Plant-based marketing campaign uses Steve Jobs & faces potential conflict with Apple

Posted:
in General Discussion

A new marketing campaign aims to promote plant-based diets and convince people to stop eating meat, and uses Steve Jobs' famous slogan, but it may get pushback from Apple.

Steve Jobs famously had a fruit-based diet
Steve Jobs famously had a fruit-based diet



Eat Differently, a newly established LLC describes itself as a "public service resource." As part of its mission, it has funded the placement of 29 billboards throughout San Diego, featuring prominent figures such as Jobs, Paul McCartney, Greta Thunberg, and Cesar Chavez, among others.

In the spirit of the initial campaign, Eat Differently intends to pay tribute to historical and contemporary icons who inspire people to embrace a different way of thinking and eating and contribute to a movement that drives humanity toward a more promising future.

"In the 90's, Apple launched one of the most prolific and poignant advertising campaigns in modern history, Eat Differently says on its website. "The 'Think Different' campaign highlighted luminaries throughout history and correlated their extraordinary 'thinking' with brilliance. We noticed that many of these luminaries featured in the campaign had a common thread -- they ate differently."




The incorporation of Steve Jobs into the campaign is likely a reference to the renowned Apple co-founder's well-known dietary preferences. He was a vegetarian for most of his life and primarily ate fruits, nuts, and seeds.

The campaign also quotes Jobs, who once said, "The dairy industry tried for 20 years to convince you that milk was good for you. It's a lie, but they tried anyway."

Apple is known for vigorously safeguarding its trademarks. For example, the company has sought exclusive rights to all representations of apples due to its distinctive logo. It remains uncertain whether Eat Differently's campaign, spotted by iMore will encounter challenges from the company.

Read on AppleInsider

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    Anilu_777Anilu_777 Posts: 525member
    JP234 said:
    Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.

    If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
    Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission. 
    watto_cobraDogperson
  • Reply 2 of 28
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 614member
    JP234 said:
    Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.

    If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
    The problem is you cannot let any of them slide for doing so weakens your position to stop them in the future. Litigating each and everyone if they will not remove the infringement puts other companies on notice to not even think about it.
    edited June 2023 MplsPwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 28
    waveparticlewaveparticle Posts: 1,497member
    This seems like Steve Jobs has been elevated to the status of George Washington. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 4 of 28
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,860member
    Anilu_777 said:
    JP234 said:
    Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.

    If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
    Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission. 
    Apple didn't have a "Think Differently" campaign, they had a "Think Different" campaign. The real problem here would be using Jobs likeness without permission, if they have not obtained that.

    Still, I'm not sure Jobs is the poster boy they want since he died at the young age of 56 from cancer. 
    mdwcoolfactorpscooter63MplsPwatto_cobraradarthekat
  • Reply 5 of 28
    Anilu_777 said:
    JP234 said:
    Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.

    If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
    Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission. 
    Apple didn't have a "Think Differently" campaign, they had a "Think Different" campaign. The real problem here would be using Jobs likeness without permission, if they have not obtained that.

    Still, I'm not sure Jobs is the poster boy they want since he died at the young age of 56 from cancer. 
    Did Apple have to get the approval of the families of Einstein, Picasso, Gandhi, etc. to use their likenesses in their commercial?
    pscooter63williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 28
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,209member
    Well, it is certainly a transformative image rather than a copy of a protected one AFAICT. 
  • Reply 7 of 28
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,241member

    Jobs is my hero, but I don't agree with his statement that milk is "bad for you". Reminds me of an anti-vaxxer mentality. :p  If there is anything bad about store-bought milk, it would be the production process, not the milk itself.

    edited June 2023 JP234williamlondonwatto_cobraDogperson
  • Reply 8 of 28
    sbdudesbdude Posts: 256member
    Anilu_777 said:
    JP234 said:
    Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.

    If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
    Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission. 
    Apple didn't have a "Think Differently" campaign, they had a "Think Different" campaign. The real problem here would be using Jobs likeness without permission, if they have not obtained that.

    Still, I'm not sure Jobs is the poster boy they want since he died at the young age of 56 from cancer. 
    Did Apple have to get the approval of the families of Einstein, Picasso, Gandhi, etc. to use their likenesses in their commercial?
    In California, the posthumous right to publicity is 70 years after death, assuming you live(d) in California. Each state has their own laws and statutory time period. Given the deep pockets, I would have assumed apple would have obtained permission; but most of those people are long dead.

    This campaign, however, would be a clear violation without permission.
    edited June 2023 anonymousewilliamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 28
    waveparticlewaveparticle Posts: 1,497member
    sbdude said:
    Anilu_777 said:
    JP234 said:
    Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.

    If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
    Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission. 
    Apple didn't have a "Think Differently" campaign, they had a "Think Different" campaign. The real problem here would be using Jobs likeness without permission, if they have not obtained that.

    Still, I'm not sure Jobs is the poster boy they want since he died at the young age of 56 from cancer. 
    Did Apple have to get the approval of the families of Einstein, Picasso, Gandhi, etc. to use their likenesses in their commercial?
    In California, the posthumous right to publicity is 70 years after death, assuming you live(d) in California. Each state has their own laws and statutory time period. Given the deep pockets, I would have assumed apple would have obtained permission; but most of those people are long dead.

    This campaign, however, would be a clear violation without permission.
    The right to Steve Jobs belongs to his family not Apple. 
    anonymousewilliamlondon
  • Reply 10 of 28
    waveparticlewaveparticle Posts: 1,497member

    Jobs is my hero, but I don't agree with his statement that milk is "bad for you". Reminds me of an anti-vaxxer mentality. :p  If there is anything bad about store-bought milk, it would be the production process, not the milk itself.

    Does Jobs eat cheese? Cheese is made of milk, right? Westerners are so crazy about cheese. This translates into the popularity of pizza. But I heard that goat cheese is much beneficial than cheese. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 11 of 28

    Jobs is my hero, but I don't agree with his statement that milk is "bad for you". Reminds me of an anti-vaxxer mentality. :p  If there is anything bad about store-bought milk, it would be the production process, not the milk itself.

    Does Jobs eat cheese? Cheese is made of milk, right? Westerners are so crazy about cheese. This translates into the popularity of pizza. But I heard that goat cheese is much beneficial than cheese. 
    Steve Jobs was vegan which means he didn’t eat cheese and apparently has something to do with Nazis.
    edited June 2023 chutzpahwilliamlondon
  • Reply 12 of 28
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,331member
    While we all know what ultimately took the life of Steve Jobs, the fact remains he died young at 56, and it always made me think about his often strange diets through the years.  Remember when he only ate fruit for a time and didn't use deodorant?  Could be his diet had nothing to do with his getting that form of cancer, but we honestly don't know.  As such, is it really smart to use the likeness of a man who died so young as a promotion to eat in a particular way?  To me, that's rather crazy.
    pscooter63williamlondonwatto_cobrasloaahradarthekat
  • Reply 13 of 28
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,912member
    Proverbs 23:7 is the biblical version of you are what you eat. I eat meat but I respect those who are vegetarian/vegans. 
    JP234watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 28
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,462member
    SJ didn't eat differently, he ate different.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 28
    jSnivelyjSnively Posts: 429administrator
    Hi.

    Some comments have been removed from this thread. As per general practice, we get the root and the stem, so apologies to anybody who made reasonable posts addressing the original. I should also apologize to people who reported earlier that it took so long for somebody here to see them. We're working on that 👍
    edited June 2023 pscooter63williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 28
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,921member
    Yeah, it is a bit ironic that they’re using Steve Jobs to promote a ‘healthy vegetarian diet’ when he died young of cancer. 

    I don’t think Apple necessarily has a claim here but his family may. That said we don’t know that the ad agency didn’t get permission 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 28
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,331member
    JP234 said:
    jdw said:
    While we all know what ultimately took the life of Steve Jobs, the fact remains he died young at 56, and it always made me think about his often strange diets through the years.  Remember when he only ate fruit for a time and didn't use deodorant?  Could be his diet had nothing to do with his getting that form of cancer, but we honestly don't know.  As such, is it really smart to use the likeness of a man who died so young as a promotion to eat in a particular way?  To me, that's rather crazy.
    Jobs refused surgery after diagnosis in 2003 and for nine months after, favoring instead dietary treatments and other alternative methods. His biographer Walter Isaacson says that when he asked Jobs why he had resisted it, Jobs said “I didn't want my body to be opened...I didn't want to be violated in that way.” His early resistance to surgery was apparently incomprehensible to his wife and close friends, who continually urged him to do it. “We talked about this a lot,” said Isaacson. “He wanted to talk about it, how he regretted it. ... I think he felt he should have been operated on sooner."

    There's no way to know whether his lifestyle led to his cancer, or delayed it. What we do know is that he lived 8 years after diagnosis, 7 years longer than most. A tribute to what great wealth can do to prolong an agonizing death.
    All of that is irrelevant, and here's why.

    When the average person who knows Jobs died in his 50's sees an Ad about a diet (way of life, etc.) that is supposed to make you healthier (which implies "less susceptible to disease" and "able to live a longer life"), it only strikes one as very, very odd that a person who died young, REGARDLESS OF REASON, would be showcased in an Ad for health (and indirectly, longevity).  

    This is why I feel their use of Jobs to pitch a diet ideology is wrong.  They are simply using a famous face and name to support their preferred narrative about diet and health.

    Now if Jobs were alive today and if he ultimately lived to be in his 90's, and if after his death the same group tried to pitch a healthy vegan diet in association with the way Jobs ate, then it would make A LOT OF SENSE, and no one would be surprised at all.
    watto_cobraJP234
  • Reply 18 of 28
    hammeroftruthhammeroftruth Posts: 1,308member
    I thought Jobs was a pescatarian and not a vegan. That’s what I heard while he was alive. 
    Also there was a story I read online that his oncologist hypothesized that he got his cancer from the chemicals he used while cleaning circuit boards at HP and it metastasized into his organs which would have killed him eventually no matter what he did, diet, medication, radiation etc. By the time it was detectable it was too late. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 19 of 28
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    JP234 said:
    jimh2 said:
    JP234 said:
    Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.

    If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
    The problem is you cannot let any of them slide for doing so weakens your position to stop them in the future. Litigating each and everyone if they will not remove the infringement puts other companies on notice to not even think about it.
    You just encapsulated the Domino Theory used to rationalize our involvement in Vietnam. Wasn't true then, remains to be seen if it's true now. But scorched earth tactics are just just as bad for the scorcher as they are for the scorched.
    The way to go if Apple wanted to let this slide is to explicitly grant rights to this organization.
    edited June 2023 JP234
  • Reply 20 of 28
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    jSnively said:
    Hi.

    Some comments have been removed from this thread. As per general practice, we get the root and the stem, so apologies to anybody who made reasonable posts addressing the original. I should also apologize to people who reported earlier that it took so long for somebody here to see them. We're working on that 👍
    I was late to see the email notifications for those reported messages because I’m 12 hours shifted in time, having semi-retired to The Philippines.  Sometimes that time shift is advantageous as I catch the ones where it’s the middle of the night in the states.  
Sign In or Register to comment.