Copyright Fight Brewing Over Who 'Owns' Steve Jobs Silhouette Inside The Apple Logo
from the let-it-go,-guys dept
After Steve Jobs passed away last week, an image quickly went viral showing his silhouette inside the Apple logo, where the traditional "bite" mark once was:![](https://i.imgur.com/1yI6X.jpg)
But, then, over the weekend, others started pointing out that a UK-based designer, who goes by the name Raid71, had apparently come up with a nearly identical image back in May. Mak claimed independent invention, insisting that he "didn't rip off" Raid71 and that he just came up with the same idea himself:
"I still arrived at the solution on my own, and my conscience is still clear, but I'm more than happy to acknowledge the fact that somebody did it before me."So that's two people. Well, now we have a third. It seems that Farzin Adeli, based in California, isn't just claiming that he came up with the idea, but is trying to copyright and trademark the image. He says he came up with the image right after Jobs' death, and insists that the image that went viral -- while a negative version of the one he made, is "virtually identical" to the image he created. He registered for the copyright on Thursday and is "working with lawyers" on the trademark.
Of course, it's entirely possible that all three of these folks came up with the idea separately. And while it's rare, copyright law does actually allow an independent creation defense. But somehow I doubt that would prevent a potential legal battle.
Still, all three of these might not have any legitimate legal claim to the tribute logo either: I would imagine that Apple could quash any attempts to register the intellectual property claims of these guys. I can't see how any trademark claim gets anywhere, as Apple could obviously claim that it infringes on Apple's existing trademarks and there would be a serious likelihood of confusion. Separately, while I think publicity rights are pretty silly, you have to imagine Steve Jobs' estate could make a publicity rights claim under California law over the use of his likeness. I hope they don't go down that path -- as it is a nice tribute. But, if the others start fighting over who owns what, at the very least, it might be good to remind all of them that probably none of them really should have any IP over the image.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: apple logo, copyright, steve jobs, tribute
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They are all out of luck
But what about copyright? Can one of the creators prevent Apple from using it as a trademark since they can claim copyright to the design?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are all out of luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are all out of luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Testing uniqueness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Testing uniqueness
Not impossible. For example, they may have all used the same photo of Jobs as a reference.
Which, incidentally, would open up a whole other avenue for copyright claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Testing uniqueness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone loses...
Since the dawn of the 18th century, when our ancestors first discovered the censoring path with cunning and wit, money has been spilled in the name of copyright, from God to justice, to simple internet stupidity.
In the year 2011, after centuries of armed lawsuits, the destructive nature of censorship, could substain itself, no longer. The world was plunged into an abyss of dark nights, and silence.
But it was not, as some had predicted, the end of the world. Instead, the apocalypse was just the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history. For man, had succeded destroying the innovative world..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone loses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone loses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everyone loses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everyone loses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The California guy is clearly an opportunist. And considering what we know from the US copywrong and legal system he's probably succeeding (unless Apple gets in the mess).
That said, I do believe that quite a few individuals had the same idea. I mean come on, it's simple and it's obvious, specially after Jobs died. It'll be interesting to follow this case. In the end the picture should just be considered public domain and we should just flattr the Hong Kong guy and the other one (not California idiot) and carry on with our lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whoever posted first (either via e-mail or on a webpage/blog) with a verifiable time/date stamp has the best claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does it even matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just release it into the Public Domain
Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just release it into the Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wait, there's more...
http://www.bravo.de/family/Die-aktuelle-BRAVO/ex/page/1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To pick at the corpse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sort of follows your warped views on the subject. What you are suggesting is that, if someone else comes up with something at any time in the future without having seen the original, that the original should lose any and all protections?
How truly odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you allow for "Independent invention" as a defence, you start to get into a question of mind space: Did the second inventor ever see the work of the first? Ever heard of it? Remember, with the internet generation, information travels the globe in seconds. Independent invention might have been a semi-valid concept when the news was delivered by horseback and sailing ship and took years to go around the world, but today we have no excuses.
Does the second inventor ALSO get the rights, or do they both lose them? If you wanted to license, would you have to license from both, or could you just create your own and claim "Independent invention" of your own?
Can you see why this is both a legal and logical dead end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your comment, which misrepresents everything Mike clearly meant by the quoted sentence and those around it?
Yes, you are very odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is petty and stupid.
"All art is derivative. There is no form of art that is totally original... 'originality' is a modern art construct... a silly concession to marketing concerns." - Paul deMarrais
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is petty and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is petty and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is petty and stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not always about money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its not always about money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony Auth Washington Post Cartoonist 10/7/11
http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/ta/2011/10/07/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tony Auth Washington Post Cartoonist 10/7/11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tony Auth Washington Post Cartoonist 10/7/11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silhouetted image
[ link to this | view in chronology ]