Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Forces Steve Jobs Action Figure Off eBay

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the hope-you-got-in-on-the-ground-floor dept.

Toys 233

Hugh Pickens writes "Kevin Parrish writes in Tom's Guide that last month, just in time for Christmas holiday gift-giving, M.I.C. Gadget began the manufacture and sale of a Steve Jobs action figure featuring an oversized head, Steve's trademark black shirt/blue jeans outfit, and a new iPhone 4 like a magical world-saving talisman in Jobs' left hand. The action figure, selling for $79.90, came with an Apple logo stand and cartoon balloons for writing custom messages. Soon a warning letter from Apple stated that the figurine violated a California statute prohibiting the use of a person's likeness in a product without prior authorization and sales ceased. But shortly after production stopped, the figurines began to appear on eBay selling for up to $2,500. Now Apple's lawyers have raided the online marketplace, zeroing in on one Canadian eBay seller who had already sold the figurine for $1,125 and eBay has removed other listings, telling sellers that the object for sale 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'"

cancel ×

233 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dildo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667772)

Honestly, look at the picture. It does look like a dildo, or maybe that's just how Jobs looks like.

Just damn! (4, Funny)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667778)

And I was going to buy one to stick pins in!

Re:Just damn! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668322)

Well just think of the fun you could have with Steve Balmer action figures.

There could be a prior-art problem though. The Balmer is actually a pretty close copy of Uncle Fester; it just isn't as inventive/insightful.

"Celebrity"? (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667808)

Really?

Re:"Celebrity"? (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667844)

You know, back in the day, before people were so polarized, my sig read:
"I learned, from a trusted source, that Steve Jobs likes avocado."
I think that sums up things here pretty well.

Re:"Celebrity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668002)

I don't know what point you were trying to make with that sig, but why so many commas?

Re:"Celebrity"? (4, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668070)

Obviously, his sig was being played by William Shatner.

Re:"Celebrity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668386)

Or that character from Malcolm in the middle.

Re:"Celebrity"? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668236)

It's perfectly legitimate. Take out the section between the commas and the sentence reads the same. It's the way that folks make an aside.

Re:"Celebrity"? (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668436)

The right term is parenthetical phrase [wikipedia.org] , and while you're correct, I also feel like it's not quite right. Maybe it's the way it's led with a preposition, making it sound like it's part of the sentence.

Re:"Celebrity"? (1)

rhade (709207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668402)

I thought it was a haiku

Re:"Celebrity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667888)

Celebrity not star. Paris Hilton is considered a celebrity and all she ever did was video tape herself having sex and doesn't wear underwear with short dresses. There's a pretty low standard for celebrity these days.

Re:"Celebrity"? (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668042)

and all she ever did was video tape herself having sex and doesn't wear underwear with short dresses.

"All she ever did"? That sounds like plenty to me.

Re:"Celebrity"? (0, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668378)

So every whore on this planet should be famous? Gee, standards sure got lowered.

Re:"Celebrity"? (4, Insightful)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667948)

If one's likeness can be used to sell an item, including one's likeness, then one is a celebrity, i.e. a famous person.

Now, would you like someone else to make money off of a doll made in your image? Remember, you get none of the money and they did not ask your permission.

Re:"Celebrity"? (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668016)

Whether or not you (or I) like something should have no impact on legality. I'm sure Steve Jobs also doesn't like when we make fun of his ridiculous turtleneck outfit and his RDF abilities either.

Re:"Celebrity"? (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668094)

Let me make the argument another way. Say someone is going on Fox News, and is saying that "according to known internet celebrity mobby_6kl, Fox is the most reliable and fair news source.". Obviously, they are attempting to make money via the use of your image. However, you never said such things, and never endorsed them. You can't sue for libel or slander, as your image is not provably being damaged by their actions. Such a thing is obviously wrong and unethical. Thus, there is a law intended to prevent such things.

Re:"Celebrity"? (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668152)

Really? So, if whether or not you like something should have no bearing on legality of said thing? Using your reasoning, burgling your home should be legal because the only reason burglary is illegal is because the burgled do not like being burgled and that doesn't matter.

Again, would you like it if someone make a doll of you and sold it for a profit and made a lot of money and gave you none? Do you consider that right and fair?

Oh, and the general test is the average person, as in "Would the average person feel violated if..."

Re:"Celebrity"? (1)

happymellon (927696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668200)

Did you just compare making a doll in the likeness of someone to burglary?

Being burgled deprives you of of items you previously had. Having a doll being made of you means you lost... oh yeah nothing because Apple don't make Jobs action figures. How are the two even remotely comparable?

Or are you of the opinion that if I walk down the street and someone take a photo of the street, which you happen to be in, then you should be compensated for making up part the street scene?

Re:"Celebrity"? (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668012)

celebrity
[suh-leb-ri-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties for 1.
1. a famous or well-known person.
2. fame; reknown.

Yup... as painful as it may be, it fits.

Re:"Celebrity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668068)

So they admit he's a celebrity?

Great, sell the figurines in Europe. Celebrities pretty much have no "personal rights" to their image or likeness over here.

icon (4, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667830)

Perhaps we can still use it here on Slashdot, as the icon for Apple stories.

Don't be ridiculous... (2, Informative)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667914)

This is Slashdot.
Only company we are allowed to indiscriminately hate and make fun of is Microsoft. Sorry... Micro$oft.

Other corporate entities are free game from time to time - but never Apple.
Also, badmouthing Linux, penguins in general and in some cases Natalie Portman will almost certainly get you in serious trouble.

Re:Don't be ridiculous... (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668020)

This is Slashdot,
your allowed to do what you want.

people may not like it, and your IP may get blocked. But that doesn't stop you doing it.

dam junk filter kicked in.

Re:Don't be ridiculous... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668194)

This is Slashdot,
your allowed to do what you want.

Including, but not limited to, making grammatical mistakes.

Re:Don't be ridiculous... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668252)

This is Slashdot, your allowed to do what you want.

Including, but not limited to, making grammatical mistakes.

Including, but NOT LIMITED TO, being a fucking grammar nazi. Sorry, a grammer nazi.

Re:Don't be ridiculous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668258)

> This is Slashdot.
No, this is Patrick.

Re:Don't be ridiculous... (4, Interesting)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668264)

This is Slashdot.
Only company we are allowed to indiscriminately hate and make fun of is Microsoft. Sorry... Micro$oft.

Other corporate entities are free game from time to time - but never Apple.
Also, badmouthing Linux, penguins in general and in some cases Natalie Portman will almost certainly get you in serious trouble.

Where have you been? Apple is in the dog house, all the cool kids are turning a blind eye to Google's bullshit now.

Re:Don't be ridiculous... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668384)

The GEEK cool kids.

Apple is no longer geek-cool 'cause the joe random cool kids now think it's cool.

Re:Don't be ridiculous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668450)

You must have a hell of a lot of editors and sections blocked to have that perversely inaccurate a view of slashdot.

Normal and good (4, Insightful)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667836)

Some of the comments on TFA are completely off the deep end, and I (foolishly) hope we don't end up with the same.

This a good thing. Personality rights like this evolve from the protection of privacy, and imply each individual's right to control their usage by the media. Usually those in elected positions forgo such rights, but for the rest of us it's nice to know that we can try to control some of the usage of ourselves as a commodity. In reality, this right translates almost only to celebrities, which unfairly causes a lot of the vilification of the laws; the fact of the matter is that only celebrities (by definition, perhaps) have their personality commoditized. A celebrity is a business, and just like a business they have the right to control the marketing of their brand.

Re:Normal and good (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667874)

Completely on target. As a Sarah Palin supporter, I'm really looking forward to when strong protections against character use like this become the norm. Celebrities like Sarah need to be able to control when their image is used and what is said about them. Think about how much better our political process would be if presidential candidates could expunge anything negative said about them or any negative use of their image. We would have never had to find out that Sarah doesn't know what newspapers she reads. And the world would be a better place. There are going to be whiners who say that it limits speech but who cares.

Re:Normal and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667926)

As a Sarah Palin supporter

As a Sarah Palin supported I'm actually surprised you're out of the kitchen on Christmas.

That and the fact you know how to type.

Re:Normal and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668100)

*woosh*

Re:Normal and good (4, Insightful)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667952)

There is a difference between news articles about what she does which are covered by 1st amendment rights, and using Sarah Palin's image to sell products without her permission.

Re:Normal and good (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668254)

The 1st amendment protections for the press are, in my view, overly generous. A lot of that personal information that the press loves to report on isn't any of our business. It's one thing when they report on things which are sort of grey area such as when politicians have affairs, and quite another when they report on other celebrities engaging in that same behavior.

And the only reason why it is our business with politicians is that they frequently run for office on the suggestion that they represent us and can do so in an appropriate way and with reasonable integrity.

Report on conflicts of interest and things which we really need to know, but leave all that crap about what happens behind closed doors of celebrities out of it. Unless there's a legitimate and compelling reason for the people to know. We don't have a right to know everything about a person just because they're a celebrity.

Re:Normal and good (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668362)

Why? In both cases money changes hands. The reporter is "selling" his article. The paper is using her fame and taking photos to get readers... It's always about the money.

Re:Normal and good (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668420)

There is a difference between news articles about what she does which are covered by 1st amendment rights, and using Sarah Palin's image to sell products without her permission.

Is there? News articles don't write and publish themselves, that all needs to be paid for. Here on the internet it's long been considered commercial usage by the likes of ICANN and the MAFIAA for a website to run advertisements even if it is just to support the cost of operating the website.

Re:Normal and good (4, Insightful)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667992)

Sorry, but you fail by conflating two different situations; your comment is not even close to insightful and an example of a false dichotomy.

There is a major difference between a news report containing factual information and a picture of a person and a someone making a doll of celebrity for the sole purpose of making money of the celebrity's image.

The choice is not between total control of one's image and/or likeness and no control at all.

Please explain why someone should be able to make money off the likeness of another person without said second person's knowledge and/or permission. Also, if someone were to make and sell a doll of you without your permission and without sharing any of the profits, would you try to stop them?

Re:Normal and good (5, Insightful)

happymellon (927696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668212)

Since you seem to be still trolling, can you give us a reason why someone should be able to have absolute control over their likeness?
Are you saying that satire should be illegal, or impersonation artists? Down with SNL! Elvis impersonators are evil!

You do not have absolute control over your likeness, and never had.

Re:Normal and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668414)

And you fail at reading comprehension. The OP said it isn't (the NOT is important) a choice between absolute control and no control at all. This case was a blatant attempt to make money off someone else's name and nothing more. A slightly oversized head does not make it satire. Reporting news about someone is one thing, selling something that looks like an offial product is a whole different matter. I say this not as an Apple fan (I dislike Apple products for the most part), but as a reasonable human being. Replace Steve's face with minee, and I'd not be pleased (you wouldn't sell any since I'm a nobody, but that's beside the point). If you made it humiliating in some way, my attitude might be different (I'm rather odd that way, I suppose, but I think most people take themselves too seriously).

Re:Normal and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668270)

There is a major difference between a news report containing factual information and a picture of a person and a someone making a doll of celebrity for the sole purpose of making money of the celebrity's image.

That news company makes money from that news report. So what exactly is the difference?

Re:Normal and good (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668428)

...would you try to stop them?

Nope. I would just sell mine for a buck cheaper, and then it would come alive and kill the owner. Get yours now! Operators are standing by...

Got a changelog handy? I don't see any difference [slashdot.org]

Re:Normal and good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668044)

Why hasn't this been modded as a troll

Re:Normal and good (2)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668082)

As I said above these things tend to go out the window when it comes to political candidates. There's a reason it's called a "public office."

Re:Normal and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668166)

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. Insightful? Really?

Re:Normal and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668182)

"Celebrities like Sarah need to be able to control when their image is used and what is said about them."

When a person enters politics, he or she gives up such control.

As for your support of Sarah Palin, I think you must have stumbled on
Slashdot by mistake. People here are too intelligent to support an incompetent
poseur like Palin, when she cannot even manage her own children effectively.

Re:Normal and good (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668388)

Oh please c'mon, nobody can manage their own kids. Besides, there's enough incompetence and general inaptness about Palin that you don't have to reach down to the children issue.

Re:Normal and good (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668234)

Completely on target. As a Sarah Palin supporter...

Clearly a troll.

Retard mods (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668248)

This should be modded (un)funny but its insightful. Who is really that dense?

Re:Retard mods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668324)

You and about ten others deserve a large woosh. A very large woosh.

Re:Normal and good (2)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667922)

This a good thing. Personality rights like this evolve from the protection of privacy, and imply each individual's right to control their usage by the media.

Not more imaginary property. What is a person's usage, can it be owned, and what are the costs of simulating ownership of this conceptual thing? Every form of imaginary property infringes on physical property rights.

Re:Normal and good (1)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667996)

So you wouldn't mind if someone made a doll of you without your permission and sold said doll making lots of money and didn't share any of it for you?

Re:Normal and good (2)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668164)

If having to accept that meant none of these bullshit imaginary property rights, I'd gladly accept it. Even if I objected, that's not sufficient reason to make it illegal. For example, I object to the way my city is run, but that's not sufficient cause to force them to run it differently.

Re:Normal and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668220)

Bullshit. Suppose, for argument's sake, that you are famous enough to merit someone, like me, to decide to tool up a doll with your likeness, and market it with ridiculous/defamatory/maybe even scandalous, libelous, and maybe (or not) malicious characterizations (which you obviously are party to, "noidentity", just try to DENY IT), then I now can basically "own" you and how you are depicted in the media, if my product gets popular enough. Too bad for you (and your specious argument). Go back to your parents' basement.

Re:Normal and good (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668390)

If I was as famous as Saint Steve and had his money? You coul make a sex doll with my likeness for all I cared.

I hope you see the difference between me, Mr. Random Opportunist, and Steve Jobs, a person who's a wee bit more known.

Re:Normal and good (2)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668056)

Well, every form of property infringes on some "freedom" or "right." The alternative is anarchy. Jefferson can spit all he wants, but Government and laws by definition swap some liberties for security, so if you want to live in a civil society you have to sacrifice some so-called "rights." What rights a people are guaranteed is dictated by a lot of things, such as who has the guns and what their governing documents are. The Native Americans learned the former the hard way (along with the rest of Jared Diamond's trifecta) but it remains true that the Europeans' concept of "physical property rights" infringed on some of the Americans' less-than-physical concept of "I live here." There's nothing inherently special about tangible property.

These days, the Constitution spells out pretty clearly what is and what isn't a right. The Constitution dictates copyrights, patents, and privacy, and some other things discussed less often on Slashdot. Those first two are what you call infringing, but things like the Fourth Amendment carry a bit more weight than the "good and useful arts" bit. As I said in my original post, personality rights are a manifestation of personal privacy. Why should your desire to profit off my visage impede my right to privacy? If the concept is confusing, we're lucky to have a common-law system so our system evolves with our society.

Re:Normal and good (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668274)

Why should your desire to profit off my visage impede my right to privacy? If the concept is confusing, we're lucky to have a common-law system so our system evolves with our society.

He's not a private citizen he's the CEO of a well known company. If he sued over privacy rights for things he does in public he might get as much as $1 as an award assuming he won.

I see no evidence that the dolls were made using information that wasn't publicly available to damn near everybody. And considering that he goes out to publicly announce new products dressed like that, I really don't think he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

But ultimately I would like them to win this just because I do think that a person should have reasonable control over items that use both the name and likeness of an individual. Although it does get a bit insane sometimes like that Zoe Renault suit in France.

Not a good thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668214)

This is by no means a good thing. Huge wealthy guy and/or company forces a Chinese company to stop shipping a product worldwide because of a California law? I don't know where all you guys work, but the idea of a Chinese company doing the same thing to my employer based on some Yunnan law scares the crap out of me. Yes, stop shipping to California- or heck, don't, and see whether the world actually ends before they have an enforceable judgment of any consequence against you- but don't fold. At least make Apple flex their muscle through their offshored contracts and come at you via Beijing.

Re:Normal and good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668400)

I'd bet that Allah and His followers will back you on this one.

Re:Normal and good (2)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668498)

Nonsense. An arguably powerful man who doesn't know a clever parody of himself is a fool. If Jobs were truly a clever man he'd have recognized a clever marketing gimmick and made some kind of deal with this Chinese company for these figures and made a mint; both Apple and the Chinese firm could have made a fortune selling an iPad collector's edition complete with Jobs figure. The figures themselves are hardly embarrassing, they're just slightly out of proportion, other than that they are quite lifelike and not bad looking at all, I was wanting one as soon as I saw it, and I'm a Linux fanboy.

Instead A[[le's opted for the dickheaded approach and "banned" something really clever, even if they have the right to do so. As we see time and time again; just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean its a smart move. All this does is make Apple look like the the land of Mordor even more than before.

HALF PRICE ON EBAY SALE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667854)

"Turtlenecked Dickhead" action figure.

Original liver not included.

time to move to China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667872)

... where there's a bit more freedom to poke fun at Steve Jobs.

Re:time to move to China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667932)

Or sign a deal with this guy http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/3756257143/ [flickr.com] .

They cant sue if its a figurine of someone who looks & dresses like Steve Jobs.

Re:time to move to China (4, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668108)

They can sue if they don't like your attitude. Whether they have much of a case is another matter, mind you, but...

Link to the figure in question (5, Funny)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667880)

I think they did a good job capturing his essence. http://imgur.com/hMuXQ.jpg [imgur.com]

Re:Link to the figure in question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668300)

@cobracommander might have a different take

What goes around comes around (-1, Troll)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667884)

Demonising Carl Sagan as a BHA because he wouldn't endorse your puny 66Mhz PowerMac?

[Cue Apple Fanbois with mod-points this festive season!]

Dear Apple. (-1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667890)

You are a corporation.

Steve Jobs is a person.

You do not have standing to take action on behalf of Steve Jobs as a person.

Stick to your trademark rights over the apple icon and dump the celebrity likeness bullshit.

Re:Dear Apple. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668308)

Steve Jobs == Apple

Steve Jobs is the face of Apple. The closest thing I can think of that's like that with another company would be Richard Branson and Virgin - but Apple's image is too much tied to Jobs. Jobs dies, you can see at least a $100 drop in aapl. Steve is the marketing force behind Apple. Jobs is the World's greatest salesmen.

Re:Dear Apple. (2)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668334)

So much so that he managed to jump the line for a liver transplant.

Re:Dear Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668354)

You are a corporation.

Steve Jobs is a person.

You do not have standing to take action on behalf of Steve Jobs as a person.

Stick to your trademark rights over the apple icon and dump the celebrity likeness bullshit.

He is sort of part of their brand now, if you hadn't noticed. Many companies would do this in similar positions.
Also, none of this is any of your business.

Pay for the cult of personality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667894)

suckers!

Trademark shift/jeans outfit? How about the Apple? (4, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667910)

[...] featuring an oversized head, Steve's trademark black shirt/blue jeans outfit, and a new iPhone 4 like a magical world-saving talisman in Jobs' left hand. The action figure, selling for $79.90, came with an Apple logo stand [...]

I'd have thought that it was the stand that was violating trademark law, not the outfit.

Where's that in the Constitution? (0)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667920)

> 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'

Sorry. Which amendment to the constitution was that? Or is this from the UN charter of human rights?

Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (4, Informative)

davev2.0 (1873518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667956)

It is not in the Constitution and the U.N. charter of human rights doesn't matter. The right in question is a legal right granted by the state of California.

Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (1)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668268)

I'm interested. Isn't there some rule or other that State laws cannot trump federal laws? e.g. California can't legislate to enslave hobbits.

I don't know what the relative status is of covenants by international treaty.

Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (3, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667962)

It is not in the constitution, it is in California state law.

Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (2)

MBC1977 (978793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667970)

Which affects a Canadian citizen, how? Cause I believe "Not at all" is the correct answer.

Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (2)

kindbud (90044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668034)

eBay is a California corporation. HTH.

Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668342)

...and how come California state law applies to the entire world? I'm guessing something to do with eBay being in California? Doesn't seem right somehow...

Re:Where's that in the Constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667972)

> 'violates a celebrity's right of publicity.'

Sorry. Which amendment to the constitution was that? Or is this from the UN charter of human rights?

Sorry. Are you under the impression that the USA is a constitutional republic? If you have a problem with the way this Federal Republic is run you had better take it up with the Federation. And for the sake of all of us you better do it quickly.

First Apple commandment (3, Insightful)

eclectro (227083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667968)

"Thou shalt not make any graven images of me."

Re:First Apple commandment (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668028)

shame I can't see that stand.

Was it made from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and not just the good that was before it? or forked tongue snake skin, that would be cool.

Re:First Apple commandment (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668408)

Too bad they didn't arrive at "thou shalt not steal" yet.

apple (1)

fishingmachine (1363025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668078)

apple will be releasing its own proprietary version of this action figure. you will need to buy a special accessory to move the arms and legs, of course also made by apple. it will cost 3 times as much as the original. but at least it will be shinier and easier to use for people who never use action figures! it can then attack the original action figure maker and portray them as a faceless corporation for squares.

Re:apple (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668416)

And it will be in white, stain before you touch it the first time and its name is prepended by an "i".

We present, the iGod. And in the pants you'll find the iGod Nano.

Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item (2, Interesting)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668106)

We're entitled to free speech, but increasingly the world is under the control of companies we can't function without.

Recently we saw Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and an opportunistic Swiss bank all take advantage of Wikileaks plight to either seize their funds and/or stop them receiving any more funds.

Now here's eBay stopping people from engaging in perfectly legitimate trade. Satire is Free speech, you know. But who has the money to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court. Only the very wealthy can afford justice.

With the big end of town merging and competition shrinking I can see the day where you just have a few players (as happened with credit cards) where you can be turned into an unperson just because a handful of big companies decide they don't want to do business with you.

Don't expect Congress to defend your rights. As we saw in with their Copyright Extension Act (the "Mikey Mouse Act") they always rush to codify the wishes of their biggest donors. Don't expect the courts either. The Supreme Court decided recently that companies can pour as much cash as they like into election campaigns. Roberts & co. aren't going to defend our rights.

Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item (2, Interesting)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668286)

This has nothing to do with free speech.

  It has everything to do lazy, greedy stupidity. Some idiots at a company figuring they can get rich from selling a cheap plastic replication of Jobs (I don't know what drugs they were on when they dreamed it up, and I don't want to know) and then part of Apple's legal division - apparently with nothing better to do - figuring they might make some money in suing said idiots into the ground and, just possibly, buying the dead company in the future; in order to make money on it ala Lucas? WTF?

  Stupidity: Meet Stupidity. May the off of the bottom dwellers feed on each other until nothing is left but the rubber soles of their shoes and a few expensive, indigestible tie clips.

  Both sides of this fracas disgust me. I could express a wish that they'd go find something useful to do with their lives, but I know it would not make a damned bit of difference.

  SB

Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668290)

The problem is that they've made a likeness which doesn't appear to differ from the original enough to qualify as satire, it uses his name and the Apple logo.

That last bit is probably what's going to cause most of the problem. The rest of it isn't as cut and dry as that is.

Re:Free Spech has become a "Top-shelf" Item (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668410)

Yes, they could have avoided all of this by including a removable wizards hat and voice bubble that says "I don my mighty wizards cap and cast Reality Distortion Field level 14!"

That would have put it firmly identified it as satire, and once out of the box, the hat could be left off leaving the doll exactly the same, minus the threat of lawsuit.

Apple interferes?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668156)

IANAL, but I find it strange that for a parody of the CEO (i.e. one employee of the firm), the company wastes resources in retaliating. I would have no problem if Jobs went and did these by hiring a private lawyer etc, but isn't this like using your company money to travel on a vacation?

Re:Apple interferes?? (2)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668370)

Steve is apple. His image is the face of the company.

dubs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668170)

If this post ends in doubles, Steve Jobs is a fag.

Ya know (1)

CliffH (64518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668174)

I think it looks like a slightly younger David Letterman. :)

What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668228)

..all those action figures of Jesus and Moses? I'm pretty sure they didn't agree to have their likenesses used to sell stuff.

Re:What about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668294)

I'm assuming the law in question isn't a problem with fictional characters that aren't under copyright.

I'll tell you what I think... (0)

sgage (109086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668272)

Fuck Apple, and fuck Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs is an asshole. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668336)

Flame away, fanboys, and mod me down, but that's the bottom line.

Hey Apple.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34668464)

Dr Fetus says it better than all of us can.. take note... http://www.ltlprints.com/images/0016/1576/161576_tool.png

Tools

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>