Apple Sues Steve Jobs Figurine Maker Over Likeness 172
eldavojohn writes "Techdirt brings word that China-based MIC Gadget, the maker of a four inch 'SJ figurine,' is being sued by Apple to stop making the product. The fairly well detailed figurine went for $80 and the manufacturer offered updates as it quickly sold out of the first 300 and was subsequently sued before starting a second batch. The glasses, the black turtle neck, the salt and pepper beard, the blue jeans and the new balance sneakers — that is Steve Jobs' look and you don't even have to consider the smug look or the iPhone 4 in his hand while standing in a classic press event spotlight pose. So far, this notice for copyright infringement only exists for the 'SJ figurine' (no mention of Apple or Jobs in the store listing) but it appears other companies are allowing MIC Gadget some leeway with trademarks or perhaps they just haven't noticed yet. Could it be that Apple is just concerned that their followers are purchasing lead-painted false idols?"
Personality Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
In reality this is probably just an annoyed Apple lawyer with too much time on his hand muscling a little guy into submission. They're foreign and can be made to look like leeches, I'm sure. The real kicker is that, as the lawyer on Techdirt mentions, there's no clear motive for this, is Apple making a competing figurine that they're losing sales on? Is the figurine somehow damaging to Mr. Jobs? If it's a parody of Steve Jobs doesn't that fall under fair use? So many questions but the answer will always be "Who has the most money and lawyers?" And that's Apple.
why would anyone buy this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are turtle necks really that hot?
Re:Personality Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
It falls under straightforward trademark infringement for the shape of the base of the figurine.
He's a public figure (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry Apple, but you can stuff this "cease and disist letter" right up your ass. Steve Jobs is a public figure and this work can be considered a parody, regardless of it's "for profit" status. Don't you have an App in the App Store to censor out of existence?
I have plenty of Apple products, but it seems with every passing day Apple finds a way to make me like them less and less.
Re:What is the basis for the suit? (Score:2, Insightful)
The figurine maker could easily make an argument on fair use grounds -- so long as the figurine doesn't make portable media players, smartphones, computers or other consumer electronics, I'd say they were pretty safe to claim fair use as an affirmative defense (IANAL, etc.) (And, no, I don't forsee Apple going into the figurine business.) (The rules that apply to trademark fair use aren't the same as the rules that apply to copyright fair use, but the legal intent is roughly the same.)
Where they get into trouble is in using Steve Jobs' own image without his consent; except that Apple doesn't have ground to sue for Steve Jobs' image, only Steve Jobs does.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the basis for the suit? (Score:3, Insightful)
if I was an Apple shareholder I'd be annoyed Jobs was using the company resources for his own personal purposes.
If you were an Apple shareholder you should be very, very, very grateful to Jobs for making you a lot of money.
Change the name... (Score:1, Insightful)
When Carl Sagan got pissy about the an Apple project code-named "Sagan", they changed it to "Butthead Astronomer".
Clearly, these folks should just change the name of thier figurine to "Butthead CEO"
Re:What is the basis for the suit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Woah - how does that fall under fair use grounds?
From what I understand, THESE constitute fair use:
commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
I can't stamp a Microsoft logo on a coffee mug and claim fair use. What kind of wacky world are you living in?