re original article
the figurines look freakishly real
would be sorta freaky meeting someone with one
i want one made in my own image
just for freakish kicks
Apple and Steve's family have every right, both legal and personal, to not allow this figurine this soon after Steve's death.
I'm sure many people would enjoy snuggling with it like a teddy bear, help fall asleep.
I mean seriously...a Steve Jobs figurine...come on...
Probably because it was "immensely unauthorized" under law.
Okay, let's be realistic. This was not motivated by any love for Steve Jobs. This was nothing more than a naked attempt to cash in on the emotions we all feel for an iconic man who changed the world. Had this truly been based on altruistic motives, the maker would have been donating all profits to pancreatic cancer research. Pure, naked capitalism.
I felt that the doll was creepy when it was first announced. However, I did not feel Apple owned his likeness, and that legal action was unwarranted..
Making a doll in your own image while you are still alive is a lot different. I'm glad this tasteless item has been pulled. As for Apple making one? Not a chance. Let's hope this has been put to bed once in for all.
I've never understood that. I want a jersey with my name on it. Seriously, what is wrong with people?? Humility is a positive, but self-deprecation is silly.Why would I want a jersey with some sports guys name and number on it anyway?![]()
People worship the Green Bay Packers. <<--- Not a joke or hyperbole.These types of comments have no place in this forum. This comment is only meant to only provoke hostility.
Nobody 'worships' Steve Jobs or Apple like their God, just like nobody 'worships' Obama, Coca Cola or the Chicago Bears. People are 'fans' of these things. Saying what you said is pointless, and does not help in any discussion.
In many Jurisdictions there is indeed a legal concept called (by some) the Right of Publicity. Basically this holds that companies cannot appropriate the likeness of a person for commercial use without their express permission. A landmark case involved Samsung, which created a robot that looked, sounded and acted like Wheel of Fortune hostess Vanna White. The court found that Samsung had infringed on Vanna White's image, and awarded her more than $400,000. (I'll leave the irony of Samsung's involvement unremarked on...)
Apple certainly didn't own Steve Jobs "Right to Publicity", especially after his death. I think in this case those rights would have passed on to Steve's family, and Apple simply was doing this (at the family's request) to save them the hassle of having to hire lawyers to communicate with the company in Hong Kong.
Its worth noting that "Right To Publicity" doesn't preclude so-called "fair use" of Steve Jobs (or Barack Obama, Derek Jeter, Russell Crowe, or anybody else's) image in journalistic or artistic settings. You can paint a painting, draw a cartoon, or write an article praising or condemning any of these people without fear of infringement. But this doll didn't fall into either of those categories.
Furtunately David did not work for Apple.
Totally awesome post, dude!!1!![]()
Unless Apple has legal rights to Steve's likeness (which isn't too farfetched), then there isn't any legal basis for them to pursue In Icons. Not that it's stopped them before.
I'm leaning towards this being more in respect to Steve's family and colleagues, which I actually understand.
This may be a personal taste, but I wouldn't want anyone making life-like action figures of my deceased loved ones (famous or otherwise). Especially not this soon. You might think different, but this isn't just about a doll.