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

'Immense Pressure' Leads to Cancellation of Steve Jobs Figurine

What are the odds that Apple release their own official version in Apple stores sometime soon.

That's usually how these deals work.

I love Apple but I do think this figure is just a little too far.
 
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
 
nylonsteel said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Coltaine said:
I mean seriously...a Steve Jobs figurine...come on...
Click to expand...

What could be crazier?

mark-zuckerberg-action-figure.png
 
*LTD* said:
Probably because it was "immensely unauthorized" under law.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. For those that don't agree you may want to read up on "ignorance of the law" not being a valid defense and "likeness infringement" pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3344.

"(a)Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof."

----------
johncrab said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly my take on this too.
 
Shrink said:
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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Macman45 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not unlike the think different ads where deceased icons were used to hock apple products they never would have used or endorsed. They should keep making the figure. Steve didn't mind when Pablo Picasso was selling his computers.
 
phillipduran said:
Why would I want a jersey with some sports guys name and number on it anyway? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
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.
bbeagle said:
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.
Click to expand...
People worship the Green Bay Packers. <<--- Not a joke or hyperbole.
 
vrDrew said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting information. I stand corrected on the legal issues.:D
 
I'm glad to hear this. It looked like the figurine was going to be high quality, but that doesn't change the lack of taste. Legal or illegal, I'm glad this was the result.
 
krFALCON said:
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.
Click to expand...

This company was going by foreign law though. You can't use anyone's likeness here like that and not get slapped with a law suit.
 
Damn. I ordered one.

Anyway, I await the next business to step up to the plate. Only a matter of time.
 
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