Comments on: Apple Claims Drawings of Public Figures Are “Obscene, Pornographic or Defamatory” http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/11/10/apple-claims-drawings-of-public-figures-are-obscene-pornographic-or-defamatory/ Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants... Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:39:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sarah http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/11/10/apple-claims-drawings-of-public-figures-are-obscene-pornographic-or-defamatory/comment-page-1/#comment-119846 Sarah Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:30:30 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=11534#comment-119846 Apple's recent decision making process regarding apps they deem political is frustrating. I adore Apple products (especially my iPhone) but I'm also a political activist who promotes technology that adds to a more transparent democracy. The stance they've begun taking on political apps discourages me from suggesting their products to other likeminded political people. Which...if they look at their customer base they might find is a significant demographic of people buying their products. Apple’s recent decision making process regarding apps they deem political is frustrating. I adore Apple products (especially my iPhone) but I’m also a political activist who promotes technology that adds to a more transparent democracy.

The stance they’ve begun taking on political apps discourages me from suggesting their products to other likeminded political people. Which…if they look at their customer base they might find is a significant demographic of people buying their products.

]]> By: Paul Blumenthal http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/11/10/apple-claims-drawings-of-public-figures-are-obscene-pornographic-or-defamatory/comment-page-1/#comment-119712 Paul Blumenthal Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:14:50 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=11534#comment-119712 This would have made a much more sensible argument than the one presented by Apple: that the pictures are intended to ridicule. Schwarzenegger may be a special case considering he is famous for something other than being a politician and he has his brand as a celebrity to protect. This app also doesn't seek to make money off of one single lawmaker, but instead presents pictures of all lawmakers along with useful tools to contact them. If I'm remembering correctly, Obama asked that the use of image be reduced in merchandise. Or it could have been that people stop selling stuff with the official seal of the White House on it. Thanks for your comment. This would have made a much more sensible argument than the one presented by Apple: that the pictures are intended to ridicule. Schwarzenegger may be a special case considering he is famous for something other than being a politician and he has his brand as a celebrity to protect. This app also doesn’t seek to make money off of one single lawmaker, but instead presents pictures of all lawmakers along with useful tools to contact them.

If I’m remembering correctly, Obama asked that the use of image be reduced in merchandise. Or it could have been that people stop selling stuff with the official seal of the White House on it.

Thanks for your comment.

]]> By: alex http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/11/10/apple-claims-drawings-of-public-figures-are-obscene-pornographic-or-defamatory/comment-page-1/#comment-119705 alex Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:52:07 +0000 http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=11534#comment-119705 Not that i agree with Apple's rejection (it's ridiculous) but perhaps the real reason is for it is more under "exploitation of an individual for commercial purposes". Even politicians have a right to protect themselves against unauthorized & uncompensated usage of their personages. First Amendment & free speech liberties, i.e., 'Right of Publicity' considerations doesn't extend to profiting. Not too long ago Schwarzenegger sued a bobble-head maker for just that: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/national/18arnold.html ..and although it would naturally seem that Tom Richmond and his partner would be ultimately responsible for the content and thus any poss. litigation, Apple of course knows that it would be a richer target. Not that i agree with Apple’s rejection (it’s ridiculous) but perhaps the real reason is for it is more under “exploitation of an individual for commercial purposes”.

Even politicians have a right to protect themselves against unauthorized & uncompensated usage of their personages. First Amendment & free speech liberties, i.e., ‘Right of Publicity’ considerations doesn’t extend to profiting.

Not too long ago Schwarzenegger sued a bobble-head maker for just that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/national/18arnold.html

..and although it would naturally seem that Tom Richmond and his partner would be ultimately responsible for the content and thus any poss. litigation, Apple of course knows that it would be a richer target.

]]>