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.
'Immense Pressure' Leads to Cancellation of Steve Jobs Figurine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why, is there a statute of limitations on creating figurines of iGadget idols?
No, but apparently there's a statute of limitations on reading and/or understanding certain laws.
The law expressly forbids the use of person's likeness, voice, or signature without express permission of said person or their family for the person's entire lifetime and for a period of 70 years after their death. The creators of this figurine violated this law on two counts: likeness, and voice.
No, but apparently there's a statute of limitations on reading and/or understanding certain laws.
The law expressly forbids the use of person's likeness, voice, or signature without express permission of said person or their family for the person's entire lifetime and for a period of 70 years after their death. The creators of this figurine violated this law on two counts: likeness, and voice.
No one should be above the law. That would be wrong.
Doesn't much matter how one feels about it personally, except to you.
The moral of the story is, Apple can pressure anyone into anything, lawful, moral, or not, and get away with it. That is bad.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
I agree with you. I don't get why some people start calling names line "fandroids" or whatever to people that agreed that they should be able to produce the figurine. And what do we know about what the family asked apple to do? It is possible they asked them to help them license SJ image to the manufacturer or whatever, nobody here knows. But I truly believe that we will see an official figurine released eventually. And no, I will never buy one, but a lot of people will, and not to ridicule him, that's pretty easy to do with photoshop or in 3D etc.
Versus said:What the hell is "creepy" about a realistically sculpted doll? All you people that collect iThings do realize that there are others out there that collect stamps, salt shakers, and yes, toys and action figures, right?
Is this "creepy"?
How about this?
I understand why his family would be upset, and I also get why Legal action could be taken. It's probably not a good idea to go making something like this without permission, especially from Apple, but to criticize anyone who may have wanted one is pretty hypocritical for a group of individuals who stand in line for telephones, no?
Just sayin. Now down vote away!
I agree with you. I don't get why some people start calling names line "fandroids" or whatever to people that agreed that they should be able to produce the figurine. And what do we know about what the family asked apple to do? It is possible they asked them to help them license SJ image to the manufacturer or whatever, nobody here knows. But I truly believe that we will see an official figurine released eventually. And no, I will never buy one, but a lot of people will, and not to ridicule him, that's pretty easy to do with photoshop or in 3D etc.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Well the guy that wrote the biography is getting profit out of Steve Jobs, isn't he?
------------------
Again. You mean like hurrying the release of his Authorized biography? I don't really see a difference.
Well the guy that wrote the biography is getting profit out of Steve Jobs, isn't he?
------------------
Again. You mean like hurrying the release of his Authorized biography? I don't really see a difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but the author and publishers actually had an agreement with Jobs to publish the book - They get to make the decision on when to publish.
The book was pushed ahead yes, but the publisher has the right to do that usually.
Jobs is a public figure.
If it had not been for the family, they probably would've continued production. It can easily be argued that Steve Jobs is a public figure. He's an icon as much as an ipod is.
What's with people calling this weird? It's a figure, I doubt there's anyone posting here that doesn't own toys with likenesses of their favorite movie characters, played by real people, which the figures are modeled after.
The figure was made to honor Mr. Jobs, just like a statue.
I don't know why the family is so against it, except that they don't want a foreign company making money off of his death, and they know they'd be looked down upon if they actually struck a deal with that company.
If it had not been for the family, they probably would've continued production. It can easily be argued that Steve Jobs is a public figure. He's an icon as much as an ipod is.
What's with people calling this weird? It's a figure, I doubt there's anyone posting here that doesn't own toys with likenesses of their favorite movie characters, played by real people, which the figures are modeled after.
The figure was made to honor Mr. Jobs, just like a statue.
I don't know why the family is so against it, except that they don't want a foreign company making money off of his death, and they know they'd be looked down upon if they actually struck a deal with that company.
BTW my posts were missing the respective Qoutes.
That's precisely the point, it was authorized, Yes. They get the decision when to publish, Yes, but they could have delayed the publication out of respect for the family's grieving but No, they decided they would sell more copies if they publish so close to his death. Wasn't there a rumor on this site that there will be a revised version of the book coming out with the missing bits they didn't finish for doing this? Double profits.
Last edited:
Seems like this will become the next get-rich-quickly scheme:
1) Announce doll of Steve Jobs
2) Take pre-orders to generate publicity
3) Produce a few "prototypes", but never deliver any final dolls
4) "Bow" to media pressure and stop dolls
5) Sell prototypes for obscene amounts of money through obscure channels
6) PROFIT
-t
1) Announce doll of Steve Jobs
2) Take pre-orders to generate publicity
3) Produce a few "prototypes", but never deliver any final dolls
4) "Bow" to media pressure and stop dolls
5) Sell prototypes for obscene amounts of money through obscure channels
6) PROFIT
-t
It's only a matter of time
Once a mainland China company gets hold of one, you can expect millions of pirated figurines to flood the universe. I seriously doubt anyone could keep this from being sold for very long. After all, if there is a demand; supply will always follow, even if it's illegal or punishable by death.
Once a mainland China company gets hold of one, you can expect millions of pirated figurines to flood the universe. I seriously doubt anyone could keep this from being sold for very long. After all, if there is a demand; supply will always follow, even if it's illegal or punishable by death.
Why, is there a statute of limitations on creating figurines of iGadget idols?
For figurines, I believe a better term would be "statue" of limitations.
Yeah I agree it's creepy. It definitely falls into the uncanny valley thing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley. The face looks almost too real for a doll.
Kind of reminds me of the horror movies where the doll comes to life and starts attacking people. Not sure I could have this thing sitting around looking at me. Lol.
Wazz just happened to religious freedom ? This is not a moment of Zen. Where is da american Buddha ?
Last edited:
How is this legal/illegal?
I have to agree - and I wish his family would re-think this. Sure if they want a cut, that's OK, but Steve is/was beloved, warts and all, and this is just a way for people to show it.
Very much a public figure (whatever that is), and an action figure is no different than the thousands of magazines that published stories and photos, books that have/will be written, etc. It's all a way of amplifying his life's work and the respect and awe we all share for his achievements.
Again, I hope when cooler heads prevail, Steve's family will see it as a way of sharing him with the world.
I have to agree - and I wish his family would re-think this. Sure if they want a cut, that's OK, but Steve is/was beloved, warts and all, and this is just a way for people to show it.
Very much a public figure (whatever that is), and an action figure is no different than the thousands of magazines that published stories and photos, books that have/will be written, etc. It's all a way of amplifying his life's work and the respect and awe we all share for his achievements.
Again, I hope when cooler heads prevail, Steve's family will see it as a way of sharing him with the world.
This is not really the right place for a full and complete treatise on the concepts of Fair Use and the Right of Publicity, but here goes:
1) Sports Figures get action figures made because Major League Baseball, the NFL, etc, have licensing deals with the companies making the figures. And a standard part of each player's contract lets the league in question control that players image in his team uniform. ie. You can make a Tim Tebow bobble head provided he's wearing a Broncos uniform (and you have a licensing deal with the NFL). You can't make a Tim Tebow bobble head if he's wearing jeans and a polo shirt.
2) George Bush and Barack Obama are probably examples of the ultimate in "public figures" - and any attempt to prevent people making Bobble heads out of them would probably be defeated on First Amendment grounds. No matter how tacky, the maker could make a legitimate claim that the bobble head was a form of protected political expression.
3) SuperMan, Darth Vader and Green Lantern figures are made under license from the film makers and/or Marvel Comics etc. And the actors who portray those on-screen characters agree to that portrayal as part of their acting contracts. Again - you can make a SuperMan figure that looks like Christopher Reeve, as long as he's wearing the cape and leotard. You can't make a Christopher Reeve figure thats wearing "civilian" clothes.
4) The Steve Jobs statue thats going up is (probably) not worth suing over, since in most Jurisdictions it would be considered "art", and thus protected. You can take a photograph of Wayne Rooney in street clothes and put it in your newspaper. You can write an article about Wayne Rooney's bad behavior and put it in your newspaper. You can't make and sell a bobble-head of Wayne Rooney wearing jeans and a t-shirt (even if its the same outfit he was wearing in the news photograph you published in your newspaper) because that is no longer considered "artistic" or "journalistic", and crosses over into "commercial exploitation." See the difference?
1) Sports Figures get action figures made because Major League Baseball, the NFL, etc, have licensing deals with the companies making the figures. And a standard part of each player's contract lets the league in question control that players image in his team uniform. ie. You can make a Tim Tebow bobble head provided he's wearing a Broncos uniform (and you have a licensing deal with the NFL). You can't make a Tim Tebow bobble head if he's wearing jeans and a polo shirt.
2) George Bush and Barack Obama are probably examples of the ultimate in "public figures" - and any attempt to prevent people making Bobble heads out of them would probably be defeated on First Amendment grounds. No matter how tacky, the maker could make a legitimate claim that the bobble head was a form of protected political expression.
3) SuperMan, Darth Vader and Green Lantern figures are made under license from the film makers and/or Marvel Comics etc. And the actors who portray those on-screen characters agree to that portrayal as part of their acting contracts. Again - you can make a SuperMan figure that looks like Christopher Reeve, as long as he's wearing the cape and leotard. You can't make a Christopher Reeve figure thats wearing "civilian" clothes.
4) The Steve Jobs statue thats going up is (probably) not worth suing over, since in most Jurisdictions it would be considered "art", and thus protected. You can take a photograph of Wayne Rooney in street clothes and put it in your newspaper. You can write an article about Wayne Rooney's bad behavior and put it in your newspaper. You can't make and sell a bobble-head of Wayne Rooney wearing jeans and a t-shirt (even if its the same outfit he was wearing in the news photograph you published in your newspaper) because that is no longer considered "artistic" or "journalistic", and crosses over into "commercial exploitation." See the difference?
You're right - the time frame is what matters here. In a couple of years from now, that right dissolves and they couldn't stop anyone from producing a Steve Jobs Action Figure or whatever you would want to call it. They could also not stop anyone from using Steve's likeness in a movie, video game or whatever. The time that has to elapse varies in different countries, but the general consensus is that the longer a person is dead, the less his or her 'personal rights' are still protected by the law.
Simple example: Nobody could keep anybody from making an Abraham Lincoln Action Figure, you could probably also publish an Eisenhower Action Figure but Ronald Reagan's family might still be able to keep you from doing it.
On the other hand, there have ALWAYS been legal exceptions for so-called "persons of public interest". However, how far these exceptions go also depends on the local law.
In any case, I doubt that Asian or African laws care much for the individual rights of a dead American citizen and I'm not sure if Jobs's family or Apple would get far with a lawsuit against that doll in Tibet, China or Japan. If they produce and sell it there, probably nobody would be able to do anything against it. Things would be slightly different if it was a Mao or Kim-Jong Il Action Figure...
Anyway. It's still tasteless, to put it mildly, to abuse a recently diseased person in such a way. But somehow it's also not that far away from releasing an "updated and enhanced" edition of his authorized biography or from "making a movie about his life" now that he is dead. It's all impious - if that is the right word for it in your language (I'm not a native speaker).
Except the publisher was doing exactly what the deceased would have wanted. The family knew the book was going to come out anyway - it was fully authorized. I don't see this as the same thing since we are talking about something that Jobs knew and wanted to be released. You are quibbling about the date being insensitive. Trouble is, we are talking about something that was planned to be released anyway.
Rumor doesn't equal fact.