Is it legal to sell products whose design uses titles of copyrighted songs? There are some similar questions here, but I believe mine is a little different. Is it legal to sell products (t-shirts, mugs, etc.) that use typography art of the titles of famous songs. Also, can these be legally advertised by me, non-copyright holder, with the name of the band, or artists?
If the typography is a significant aspect of the overall art of a song title - wherever the song title may be reproduced, i.e. poster, CD cover, etc. - than I'd say that's part of the copyright of the artwork as a whole and not simply the title, and is under copyright. Further, individual type faces can be under copyright themselves. And band names can be trademarked; you will need permission to use the name for products and advertising, since using the name will imply an endorsement from that band.
The relevant law is trademark law. The basic question is whether the mark is identical or creates an unreasonable risk of confusion with the protected mark. There is no per se 30%-40% rule. I can imagine cases where changing a single letter in a long phrase turns a trademark violation into a parody or clearly different mark (see the Electric Company TV show). I can also imagine cases where changing a large part of the mark could still be infringing and confusingly similar. A parody is protected on fair use grounds in copyright law (which could conceivably come into play since this is a derivative work but would be protected since it is a parody), but in trademark law the issue is that a parody is unlikely to be confused for the original. Of course, at a fine grained level when one is looking at particular cases rather than general ideas, you would have to know which country's laws were involved, for example, where the goods would be sold.
There is no such thing as "alter it by X amount and it's legal". If the original can be determined at all, it would fall under derivative work and be an infringement. https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths -- See #6 and #7 And Stanford: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/2014/12/22/much-photo-need-alter-avoid-copyright-infringement-hint-cheshire-cat/ Kienitz v Sconnie Nation And the well known Shepard Fairy/Hope poster case: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/shephard-fairey-is-fined-and-sentenced-to-probation-in-hope-poster-case/?_r=0
Yes Both melody and lyrics source back to the middle ages, as for instance described here. The difficulty could be to make sure you rely your derived work on a variant that is really in the public domain. E.g. if you use notes or lyrics from the Simon &amp; Garfunkel version and derive from there, you might violate their copyright.
With respect to the Table of Contents - in the US: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf What Is Not Protected by Copyright? Copyright does not protect • Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries • Works that are not fixed in a tangible form (such as a choreographic work that has not been notated or recorded or an improvisational speech that has not been written down) • Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans • Familiar symbols or designs • Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring • Mere listings of ingredients or contents For more information, see Works Not Protected by Copyright (Circular 33). In the UK (here) : Copyright protects only the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. For example, two artists may paint the same scene but portray them in ways that are slightly different, without infringing each other’s copyright. At the same time, the fact that the series Lost is copyright protected does not prevent you from writing a story about a number of people who are forced to live on a remote island after a plane crash. Taking inspiration from someone else’s work is therefore acceptable, but in order to have copyright in your work and avoid infringement you need to create something original by using your own skill, labour, judgement and effort. Using another’s work is copyright infringement when ‘the work as a whole or any substantial part of it’ has been copied. Unfortunately, the precise meaning of these concepts is defined on a case-by-case basis. In deciding cases like this, courts will weigh the potential impact upon the originator’s ability to market their work with the concern that other people should be able to use it in order to draw inspiration for future work. Now - just to dive a bit further in and have a thought experiment. Using those titles in your question as your titles, would be fairly anodyne and would likely NOT constitute a breach of copyright as they are merely describing what most study guides have at the beginning of their contents page! Substantial material has not been copied. However - if we engage our law heads and accept that this may not be a criminal issue, but rather a civil tort/wrong that could lead to a law suit if the book owner were to discover your copying of their exact titular layout in order to structure your course. If you made a full course, with say 50 topics that are mapped exactly to the same topics, in the same order - it could be argued by a lawyer that you are stealing someone's creative structuring of a study guide. They would then have to persuade the court that this was the case. You might argue that these topic headings were common to most study programmes for Python and represent fair communal use - see [here][2]. It is also hard to argue 'creativity' and expression in a fairly standard TOC page. There are exceptions to copyright in some educational circumstances ([here][3]). I would have said that a simple remedy would be to rename and restructure the titles as much as possible to prevent such a link from being made - thus showing you have put your own effort into constructing your own course outline. However you have also included &quot;and the main ideas&quot; - this might take us down another road entirely if you mean the main ideas from within the chapters themselves.... see [here][4]. When creating new work, it is natural to be inspired by the work of others. However, there is an important distinction between simply being inspired and unlawfully copying. In order not to infringe someone else’s copyright – meaning that you trespass on or otherwise interfere with their rights – you need to make sure that your work is substantially different to the work that inspires you. According to UK copyright law, your work is considered original – and thus protected by copyright – if you use your skill, labour, judgement and effort to create it. Using another’s work is copyright infringement when ‘the work as a whole or any substantial part of it’ has been copied. The meaning of ‘substantial’ changes is defined on a case-by-case basis. Usually the court focuses on the quality of the parts taken, not necessarily the amount, and the circumstances of each case. [2]: https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-use-copyright-explained#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20fair%20usage,s)%20or%20infringing%20their%20interest. [3]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/375951/Education_and_Teaching.pdf [4]: https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/rights-permissions/using-reusing/
When you license your IP (like a song) you can specify the terms and conditions of its use by the licensee, including revenue shares from any derived work. However, if, as your comment suggests, you grant an "informal" license, and later decide that you want to "firm things up" with a license having different terms, that's a matter you would have to either negotiate or litigate with your counterparty. If you want a common reference point for negotiation of this sort of license, you might have a look at compulsory license terms.
Those posts are talking about making a modified copy of a copyrighted work. The key word is copy. You are not making a copy. Copyright is not about how a physical embodiment of a copyrighted work is treated. You can burn a book and shred a newspaper. Neither of those actions is making a copy. Also, cutting up a newspaper and pasting a picture on your wall has nothing to do with any “derivative works” issue.
Copyright law doesn't say the art isn't copyrighted if it was made unlawfully. It seems the art can be copyrighted and the act of making it can be a criminal offence. I'm not aware of any such copyright cases that have gone to trial. A fairly well known case that settled out of court is that of Jason “Revok” Williams and H&amp;M. Williams noticed his art in a photograph used in an H&amp;M marketing campaign. His lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter to H&amp;M. In response, H&amp;M applied for a court order stating that the product of an unlawful act could not be copyrighted. Following some bad publicity H&amp;M relented and settled with Williams. H&amp;M stopped using the photograph and withdrew the application for the court order. (News source) ... The debate over street artists’ copyright privileges has entered courtrooms quite a bit over the past few years, according to Philippa Loengard, deputy director of Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts. ... The [H&amp;M] claim wasn’t surprising, Loengard said, but it also doesn’t hold up. At its core, a copyright requires only two things: that the work is original and that it is a tangible medium of expression. [Loengard said,] “ … Copyright is not a legal or illegal sanction of the activity that was done to produce the work. Copyright is a separate entity.” Another case settled out of court is that of Joseph &quot;Rime&quot; Tierney and Moschino. Tierney sued Moschino for using his art on its designs. One day before the court was notified of the intention to settle, Moschino sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that unlawfully made art could not be copyrighted. (News source) &quot;As a matter of public policy and basic logic, it would make no sense to grant legal protection to work that is created entirely illegally.&quot;