I consider the doll obscene and am glad it has been removed. Imagine someone taking detailed images of your mother, sister, or daughter, then making an exact, scale sex doll with the same face, anatomical proportions, and everything. To make matters worse, they sell it for ONLY $99 without giving you any of it. That may not be illegal, but it probably ought to be. It is certainly distasteful.
And, yes, I would have eventually bought an SJ doll. That does not make it any less distasteful, and I am still glad it was stopped. Don't bother pointing out my double standards, I could write a book about them.
What? Where did you hear this? Since when do our employers control our likeness? I would expect that to belong to Jobs' estate.
See this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
We don't actually know if Apple controls his likeness. We'd expect it to be owned by his heirs, unless the rights were assigned to Apple on his death. That's possible, but no article I've seen on this subject says so. It's also noteworthy that the doll manufacturer is saying that the pressure came from Steve's family as well.
... get a couple before they pull them off the market,
then wait 10 years,
and sell it on eBay for $450000 ... or a million and a half.
That's what I'm doing, I'm a doll collector and the Jobs doll is hi dollar. I already have John Lennon with gunshot wound, Kim Johng il and tupac. Just need Jobs and I'll be good for a few $$ in 20 years. Woop
That's what I'm doing, I'm a doll collector and the Jobs doll is hi dollar. I already have John Lennon with gunshot wound, Kim Johng il and tupac. Just need Jobs and I'll be good for a few $$ in 20 years. Woop
What about Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi and Osama Bin Laden dolls from the murdered dictators collection?
From what I understand, Jobs didn't like any charity. "Tribute" my eye. It is profiteering, plain and simple. If a person can't own and control their own likeness, what can they control. Although we already know you don't control your own cells, organs, etc...
So it's not profiteering for book publishers of unauthorized biographies, or magazine publishers to use Jobs image on covers to sell more units? Or for websites to use his name and photo to get more clicks and page views to generate more advertising revenue? Or to put together a special magazine issue of a compilation of all Jobs related articles from the past? Hmmm. Seems like a rather nonsensical argument.
From what I understand, Jobs didn't like any charity. "Tribute" my eye. It is profiteering, plain and simple. If a person can't own and control their own likeness, what can they control. Although we already know you don't control your own cells, organs, etc...
So profiteering is a bad thing? And where do you draw the line? How about the November issue of Fortune designed to sell more magazines?
Here is the headline and also had a full cover photo of Steve:
Steve Jobs: The biography ... his rivalry with Bill
Steve and Bill were the ultimate frenemies. In this exclusive excerpt from his new book, Steve Jobs, Walter Isaacson shows how their relationship evolved from a contentious disdain to a grudging respect.
Steve and me
Fortune contributor Brent Schlender shares some of the stories and personal photographs he collected during more than two decades as Steve Jobs' chronicler and confidant.
You have the rights to your own likeness, at least over a number of years after your death. Especially since Jobs is so identified with the Apple brand.
Apple is getting to be such assholes. It's a tribute and I can see a whole lot of Apple/Jobs fans who would like to have a remembrance like that action figure. Why not cut a deal to say n% goes to some charity that Job's liked.
I guess Job's wife and kids are assholes too? Coz they don't want it either..
So profiteering is a bad thing? And where do you draw the line? How about the November issue of Fortune designed to sell more magazines?
You really don't see the difference between a news magazine dedicated to finance running stories about SJ's legacy and a random company pumping out an overpriced "collectible"?
Comments
And, yes, I would have eventually bought an SJ doll. That does not make it any less distasteful, and I am still glad it was stopped. Don't bother pointing out my double standards, I could write a book about them.
What? Where did you hear this? Since when do our employers control our likeness? I would expect that to belong to Jobs' estate.
See this:
We don't actually know if Apple controls his likeness. We'd expect it to be owned by his heirs, unless the rights were assigned to Apple on his death. That's possible, but no article I've seen on this subject says so. It's also noteworthy that the doll manufacturer is saying that the pressure came from Steve's family as well.
... get a couple before they pull them off the market,
then wait 10 years,
and sell it on eBay for $450000 ... or a million and a half.
That's what I'm doing, I'm a doll collector and the Jobs doll is hi dollar. I already have John Lennon with gunshot wound, Kim Johng il and tupac. Just need Jobs and I'll be good for a few $$ in 20 years. Woop
... get a couple before they pull them off the market,
then wait 10 years,
and sell it on eBay for $450000 ... or a million and a half.
....and get sued by AAPL then. Fuggetabouddit.
Slappy has guaranteed me that Apple won't be here in 10 years.
That's what I'm doing, I'm a doll collector and the Jobs doll is hi dollar. I already have John Lennon with gunshot wound, Kim Johng il and tupac. Just need Jobs and I'll be good for a few $$ in 20 years. Woop
What about Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi and Osama Bin Laden dolls from the murdered dictators collection?
From what I understand, Jobs didn't like any charity. "Tribute" my eye. It is profiteering, plain and simple. If a person can't own and control their own likeness, what can they control. Although we already know you don't control your own cells, organs, etc...
So it's not profiteering for book publishers of unauthorized biographies, or magazine publishers to use Jobs image on covers to sell more units? Or for websites to use his name and photo to get more clicks and page views to generate more advertising revenue? Or to put together a special magazine issue of a compilation of all Jobs related articles from the past? Hmmm. Seems like a rather nonsensical argument.
From what I understand, Jobs didn't like any charity. "Tribute" my eye. It is profiteering, plain and simple. If a person can't own and control their own likeness, what can they control. Although we already know you don't control your own cells, organs, etc...
So profiteering is a bad thing? And where do you draw the line? How about the November issue of Fortune designed to sell more magazines?
Here is the headline and also had a full cover photo of Steve:
Steve Jobs: The biography ... his rivalry with Bill
Steve and Bill were the ultimate frenemies. In this exclusive excerpt from his new book, Steve Jobs, Walter Isaacson shows how their relationship evolved from a contentious disdain to a grudging respect.
Steve and me
Fortune contributor Brent Schlender shares some of the stories and personal photographs he collected during more than two decades as Steve Jobs' chronicler and confidant.
You have the rights to your own likeness, at least over a number of years after your death. Especially since Jobs is so identified with the Apple brand.
Apple is getting to be such assholes. It's a tribute and I can see a whole lot of Apple/Jobs fans who would like to have a remembrance like that action figure. Why not cut a deal to say n% goes to some charity that Job's liked.
I guess Job's wife and kids are assholes too? Coz they don't want it either..
So profiteering is a bad thing? And where do you draw the line? How about the November issue of Fortune designed to sell more magazines?
You really don't see the difference between a news magazine dedicated to finance running stories about SJ's legacy and a random company pumping out an overpriced "collectible"?
People should leave basements of their parents sometime and go outside. I know it's scary, but singing birds and fresh air is free.
you are so insensitive, amazing!