Apple Threatens Steve Jobs Doll Maker With Lawsuit 314
redletterdave writes "Apple has allegedly threatened to sue Chinese company 'In Icons' over its eerily realistic 12-inch action figure of Steve Jobs, the company's late founder and CEO. The 1:6 scale model, which was said to be distributed by DiD Corp. in late February, comes with the clothes and accessories popularized by Jobs, such as the black faux turtleneck, blue jeans and sneakers. The figurine is packaged in a box that looks like Walter Isaacson's 'Steve Jobs' biography cover, and also comes with a 'One More Thing...' backdrop, as well as two red apples, including one with a bite in it. To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare. Apple reportedly wrote 'In Icons', telling the Chinese manufacturer that any toy that resembles Apple's logo or products, or Job's name or appearance, is a 'criminal offense.' Attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the 'right of publicity,' which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death."
Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
Actually you're mistaken.
The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to let people know when you are being sarcastic as many are too dumb to realise...
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Funny)
Actually you're mistaken.
The United States passed a law that all U.S. laws apply in foreign countries.
Ah yes, the "American Mandated Exercises Regarding InterContinental Actions For Underlying Causes to Keep Your Earnings At Home" Act. Good one, that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
why would i follow ur dumb countries laws??? are you stupid?
Speaking of stupid...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is filing this? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.
Re:Apple is filing this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple is filing this? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.
It's got to be either a) Apple is doing this at the request of his family/estate or b) Steve Jobs gave his personality rights to Apple...which while creepy is not all that far fetched considering how he micromanaged everything to death (no pun intended).
Re: (Score:3)
Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?
Re:Apple is filing this? (Score:4, Informative)
Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?
Steve Jobs did. Hell, he / his company sued at least "likeness doll" maker while he was alive... that set the precedent.
Re:Apple is filing this? (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
While Apple's copyright infringement claims are questionable, attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the "right of publicity," which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.
"[Jobs's estate] has every right to enforce this," said Lawrence Townsend, an attorney with IP firm Owen, Wickersham and Erickson, based in San Francisco. "I expect there will be a lawsuit to follow."
Currently, there is no successor-in-interest claim for Steve Jobs in California's special filing registry. However, a claim for "Steve Jobs" or "Steven Paul Jobs" can be filed and registered at any time by Jobs's estate.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably this State law will only apply to sales of this doll in California. So if it's sold with a disclaimer: "not for sale in California" and they refuse to ship there, shouldn't it be in the clear?
Re:Apple is filing this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, but how does that mean that Apple is capable of suing on behalf of a dead CEO of the company?
Face it, if this was anyone else, you would all immediately see how ridiculous it is.
Re:Apple is filing this? (Score:5, Informative)
Who the f*** grants rights to "personality"?
The law. ""Personality rights" is a common or casual reference to the proper term of art "Right of Publicity". The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the Right of Publicity can survive the death of the individual (to varying degrees depending on the jurisdiction). In the United States, the Right of Publicity is a state law-based right, as opposed to federal, and recognition of the right can vary from state to state." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights [wikipedia.org]
Re:Apple is filing this? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can imagine a third possiblity: The Chinese company have contacted Apple, asking them to sue them for a share in the proceeds - knowing full well that whatever the judgement will be, it won't make any difference for their ability to sell their product, and it is great publicity; sales are going straight to orbit.
What do you mean, I'm cynical? I am a very sensitive and thoughtful individual ;-)
Re:Apple is filing this? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the doll maker ought to do is claim satire. Partly because that's their only Out,
Assuming it's only state law and assuming it doesn't violate any Chinese laws then they can just not sell them in California. On top of that, if there is a distributor different than the manufacturer then why should a manufacturer in China care about a lawsuit brought under California law? The distributor would be the only ones legally responsible for breaking California's laws.
And lo, it is written thus... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image of any-fucking-body.
FTFY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Has anyone else noticed that their is a "jobs" menu at the top of this page? Expect another law suit soon...
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit strange, no? You'd think Job's family would be the one filing, not Apple, unless they own his personality rights. Which would be kinda creepy, if you think about it.
Well, it doesn't once you consider that every single bit of information about this comes from the guy who wants to sell his puppets for $99 each - $135 on eBay after he released the information.
Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:2)
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would they sue, do they have the rights on the likeness? I thought that would apply only to living persons.
I know that not reading the article is par for the course, but not reading the summary?
Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary doesn't say anything about why Apple is doing this, and neither is TFA from my cursory read through. As far as I understand the matter, it is a family affair, and it is really weird and highly unusual that they would not hire a law firm to sue, but have Apple do it instead.
The criminal threats are also mildly surprising, and the way Apple is clinging to Jobs is indeed sort of sick. As are the people who might want to buy a figure like this one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As are the people who might want to buy a figure like this one.
Personally, I have no interest in anything that creepy, but given that Apple is being such a legal dick about this (and many other things recently) I'd buy one on principle.
BR And then I'd stash it away, unopened, until I retire and then I'd put it on E-Bay.
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I got just the doll for you ^_^. Kawaii?
http://www.realdoll.com/ [realdoll.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Report to Real Doll Inc. for measurements for the official ScrewMaster FuckDoll - and don't even dream about getting any money.
You've just described every mac fanbois dream
A ScrewMaster doll? You Apple Haters sure have weired fetishes you project on others?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I can't fathom how you would find it weird.
For one, Steve was deeply private about his personal life. I know a lot of people who didn't even know he had children. He kept his image and his job separate from his family and his home.
He cared about Apple deeply; it was more then just a job. Apple was the face and engine of what he envisioned. I would be shocked and offended if Apple did not seek to protect his image and interests even after his death-- granted, with the consent of his wife (and though the arti
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is rather pointless as it is a state law not a federal law, in both cases it is state not federal law. Basically the manufacturers can tell Apple to go get knotted and leave Apple to pursue retailers in the affected US states. US federal laws don't apply in China and obviously US state laws are complete and utterly meaningless, as of course US states can not enter into treaties with other countries to enforce laws across international boundaries. So manufacturer and sell and deliver my mail order in the affected states, in the rest of the world, thumb their noses at Apple Inc. Besides "Think Different" Einstein billboards for Apple. So maybe Apple can complain if the dolls are blue and sport IBM logos, otherwise their history of theft pretty much leaves them in the cold.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.
How constitutional is this, given that we do not (yet) have a two-tier justice system? Either everyone's personality rights are "protected" or no one's. Unless we do have First Class and Second Class citiziens, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
How constitutional is this, given that we do not (yet) have a two-tier justice system? Either everyone's personality rights are "protected" or no one's. Unless we do have First Class and Second Class citiziens, of course.
It is quite likely that as a not-so-famous citizen you have many more rights. If a movie gets filmed on the street and you happen to be in the scene, they have to find you and get your permission or that scene cannot be shown.
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're using CA's law that says Jobs' estate owns his image for 75 years after death, the problem is, how do they enforce CA law if the dolls never leave China?
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're using CA's law that says Jobs' estate owns his image for 75 years after death, the problem is, how do they enforce CA law if the dolls never leave China?
How do they enforce California law if the seller never ships to California?
It's not unusual for online vendors to say "For legal reasons we don't ship to these states: X, Y, Z"
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:4, Funny)
This definitely reeks of a personality cult, in the most disturbing, North Korean sort of way. Nobody has the rights to Dear Leader's image but us, and how dare you produce false idols. At least they didn't keep his body in state on the Apple campus...
I understand that he's been cryogenically stored in a sealed underground chamber in their new headquarters, surrounded by iPhones with his picture on them.
Re: (Score:2)
No one jokes about such things, especially if they could be true.
Re:Apple can sue about Jobs doll? (Score:4, Funny)
He's at Disneyland with Walt in suspended animation
Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The one thing Apple is better at than designing closed computers is suing people.
I want one! (Score:2, Interesting)
I could do so many things with one of those...
Re: (Score:3)
I could do so many things with one of those...
So would many True Apple Fans, if it were an Approved iDoll ...
*shudder*
Re: (Score:2)
California = International Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what law are they violating?
... Selling these dolls in the US is another matter (the Steve Jobs ones), but those that want them could simply import directly from China.
It's likely they're selling or offering the dolls for sale in California, at least via a website. That counts as sufficient contact to place them under California law for those transactions.
Re:California = International Law? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad China seems to forget about likeness parodies, which are protected forms of speech in the USA
This is how we have Obama dolls in my store, with the doll stroking his dick (Watch him stimulate his own package!)
Wait for a Jobs one to come out, it will happen eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be able to sell those dolls in the US, as long as the doll is seen as some kind of parody of Steve Jobs and of his latest biography.
California (Score:4, Insightful)
While Apple's copyright infringement claims are questionable, attorneys believe a Steve Jobs action figure released after his death violates the "right of publicity," which is a state law that protects one's image, voice, photograph, identity or signature from being used commercially without consent. Furthermore, California's Celebrity Rights Act in 1985 protects a celebrity's personality rights up to 70 years after their death.
I don't see where California law is in any way binding or enforceable for a product unless they tried to sell it in California. Just because it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket in Alabama doesn't mean I can't do it in Michigan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see where California law is in any way binding or enforceable for a product unless they tried to sell it in California. Just because it is illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket in Alabama doesn't mean I can't do it in Michigan.
You're absolutely right... including that "unless" clause. The dolls are being offered for sale in California via their website, so the state law applies to those transactions.
Re:California (Score:5, Insightful)
I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.
Every other kind of border, real and imagined (wait, aren't they all imaginary?) can be enforced with some degree of success, why not borders between information systems? The Internet is full of borders, but they're mostly not nationalized, yet. Nothing is 100% impervious, but that does't make it unsuccessful.
Can a country regulate information systems inside its borders? As well as it can anything else, for sure.
In the United States, there is a place you can stand on the border of four different states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of the case of Marc Emery. He's a Canadian currently serving 5 years in the US for selling marijuana seeds on the internet. It's not illegal in Canada and Health Canada was even sending patients to his site to buy seeds. The documentary 'The Union' likened it to a Canadian buying a handgun online and then the Colt company being charged instead of the person importing illegal firearms.
Re:California (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not illegal in Canada
Actually, this is a very important point you got wrong. It is, in fact, illegal in Canada; the Canadian law is merely not enforced.
The US-Canada extradition treaty specifies that the US can only demand extradition in cases where the act was, by Canadian law, punishable by a prison sentence exceeding 1 year. Emery could only be extradited because Canada left that law on its books, even though it didn't actually enforce it.
The Parliament of Canada could have, at any time, shut down the extradition effort by simply repealing the law in question, or reducing the maximum sentence to less than a year, or the like. And despite the Conservative government, the House of Commons of Canada had a Liberal-NDP-BQ majority during most of the extradition effort.
So Mr. Emery is in jail because the freely-elected representatives of the Canadian commons, of all parties, jointly exercised the sovereign power of the Queen-in-Parliament to outlaw his conduct under Canadian law and keep it illegal under Canadian law.
Re: (Score:2)
But ONLY to those transactions. Any transaction without a party in California is not enforceable under California State law.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, hello protected speech in the form of parody likenesses.
Apple's lawyers don't have one leg to stand on. Especially with the LUDICROUS claim of criminal penalties instead of civil ones.
Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
If they REALLY wanted to stop it, simply threaten to pull the manufacturing and bring it back to USA. Then Chinese gov. will stop it.
Wouldn't work, the Chinese would just insist that "All your Jobs are belong to us".
Re: (Score:2)
Score: 5, Funny!?!?
Arg, that should be Score -5, PAINFUL. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Apple suing someone? (Score:4, Funny)
Doll demands human status, emancipation (Score:5, Funny)
The Turing Heat had to steal the Phillip K. Dick automaton head to keep it from going sapient. The small but spunky Jobs Droid snuck under their radar and reached critical neural connections state just after this story broke.
Lemme guess... (Score:2)
Apple has a patent on dolls?
Re: (Score:3)
just put a label on it. (Score:5, Funny)
warning! this product contains a likeness known to the state of california to cause lawsuits and frivolous torts.
Re: (Score:2)
warning! this product contains a likeness known to the state of california to cause lawsuits and frivolous torts.
New Frosted Pop Torts, breakfast of hooligans.
Could they package (Score:2)
it in an Android like case and Steve wearing an Android shirt and say its a Parody? Just put the actual Apple case inside the Android one and have the "Jobs Style" clothing under the Android shirt.
Apple uses dead celebrities in their advertising. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypocrisy.
Apple is guilty of the far more serious crime of having dead celebrities endorse their products in TV commercials [wikipedia.org].
Typical Apple, talking the talk, without walking the walk. Again.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they acquire rights from the families of the celebrities as well as from the photographers? If not, they're still hypocritical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.
Apple obtained permission from the photographer to use a copyrighted image, not permission from Gandhi's family to use his likeness to sell a product that he most likely would have been opposed to.
Hypocrisy. Again.
Re: (Score:3)
But they didn't use his "likeness". They used the concrete photograph. I'm sure if they decided to make toys of Gandhi, they'd have to get a different kind of deal. With photographs, it is common practice to have models sign "releases", which lets the photographer do with the photograph what he sees fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, but it IS actually different. Factual photo copyright of the person belongs to photographer (or his employer - depends on contract). You can't copyright fact, so it is not possible for person to forbid to sell this photo - unless it's shooting isn't related with breach of privacy, but there's very grey area there.
I also have doubts about other laws their mentioned - as usual, lawyers cook these letters like horror stories - because it is very highly unlikely they would even stick. No matter how Job
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they actually acquired the respective rights to all the photos.
Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. The dollmakers could easily acquire the copyright on a photo of Jobs and use that as their model. Not that they really need to, but it would remove any "derivative work" argument.
Does any artist, sculptor, cartoonist, etc, require the permission of a person to create their likeness? (Rhetorical, answer: no.)
This stupid "right of publicity" could only have been conceived in Los Angeles. Apple can't stop this anywhere else, and they have just hand
Re: (Score:2)
The Doll itself wasn't the issue (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't the doll as much as the "Nuclear Medicine" Playset complete with "Mr. Chemo" microwave oven that put them off.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't the doll as much as the "Nuclear Medicine" Playset complete with "Mr. Chemo" microwave oven that put them off.
Actually, I think it was the free plastic liver that did them in.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch this... (Score:2)
Apple will succeed in getting the product pulled, and six weeks later, will release their own creepy doll of Steve Jobs that looks (not surprisingly) identical, but costs five times as much. ;)
Burn (Score:2)
That's exactly what they do all right, they copy what other manufacturers make and then charge 5x for it. Absolutely, no question about that--no wonder they are losing so much money.
Criminal offense? (Score:4, Interesting)
How on earth does this get to be a criminal offense rather than civil one?
Re:Criminal offense? (Score:5, Insightful)
How on earth does this get to be a criminal offense rather than civil one?
It probably doesn't, but lawyers are paid to write scary cease and desist letters, not accurate ones.
Deja Vu (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh...not really eerily, except that... (Score:2)
It's the mini lovechild of Steve Jobs and Stanley Tucci. That's kinda creepy in itself I guess.
Good Info! (Score:5, Funny)
Well I'm buying one right now!!!
Good thing Apple sued, otherwise I might have never known about this.
Think I'll pick up a Barbara Streisand doll too while I'm at it....
How exactly? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when they send an FBI agent with a flying wedge of marines to China for enforcement. That would probably take about two million marines and a trillion dollars before it was over, we'd be out several aircraft carriers and many hundreds of planes destroyed, and the general radioactivity level on the plant would be raised significantly.
Actual reason for lawsuit (Score:3)
The figurine is packaged in a rounded rectangluar box...
FTFY. Incoming injunction.
Faux? (Score:2)
What on earth is a "faux" turtleneck? Seriously, is that a US term? Over here and in the UK they just call that style a "turtleneck". What's faux about it?
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard it referred to that way, either. I've always heard it referred to as Mock Turtleneck [wikipedia.org].
I believe a "turtleneck" is usually longer and is customarily folded, whereas a "mock turtleneck" is shorter and doesn't need to be folded. At least that seems to be the difference between the two in my wardrobe.
Franklin Mint and Princess Diana dolls... (Score:2)
but Apple being litigious bastards from the get go will most likely prevail and get sale prohibited in US
Re:Extra Creepy? (Score:5, Funny)
From the article: "To make it extra creepy, the doll's realistic head sculpt features Jobs' famous unblinking stare."
I'd have thought I'd be even more creepy if the doll had eyes that rolled around...
Or blinked.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you mean articulation or a disturbing attention to anatomical detail?