My sister makes custom italian bracelet charms. She takes a photo, downsizes it and puts it on one of those charms somehow. If she starts using cd covers, band names, celebrities names, and likewise, is that in violation of copyright laws?
In a word…yes.
Definitely. The album covers, etc. are copyrighted and she’d be making a copy without permission. She couldn’t even begin to raise a fair use defense; the usage is clearly a violation.
Depending on the material, you could also be in trouble for Trademark infringement and/ or dilution. Through some creative arguing and some lenient judging (9th circuit), you might get a comp (i.e. compulsory) license with the copyright material, though in my experience, i’ve only done it and seen it done with music, put simply… btw, IANYL and other standard disclaimers apply.
Are you perhaps referring to a mechanical license, as in this column by Cecil? If so, those refer only to musical works.
I’ve never heard of a “compulsory” license in regards to copyright. That would defeat the whole purpose of copyrights.
Trademark violation is a possibility, although unlikely. Very few cd covers or band names are ever trademarked.
Depending on location, however, the use of a celebrity’s likeness can bring the courts stamping down on your head. California has a particularly stringent law, although the courts there have begun loosening up on enforcement.
“Compulsory license” is the correct term in U.S. copyright law.
It is, but it only applies to the music used on phonorecords and CDs. The covers and pictures are not covered by it.
As RealityChuck stated, “compulsory licences” are for music – the idea behind them is to prevent musical works from being legislated right out of our cultures (for example when if the copyright owner can’t be found or is just being a jerk about licencing). But even then the way compulsory mechanical licences are being implemented is starting to change (depending on juristiction).
Also, if she is using someone else’s artwork - it will likely fall into the category of being a “derivative work” which is exactly what it sounds like, a work “derived” from a previously existing (copyrighted) work.
If I can find it, there was a really interesting case involving a famous collage artist. He uses stuff ripped from magazines in his artwork and it made for some interesting legal wrangling.
Ah, here: Copyright for Collage Artists. This may have some information that may prove to be quite handy for the OP.
I haven’t read it thoroughly, just galnced at it, so I can’t verify its accuracy, but at a glance, it doesn’t look half bad.
First, I was referring to “compulsory” in regards to areas of copyright other than music. Thought that was clear; sorry that it wasn’t.
Second, from the site Eats_Crayons linked to:
Emphasis added. Doesn’t look good for your sister.