unauthorized that is someone else's.

But the are both very different things to be sure.
 
Renzatic said:
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".

ImageImage
ImageImage
Image

Scared the hell out of me, that's for sure. I mean in today's economy...
Click to expand...

Okay, that's the funniest post I've seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh. :D
 
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.

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...

Yes, they definitely could...

I live in south america and you'd be surprised at the many characters figures you could find with slightly different names.... Im sure if they did that they would make it even harder on apple... Like "Steve Mops" :)

----------
Michaelgtrusa said:
Really. It's ok, it's made in china! Everyone's ok with that right? Treason!
Click to expand...

You clearly have no clue of where 99% of the object in your house come from, now do you..? :rolleyes:
 
walterg74 said:
Yes, they definitely could...

I live in south america and you'd be surprised at the many characters figures you could find with slightly different names.... Im sure if they did that they would make it even harder on apple... Like "Steve Mops" :)

----------



You clearly have no clue of where 99% of the object in your house come from, now do you..? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes I do, do you?
 
So.. they can't sell it in California?

It'll be fun seeing them enforce this one. Change the logo a bit and it'll be in court for years, and for what?
 
This as got me thinking, Could I sue my brother for looking like me? only I could do with some extra cash :rolleyes:
 
This is the funniest thing I have ever seen. And I bet there are Apple fans that would actually buy this. A $100 doll of a dude that invented electronics (really good electronics).
 
Kensai said:
Then give that [famous] person to the world, where it belongs. :apple:
Click to expand...

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.
 
those asians again!

Looks pretty good though , I could make a stop frame animation with this doll, maybe they will make a Bill Gates one too? I wonder if they fit with my old WWF wrestling ring? :D
 
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