Apple trying to stop sale of Steve Jobs action figure

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014


Apple's legal team has set its sights on preventing a new lifelike figurine, designed to look like late Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs, from being sold for $99.



The 12-inch figurine was set for release in February from Chinese company Icons, but according to The Telegraph, Apple has issued a "legal challenge." Lawyers from Apple have reportedly threatened to sue the toy maker if they proceed with their plans to sell the action figure.



The retail price of the plastic doll is $99, though reseller prices through eBay have been around $135. The figurine comes with a pair of black socks, glasses, a leather belt, a bar stool, a "One More Thing" backdrop, and two apples, with a bite taken out of one of them.



"The legal wrangle is over the likeness of the doll to the late Apple founder, the rights of which the company claims it owns," the report said. "Apple reportedly stipulates in a letter to the Chinese manufacturer that any toy resembles the technology company's logo, person's name, appearance, or likeness of its products is a criminal offence."



The latest spat isn't the first time Apple's legal team has gotten involved in a figurine depicting Jobs. In December of 2010, Apple shut down sales of a miniature statue depicting Jobs holding an iPhone and standing atop an Apple logo.











That item became so popular that owners turned to eBay to sell the figurine at marked up prices. But Apple intervened in those sales as well, and stopped the sale of one for $1,125.



Unlike the previous figurine, the new plastic toy out of China is a pose-able action figure. Promotional images show it delivering a keynote, sitting on a stool, pointing, and doing other well-known poses done by Jobs in real life.

«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 72
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    I like this one a lot more than the chibi-headed caricature one.



    And it's not skinny Steve, so it's quite respectful.
  • Reply 2 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I like this one a lot more than the chibi-headed caricature one.



    And it's not skinny Steve, so it's quite respectful.



    Still, over a hundred dollars and probably only a ten percent chance of ever receiving one if you order.
  • Reply 3 of 72
    wait, Apple "owns" the likeness of Steve Jobs?
  • Reply 4 of 72
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShaolinDave View Post


    wait, Apple "owns" the likeness of Steve Jobs?



    Most likely Steve does and passed it down in his Estate with Apple acting as legal counsel.
  • Reply 5 of 72
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    I find that distasteful and disrespectful to the late Mr Jobs; but how can it possibly be a criminal offense? Surely no low can prohibit making images resembling anyone that ever lived?
  • Reply 6 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShaolinDave View Post


    wait, Apple "owns" the likeness of Steve Jobs?



    Actually, I think they* do in California law, at least for 70 years or so.



    *or his family/assigned heirs
  • Reply 7 of 72
    cgjcgj Posts: 276member
    I have to agree with Apple's legal stance here, it's quite annoying to see people making money off someone's death (like Sony releasing songs MJ never wanted released).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Still, over a hundred dollars and probably only a ten percent chance of ever receiving one if you order.



    Lol, 10 percent? A bit optimistic.
  • Reply 8 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    I find that distasteful and disrespectful to the late Mr Jobs; but how can it possibly be a criminal offense? Surely no low can prohibit making images resembling anyone that ever lived?



    Many public figures own their voice or likeness, including Mark Hamill, Alec Guiness, James Earl Jones, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Jobs, and a slew of others. It is how they make their money, and it is more inherently their own than anything else. I second the notion that Jobs' likeness shouldn't be cheapened or cashed in on.
  • Reply 9 of 72
    s4mb4s4mb4 Posts: 267member
    cool, the action figure has "kung-fu grip"
  • Reply 10 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CGJ View Post


    I have to agree with Apple's legal stance here, it's quite annoying to see people making money off someone's death.



    I don't think anyone is making money off his death by doing this - the action figure that was previously sold was offered while he was alive and there was high demand then as well.



    I also don't see how making an accurate likeness can be construed as disrespectful. If anything, it's a tribute to his influence and importance.
  • Reply 11 of 72
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    I applaud Apple's action if for no other reason than to help mini-Steve avoid the same awful fate as my niece's Barbie dolls: headless and covered with dog teeth marks.
  • Reply 12 of 72
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post


    <...>It is how they make their money<...>



    All right, then. Everyone needs to make a living somehow.
  • Reply 13 of 72
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    I need a Steve action figure to sit on top of my iMac. I could imagine Steve telling me, "That paragraph sucks! Write it again!"
  • Reply 14 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    All right, then. Everyone needs to make a living somehow.



    In a future where avatars and biomechanics become the norm, these types of laws will only become more important. If someone made a sex doll of your mother and offered it for sale, it'd likely offend you. Steve Jobs and his family have the same rights to protect their own image. Cry about it if you wish.
  • Reply 15 of 72
    woodlinkwoodlink Posts: 198member
    Responding to the Kung Fu Grip malfunctioning, Apple's official reaction is...



    You're holding it wrong.
  • Reply 16 of 72
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post


    In a future where avatars and biomechanics become the norm, these types of laws will only become more important. If someone made a sex doll of your mother and offered it for sale, it'd likely offend you. Steve Jobs and his family have the same rights to protect their own image. Cry about it if you wish.



    Some twisted imagination there... I do find it offensive though... and some would even find it against their religion... but building idols has been and remains a primitive need for some people.
  • Reply 17 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I need a Steve action figure to sit on top of my iMac. I could imagine Steve telling me, "That paragraph sucks! Write it again!"



    Brilliant!
  • Reply 18 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    Some twisted imagination there... I do find it offensive though... and some would even find it against their religion... but building idols has been and remains a primitive need for some people.



    Biomechanics and digital avatars aren't really products of my imagination. You do realize you're posting on a tech forum, right? Then again, I think you're just looking for an asinine argument, not a logical discussion of the laws or their reasoning. So, please, don't put words in my mouth, or intentionally misconstrue what I wrote. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about technology, only the choices that people make in its usage.



    Or by twisted imagination did you just mean the blow up doll idea?
  • Reply 19 of 72
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post


    Actually, I think they* do in California law, at least for 70 years or so.



    *or his family/assigned heirs



    I see Einstein photos all over the place in ads. His likeness is owned by a University in Jerusalem and a law firm in California enforces the licensing. I'm sure it is similar with Jobs.



    BTW What's with the belt on the action figure? Is Levi Strauss going to get in on the trademark violation?



    I haven't seen a photo of the back pocket yet?



    Edit: found it. Classic Levi back pocket of course. And also New Balance shoes.



    http://www.inicons.com/images/bg_1.jpg
  • Reply 20 of 72
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShaolinDave View Post


    wait, Apple "owns" the likeness of Steve Jobs?



    I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that Apple has a patent on wearing jeans and black turtle necks.
Sign In or Register to comment.