Apple Sues Over iGasm Ads

funkeymonkeyman writes "Apple is less than pleased with an interesting new peripheral for the iPod which promises to 'take your appreciation of music to a whole new level.' Legal action has been taken against Ann Summers, the manufacturers of the new device, specifically for the similarity of the iGasm advertisements to the iconic iPod silhouette ads. The CEO of the adult retail chain replied to the threat cheerily, 'Perhaps I can send them an iGasm to put a smile back on their faces.'"

Let me correct that headline for you.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Headline should read:

Apple's usual litigation-trigger-happy attitude has netted an incalculable amount of free publicity to Anne Summers.

I can't really see how Apple can claim some sort of copyright over silhouettes. I mean - the original iPod adds seemed very.... reminiscent of the James Bond opening credits sequences from the 70s.

Perhaps Apple is jealous that the Anne Summers' logo also contains an Apple [wikimedia.org].

Re:Let me correct that headline for you.

[Xiroth]

To be honest, I seriously doubt they actually care - popular peripherals can only increase the demand for their products. All they're doing is ensuring that there's a clear gap between them so that if some think-of-the-children types kick up a fuss then they can say 'We have nothing to do with them - look, we even tried to shut them down via lawsuit.'

This kind of publicity helps both parties, and I say more power to them if the media is running with it.

Re:Let me correct that headline for you.

[Boogaroo]

This wouldn't be a copyright issue. You can't copyright a style, but you can trademark it. There's still a catch there. You have actively defend your trademark or you lose it. You also have to apply for a trademark(unlike copyright where it's automatically a given). I think Apple's on the losing side of this issue. After all, you've pointed out one other example of the same idea. I'm sure it won't be hard for a decent lawyer to come up with a few more.

Honestly? I agree with your point: Apple has just given tons of free advertising to the iGasm product.
Regardless of any result of the lawsuit, they'll probably have quite a few sales they wouldn't have gotten. Question is, will it pay more than the lawyer's fees.

Re:Come on, be a man!

[Tablizer]

What is the worst thing that can happen?

Um, a lifetime of reoccuring horrid flasbacks like one's own personal Clockwork Orange.
           

streisand effect again

[e**(i pi)-1]

Again the Streisand effect [wikipedia.org] but with an other twist: while every lawyer by now knows about this phenomenon, they take it into account but still chose legal action is taken to prevent other people to repeat this. What they do not realize yet is that advertisers or product managers will in future even more try to use names and pictures close to successful other pictures in order to use the free publicity from a lawsuit.

Re:I don't know about you

[Benaiah]

You can't patent the letter "i" or any word that starts with "i".
There is nothing wrong with what this chick is doing.
Its only available in adult shops... This is just corporate bullying.
 

Re:Let me correct that headline for you.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

You can't copyright a style, but you can trademark it.

No. You can't trademark a style.

Re:Hello the future's Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

postmodern buzzword alert: "male gaze."

It doesn't seem like this is a male hegemony issue, although after three years of LCS courses I know all too well how easy it is to use feminist theory to analyze everything. I honestly don't think the issue here is the presentation of females as sexually independent of men, it's that product x is being marketed using a knock-off of Apple's Style(TM). I'd imagine they'd still be going after the company if they made the iVag (a male sex toy.)

Re:Let me correct that headline for you.

[fractoid]

I can't really see how Apple can claim some sort of copyright over silhouettes. I mean - the original iPod adds seemed very.... reminiscent of the James Bond opening credits sequences from the 70s.

Isn't that Apple's approach to all of their 'revolutionary' stylistic stuff? "We stole it first. You can't have it!"

Re:I don't know about you

[Bob of Dole]

Apple is upset because of the ADS, not because of the name or the product.
She's using the colored background + black silhouettes style of their iPod ads.

Re:Let me correct that headline for you.

[Achromatic1978]

It helps both parties? I can't believe you see no issue with Apple causing another entity that is not even a competitor at least several tens of thousands (if not hundreds, indeed if not millions) in legal costs for the potential to be able not to offend the easily offended.

The mind is an eye one cannot gouge out.

[patio11]

Icepicks, man, icepicks. Now if you'll excuse me I have to track one down myself.

Re:I don't know about you

[1u3hr]

Who cares, the ad is a parody and that's that.

The ad is a parody, but the iGasm is an actual product (unless it's a hoax?). Parody is a defence for copyright infringement. This would be about trademark and patents. Since they're actually selling goods which are obviously meant to suggest an iPod style, it probably does infringe.

Re:I don't know about you

[1u3hr]

The ad is not a parody

Yes it is. If she is taking Apple's "sillhouette ads" and copying them to advertise her "device", it is copyright infringement, pure and simple

No it's not. She's not "copying" them in the digital sense, which would be an infringement, but imitating. You can't copyright a style of advertisement. Considering how ads blatantly steal (or are "inspired by") other ads all the time, this is obviously accepted practice.

Re:I don't know about you

[Hatta]

Which link is NSFW? There's no nudity or bad language on the iGasm page.

Re:I don't know about you

[Hognoxious]

We discussed this the other day at work (apple product retailer) [...] Everyone agreed however, that the silhouette ad all by itself was infringing

Everyone, as in a bunch of shop assistants? Pardon me if I'm not convinced.

The cocky response from the iGasm rep

Don't really need to comment.

Re:I don't know about you

[Just Some Guy]

This isn't Fark. Either man up and tell your boss about something funny you saw so that he hears about it first from you, or take some responsibility for yourself and don't click links in a story about a sex toy.

Re:I don't know about you

[sunami88]

You must be new here. [slashdot.org]

Re:iGasm beat

[evil_aar0n]

Hey, it could be worse. He could've said Barbara Bush. Or Margaret Thatcher.

Re:Let me correct that headline for you.

[Altus]

by copying the advertising they are making it look like the accessory is some how related to apple when it is not. Now they may be within their rights using the advertising style but apple is within their rights to challenge that use. If their adds were different (and from what I have read apple made a legitimate attempt to get them to change it before filing this suit) there would be no law suit.

This really isn't that unreasonable. They designed those adds to look like apples and apple doesn't want them to do that. They had a chance to avoid going to court and chose not to. If the judge decides that apple is totally off base apple will likely end up paying the legal fees. Your just looking for something to be indignant about here. This isn't that interesting of a story.