No. It could've included a photo of any public figure without satire, and it would've been rejected. Therefore the title of the article is misleading. It wasn't rejected because of satire, it was rejected because it represented a public figure in any capacity.
You'll notice an app got banned for just including images of the Obamas.
I'm surprised at the upvotes of people dissenting with me, and my associated downvotes. Voting doesn't change facts. Apple had an existing policy in place which had nothing to do with satire, which is why this app was removed. If he was satirizing himself somehow, it would have been approved. Back to my original statement - Apple is not banning satire, and this is not new news.
This rule excludes a slew of apps from the app store – not just satire but definitely also satire (satire is usually aimed at public figures and as a consequence includes representations of them, getting consent for those representations would defeat the whole purpose of satire). I don’t see how a rule that indirectly excludes satire is any better than a rule that directly excludes it.
Free speech doesn’t seem to be very important for Apple and that makes me pretty sick. iPads are supposed to be the places where we read our newspapers tomorrow, we as a society should only allow that if we also force Apple to put everything in the App store which is covered by free speech. (I do believe that free speech should limit the rules a private company is allowed to make. ISPs, for example, shouldn’t be allowed to filter out whatever they want.)
Free speech doesn’t seem to be very important for Apple
Let me know when they stop supporting the single most democratized mass communications medium the world has ever known.
we as a society should only allow that if we also force Apple to put everything in the App store which is covered by free speech.
You may not like what Apple chooses to sell, but if you want to replace their freedom to do so with the government, I don't really think you've thought that through.
ISPs, for example, shouldn’t be allowed to filter out whatever they want.
Making sure that there is plurality in the media is a task of the state. That’s my opinion, alright. I have thought that through. (That first sentence is also a true statement in at least some countries.)
Making sure that there is plurality in the media is a task of the state.
You've left a massive gap between ensuring it can exist and the forcing of retailers to stock it. That is something I'd like you to explain more clearly. Would you be willing to throw me in jail if I owned a book store but refused to stock a certain book or class of books?
You are correct, but the basis of the rejection is fundamentally flawed. Simply reusing the likeness or identity of a public figure (eg in a sliding tile game) is potentially an infringement on the person's right to publicity, as well as possibly the originator of the image if it involves commercial photography. Partaking in any profits from such an app would expose Apple to liability and is justifiably avoided.
However, the parodic nature of cartooning, and especially political cartooning (of figures who hold public office), is very strongly protected by the first amendment and masses of legal precedent, or newspapers would be getting sued right and left. Liability is not an issue here, as evinced by the ability of editorial cartoonists to freely ply their trade in newspapers (many examples of which, from large publishers, exist on the iPxx).
Having something protected by the first amendment doesn't mean you can do whatever you like, whenever you like. Private companies can make private rules. Do you think you can say whatever you like at work and not get fired?
So for satire?