I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that Apple has a patent on wearing jeans and black turtle necks.
So, with CGI and voice modulation getting to the point where you can easily misrepresent or reproduce anyone's likeness in a short amount of time, is it really about Apple being unreasonable? Anyone is free to protect their own image if they can demonstrate that it is able to make money. Confound this capitalist notion of fair market practices.
The fact that it offends so many people, who obviously just want a Steve Jobs doll, shows that it makes sense to protect the copyright. Also, as others will also point out, if Apple doesn't protect the likeness, even in relatively harmless scenarios such as this, they lose the copyright altogether. You are required by law to protect your patent and copyright portfolio. Imagine if they did not, and you had a defamatory or unfair representation of Jobs next. Or a figure that you do respect. Disagree all you want, but it's the law. Write your lawmakers if it bothers you so much.
California (if not the US) is VERY hip to the idea of people owning the rights to use their face, name etc, especially people who are celebrities. It prevents things like someone using a voice or a face in an ad for something that person wouldn't support like a Pro Abortion candidate when said person is Pro Choice. This is important because the association via being in the ad, just as a voice, implies support.
Steve could have requested that after his death Apple legal handle his usage rights for his estate, could have given all rights not previously given to Apple perhaps even as a Trademark etc. Lots of possible ways to do it. And it makes sense given the long association. Lots of photos etc have his image and it protects Apple from some nefarious person claiming they can't use that image of Steve because the Estate owns it.
In fact here's a juicy tidbit of the law here in Cali. Outside of news, if you are filmed and you didn't give permission you can sue for illegal use of your image. That's why you will sometimes see those signs up that say things like "Filming in progress in this area. If you enter you are giving permission for the use of your image with no legal recourse." The other way around it is that they keep everything blurred, like in cars that are going buy. Because you have to be able to use without any doubts that it is most definitely you and "i was there and I drive a red car just like that one" isn't enough if your face is a featureless color blur
California (if not the US) is VERY hip to the idea of people owning the rights to use their face, name etc, especially people who are celebrities. It prevents things like someone using a voice or a face in an ad for something that person wouldn't support like a Pro Abortion candidate when said person is Pro Choice. This is important because the association via being in the ad, just as a voice, implies support.
Steve could have requested that after his death Apple legal handle his usage rights for his estate, could have given all rights not previously given to Apple perhaps even as a Trademark etc. Lots of possible ways to do it. And it makes sense given the long association. Lots of photos etc have his image and it protects Apple from some nefarious person claiming they can't use that image of Steve because the Estate owns it.
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.
I can't see anything offensive about it, and unless Apple plans to release its own version, I can't see how it intrudes on, or damages, Apple's business. Rather the opposite, in the form of indirect free advertising.
Then again, perhaps they are worried about lots of images or videos involving the figure in amusingly disrespectful poses going viral.
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.
This is something that is really common for movie stars as they make their living off of their image. I'm pretty sure that in most western countries you don't even have to file paperwork on it as it's assumed that you have the right to control your own image.
It doesn't technically apply to other public figures like politicians businessmen etc. as they don't explicitly make money off of their image, voice etc.
It's totally possible to leave something in your will or arrange with lawyers beforehand that a particular entity (in this case Apple) has sole rights to that image after your death however and that's likely what Steve Jobs has done as he was a pretty smart guy and able to anticipate stuff like this.
If Steve Jobs hasn't made any explicit arrangements however, his likeness is fair game and useable by all. If this wasn't the case, political satire (amongst other things), would be impossible. Apple has to have some kind of signed agreement to argue what they do, but it's almost certain that they do.
This is something that is really common for movie stars as they make their living off of their image. I'm pretty sure that in most western countries you don't even have to file paperwork on it as it's assumed that you have the right to control your own image.
It doesn't technically apply to other public figures like politicians businessmen etc. as they don't explicitly make money off of their image, voice etc.
It's totally possible to leave something in your will or arrange with lawyers beforehand that a particular entity (in this case Apple) has sole rights to that image after your death however and that's likely what Steve Jobs has done as he was a pretty smart guy and able to anticipate stuff like this.
If Steve Jobs hasn't made any explicit arrangements however, his likeness is fair game and useable by all. If this wasn't the case, political satire (amongst other things), would be impossible. Apple has to have some kind of signed agreement to argue what they do, but it's almost certain that they do.
To exclude the notion that Steve Jobs likeness and voice won't at some point be a source of income is presumptive. But yes, there are obviously subtleties in the law. If the doll was a caricature, Apple would probably not be able to do much. This doll, like the bobble head's face, are very realistic renderings. I'm inclined to think that distinction matters, but if anyone more familiar with these laws has input, I'd be interested to hear it.
In fact here's a juicy tidbit of the law here in Cali. Outside of news, if you are filmed and you didn't give permission you can sue for illegal use of your image. That's why you will sometimes see those signs up that say things like "Filming in progress in this area. If you enter you are giving permission for the use of your image with no legal recourse." The other way around it is that they keep everything blurred, like in cars that are going buy. Because you have to be able to use without any doubts that it is most definitely you and "i was there and I drive a red car just like that one" isn't enough if your face is a featureless color blur
Personally, I wonder how sites like TMZ can get away with filming/photographing celebrities (and their spouse/children) without their consent, and then making money from their 'appearance'. If non-celebrities have to give permission or be warned, how can people like Harvey Levin make a profit without a celebrity's consent?
I am back!!! I'm not gonna let any disgusting Fandroids get the best of me! I figure that I will keep posting here and if I get any further infractions, then they will just have to pile up until I exceed the limit and I am banned. I am ok with that. Fandroids will never win! And anybody making any snide comments towards me or ad hominem attacks which are against the rules of this forum will immediately have their posts reported, as I don't take kindly to any douchebags who don't follow the rules. The bottom line is that Android still sucks, it's always sucked and nobody should be afraid to state that.
As for the topic in this thread, I ordered one of these a couple of days ago, I hope that I get it in Feb. The figure looks so damn cool and realistic and I will put it next to my collection of old Macs, it will fit in perfectly there, resting on top of one of the old machines.
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!"
That idea is sh!t! You're an idiot!
Sorry, the action figure on my machine typed that - I cleared him away from the keyboard! (Don't listen to him, I think a talking action figure would be fantastic!)
Comments
If you buy a $99 figurine... ummmm
I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that Apple has a patent on wearing jeans and black turtle necks.
So, with CGI and voice modulation getting to the point where you can easily misrepresent or reproduce anyone's likeness in a short amount of time, is it really about Apple being unreasonable? Anyone is free to protect their own image if they can demonstrate that it is able to make money. Confound this capitalist notion of fair market practices.
The fact that it offends so many people, who obviously just want a Steve Jobs doll, shows that it makes sense to protect the copyright. Also, as others will also point out, if Apple doesn't protect the likeness, even in relatively harmless scenarios such as this, they lose the copyright altogether. You are required by law to protect your patent and copyright portfolio. Imagine if they did not, and you had a defamatory or unfair representation of Jobs next. Or a figure that you do respect. Disagree all you want, but it's the law. Write your lawmakers if it bothers you so much.
wait, Apple "owns" the likeness of Steve Jobs?
Yep .
California (if not the US) is VERY hip to the idea of people owning the rights to use their face, name etc, especially people who are celebrities. It prevents things like someone using a voice or a face in an ad for something that person wouldn't support like a Pro Abortion candidate when said person is Pro Choice. This is important because the association via being in the ad, just as a voice, implies support.
Steve could have requested that after his death Apple legal handle his usage rights for his estate, could have given all rights not previously given to Apple perhaps even as a Trademark etc. Lots of possible ways to do it. And it makes sense given the long association. Lots of photos etc have his image and it protects Apple from some nefarious person claiming they can't use that image of Steve because the Estate owns it.
In fact here's a juicy tidbit of the law here in Cali. Outside of news, if you are filmed and you didn't give permission you can sue for illegal use of your image. That's why you will sometimes see those signs up that say things like "Filming in progress in this area. If you enter you are giving permission for the use of your image with no legal recourse." The other way around it is that they keep everything blurred, like in cars that are going buy. Because you have to be able to use without any doubts that it is most definitely you and "i was there and I drive a red car just like that one" isn't enough if your face is a featureless color blur
Yep .
California (if not the US) is VERY hip to the idea of people owning the rights to use their face, name etc, especially people who are celebrities. It prevents things like someone using a voice or a face in an ad for something that person wouldn't support like a Pro Abortion candidate when said person is Pro Choice. This is important because the association via being in the ad, just as a voice, implies support.
Steve could have requested that after his death Apple legal handle his usage rights for his estate, could have given all rights not previously given to Apple perhaps even as a Trademark etc. Lots of possible ways to do it. And it makes sense given the long association. Lots of photos etc have his image and it protects Apple from some nefarious person claiming they can't use that image of Steve because the Estate owns it.
Thanks for the common sense.
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.
I can't see anything offensive about it, and unless Apple plans to release its own version, I can't see how it intrudes on, or damages, Apple's business. Rather the opposite, in the form of indirect free advertising.
Then again, perhaps they are worried about lots of images or videos involving the figure in amusingly disrespectful poses going viral.
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.
This is something that is really common for movie stars as they make their living off of their image. I'm pretty sure that in most western countries you don't even have to file paperwork on it as it's assumed that you have the right to control your own image.
It doesn't technically apply to other public figures like politicians businessmen etc. as they don't explicitly make money off of their image, voice etc.
It's totally possible to leave something in your will or arrange with lawyers beforehand that a particular entity (in this case Apple) has sole rights to that image after your death however and that's likely what Steve Jobs has done as he was a pretty smart guy and able to anticipate stuff like this.
If Steve Jobs hasn't made any explicit arrangements however, his likeness is fair game and useable by all. If this wasn't the case, political satire (amongst other things), would be impossible. Apple has to have some kind of signed agreement to argue what they do, but it's almost certain that they do.
I see Einstein photos all over the place in ads. His likeness is owned by a University in Jerusalem ...
How ironic is that considering Einstein was famously anti-Zionist and actually against the foundation of Israel.
That is one creeeeepy doll. Of course, I must have one for my fan episode of Robot Chicken
If you could look through his bionic eye and push a button on his back to make his bionic arm go up I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
This is something that is really common for movie stars as they make their living off of their image. I'm pretty sure that in most western countries you don't even have to file paperwork on it as it's assumed that you have the right to control your own image.
It doesn't technically apply to other public figures like politicians businessmen etc. as they don't explicitly make money off of their image, voice etc.
It's totally possible to leave something in your will or arrange with lawyers beforehand that a particular entity (in this case Apple) has sole rights to that image after your death however and that's likely what Steve Jobs has done as he was a pretty smart guy and able to anticipate stuff like this.
If Steve Jobs hasn't made any explicit arrangements however, his likeness is fair game and useable by all. If this wasn't the case, political satire (amongst other things), would be impossible. Apple has to have some kind of signed agreement to argue what they do, but it's almost certain that they do.
To exclude the notion that Steve Jobs likeness and voice won't at some point be a source of income is presumptive. But yes, there are obviously subtleties in the law. If the doll was a caricature, Apple would probably not be able to do much. This doll, like the bobble head's face, are very realistic renderings. I'm inclined to think that distinction matters, but if anyone more familiar with these laws has input, I'd be interested to hear it.
How ironic is that considering Einstein was famously anti-Zionist and actually against the foundation of Israel.
Opens the flood gates for crass stereotypical humor.
How ironic is that considering Einstein was famously anti-Zionist and actually against the foundation of Israel.
The rights were originally inherited by his heirs who later donated them to the university.
In fact here's a juicy tidbit of the law here in Cali. Outside of news, if you are filmed and you didn't give permission you can sue for illegal use of your image. That's why you will sometimes see those signs up that say things like "Filming in progress in this area. If you enter you are giving permission for the use of your image with no legal recourse." The other way around it is that they keep everything blurred, like in cars that are going buy. Because you have to be able to use without any doubts that it is most definitely you and "i was there and I drive a red car just like that one" isn't enough if your face is a featureless color blur
Personally, I wonder how sites like TMZ can get away with filming/photographing celebrities (and their spouse/children) without their consent, and then making money from their 'appearance'. If non-celebrities have to give permission or be warned, how can people like Harvey Levin make a profit without a celebrity's consent?
Sorry, off topic...
As for the topic in this thread, I ordered one of these a couple of days ago, I hope that I get it in Feb. The figure looks so damn cool and realistic and I will put it next to my collection of old Macs, it will fit in perfectly there, resting on top of one of the old machines.
Brilliant!
And the worst part about it is he'd probably be right.
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!"
That idea is sh!t! You're an idiot!
Sorry, the action figure on my machine typed that - I cleared him away from the keyboard!
Opens the flood gates for crass stereotypical humor.
How's that? Unlike Newton Einstein had no connection to an Apple.
How's that? Unlike Newton Einstein had no connection to an Apple.
Einstein appeared in an Apple ad. You can Google the query Einstein Think Different.
If you could look through his bionic eye and push a button on his back to make his bionic arm go up I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
LOL. The Six Billion Dollar CEO.