Is it illegal to sell a spell online? This question is for the United States in general for online marketplaces. Some history: Back in 2012, Ebay stopped the sale of spells, and now Etsy has also banned the sale of spells. They have both banned several things that are not illegal to sell, but questionable. I am not concerned about whether it is 'moral' or against a religion, but rather whether the seller and/or the site that the spell was sold on could be held liable for anything? An assumption would be that the buyer would get some proof that the spell was performed. This could be a photo, video, skype session, or some other form of proof. The proof may be downloaded, mailed, or in person delivered. If it is against the law, what law / regulation? I've seen several posts stating that it's against the law, but no one has mentioned an applicable law. Also, what would be the legal difference between a spell and a prayer?
Selling online is unclear. However, selling in the mail, the court has held that, based on 18 U.S.C.A. S1341 (Frauds and swindles): Therein the weight of authority is that astrologers, conjurers, fakirs, magicians, mediums, and all variety of pretenders to supernatural power, and who assume to sell the same for money, are amenable to the criminal law of false pretenses. United States v. Calwer, 282 F. 1007 (D. Minn. 1923). In prosecution for devising a scheme and artifice to defraud and using the mails in connection therewith, which scheme consisted of representations by defendant that he was gifted with supernatural powers, evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. Crane v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1919, 259 F. 480, 170 C.C.A. 456 Notwithstanding constitutional provision as to religious freedom, it was an offense to pretend to believe in supernatural powers for the purpose of procuring money and to use the mails in pursuance of such purpose. New v. U.S., C.C.A.9 (Cal.) 1917, 245 F. 710, 158 C.C.A. 112, certiorari denied 38 S.Ct. 334, 246 U.S. 665, 62 L.Ed. 928. These are mostly lower court cases (the last has a cert. denial from the Supreme Court, meaning the Supreme Court effectively upheld the lower court's decision without making it the law of the land), and both were from nearly 100 years ago. It is reasonable to assume that one would still incur liability for facilitating &quot;Frauds and swindles&quot; over the internet.
What you're describing is generally permissible in the United States. The photographer has copyright in the photograph itself, not in the items photographed. This means that they have copyright in the way that they composed the photograph -- what background they placed it against, lighting, camera placement, etc. -- but not in the ancient manuscript. If you are strictly transcribing the text of the script, you're not infringing on anything that's copyrighted. If you make a sketch, there's more potential for infringement, but I suspect that you would not be working to faithfully copy the angles of the shadows as much as you would working to faithfully copy the image and condition of the artifact. Even if you were, calling that a copyright infringement would require that the image truly be copyrighted, and I'm not 100 percent convinced that they would be. Copyright is only available to original works of authorship, and that means that the author has to make some meaningful efforts to create something new out of the copyrighted elements discussed above. But what has the photographer done in that picture of the Coronation Oath? It appears that they've photographed the book head-on, as it's displayed by the museum, with lighting as provided by the museum, in an effort to recreate the display one would see while visiting the museum. Is that really sufficiently "original" to merit copyright protection that could be invoked to prevent someone from drawing a duplicate? I doubt it. But that picture of the Ge'ez book may be different. Someone appears to have grabbed the book, opened it up under weird lighting, kept their hands in the photograph, and otherwise actually composed a photograph that may not be particularly artistic, but is nonetheless difficult enough to duplicate that it can be considered original. So let's be generous to the copyright trolls and assume that the sketch you're imagining is protected. Even then, that only raises the question of whether the copy is a fair use. You haven't said anything about how the hypothetical copier would be using these materials, but I have a hunch that the idea isn't to launch a multimillion dollar merchandising enterprise. If the idea is more academic or cultural, you'd have a better claim to fair use. Again, you can review this fair-use explainer to get a better idea.
This would probably be legally considered &quot;gambling' Gam,bling is prohibited in many US states and a good many non-US jurisdictions. It is significantly regulated in most US jurisdictions where it is legal, often requiring a specific license. Analyzing laws on this subject in all 50 US states would be beyond the scope of an answer here. This is definitional the sort of thing where consulting a local lawyer, experienced in this area of law, would be wise. Maryland law As an example I will cite the specific laws which I think woulds apply to the situation described n the question in teh US state oof Maryland. The Maryland criminal code Section 12-201 provides that: In this subtitle, &quot;lottery device&quot; means a policy, certificate, or other thing by which a person promises or guarantees that a number, character, ticket, or certificate will, when an event or contingency occurs, entitle the purchaser or holder to receive money, property, or evidence of debt. Thus an entry or ticket issues by such an app, would be &quot;lottery device&quot; if winners were paid in money or things exchangeable for money or property, which would include gift cards. Section 12-203 provides that: (a) Prohibited.- A person may not: (a) (1) hold a lottery in this State; or (a) (2) sell a lottery device in the State for a lottery drawn in this State or elsewhere. Section 12-205 provides that: (b) Prohibited.- A person may not: (b)(1) bring a lottery device into the State; or (b)(2) possess a book, list, slip, or record of: (b)(2)(i) the numbers drawn in a lottery in this State or another state or country; (b)(2)(ii) a lottery device; or (b)(2)(iii) money received or to be received from the sale of a lottery device. Section 12-206 provides that: b) Prohibited.- A person may not print, write, or publish an account of a lottery that describes: (b)(1) when or where the lottery is to be drawn; (b)(2) any prize available in the lottery; (b)(3) the price of a lottery ticket or share of a lottery ticket; or (b)(4) where a lottery ticket may be obtained. Most plausible ways to advertise an app as described in the question would seem to violate this section. Section 12-208 provides that: A court shall interpret §§ 12-201 through 12-207 of this subtitle liberally to treat as a lottery ticket any ticket, part of a ticket, or lottery device by which money is paid or another item is delivered when, in the nature of a lottery, an event or contingency occurs. So if it is arguably a lottery, the court will treat it as one. Section 12-209 provides that: A grant, bargain, or transfer of real estate, goods, a right of action, or personal property is void if it occurs while engaging in, or aiding or assisting in a lottery. So winners cannot lawfully collect prizes. In short any such app would seem to viol;ate several sections of Maryland law if it is used of promoted in Maryland
I am not a lawyer, and none of the following should be seen as legal advice. While it is always best to assume every image has a copyright.... In your scenario... traditionally if you are selling a product, there's generally no harm in using images of that product to assist in the sale. But even then photographer copyrights should be considered. Images of products may not only contain copyrighted material within the photo, but the photo itself is probably also copyrighted by the photographer. Just blankety taking images from other web sites is a poor practice in general and will customarily just get you into trouble. However, many manufacturers or distributors will actually provide resellers with product images. You can check the product manufacturer's web site for a "press" or "media' section. There are often downloads provided in those areas. I don't know hairdressing.. but as an example, General Motors has a special web site known to GM car dealers where the dealers can download high resolution images of the cars and products for ads, etc. I've done work in the past for a GM dealer who provided me with the web site and log in details so I can get product imagery. In addition, few manufacturers will take umbrage that you are using their images to sell their products. They want their products to look as good as possible wherever they may be displayed. In many cases, they may prefer you use supplied images rather than use your own. Customarily you would include a disclaimer in the footer somewhere: The product names, company names and product images used on this web site are for identification purposes only. All trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Note, I am referring to images from the manufacturer's web site, not from competing businesses. If you are building a site for "Bob's Hair Styling" it's unethical to take images from "Kate's Hair Dressing" for your use. Stick to the manufacturer... if selling Paul Mitchell products, check the Paul Mitchell web site for available product images.
This a bit dubious. You write &quot;I know you can make a digital copy of a book or CD you own.&quot; but that is true only under limited circumstances. Making such a copy for one's own personal use would likely be fair use (in the US). Selling copies would pretty clearly be copyright infringement. Giving away free copies to significant numbers of people would also be infringement. Temporarily lending copies ro a small number of people might be considered fair use or might not. For the board game, you could allow others to play with the copy you own in person. But COVID makes that unsafe. Assuming the game art is under copyright protection (some older games might have protection expired) selling such images or making them widely available would clearly be infringement. Making them available only during the course of play to a limited group, with technical measures to prevent or discourage copying and no fee charged might pass as fair use, and the game company might well not want to pursue the matter in any case. If you create new art which can be used for the same game, it would be somewhat less likely to be considered infringing/ Even then selling access would probably be trademark infringement, and perhaps infringe the copyright on the rules of the game. There would be legal risk in doing this sort of thing.
The "Crabs" game can be legal if it is seen as a form of parody. That is one of the forms of "fair use" that allows copying (within limits). This is to allow the use of limited amounts of copying for critical or "mocking" pieces, which are considered a form of free speech. Two other issues come into play under "fair use." The first is whether or not this is "commercial" (yes) or non-commercial (e.g educational) use. That is mildly negative for "Crabs" but by no means dispositive. The second is the likely market impact, whether the new use tends to compete with the old use in its "home" market, or whether it is likely to open a new market of a very different, perhaps "opposite" audience that might later buy the original as a "crossover." The "Crabs" game seems to address the "green" or at least "pro animal" (PETA) market. If the defendant can show that the "Cards" market addresses e..g., your "inner Nazi," making it "opposite," that would be ideal. It would be less convincing if "Cards" were addressing e.g. human rights, because that might be seen to overlap with the green market in terms of social conscience.
I was told that when you sign something in the UK, then it is your signature, no matter what name you are using. So if you sign a contract with my name, then it's your signature and you are bound by the contract. Things might be invalid because you signed and not me. For example, if you sign a contract selling my car in my name, then that contract is not valid. If some document needs signatures of two witnesses, and you sign with your name, then with my name, then there are no two signatures. As far as I know, signing under a false name is not in itself criminal, but might very well be supporting fraud, for example, and might therefore be illegal. The contract for the sale of my car, signed by you using my name, would very likely be part of fraud and therefore criminal.
I'm not sure about USA law, it's probably similar to UK law. In the UK a trademark is registered for a particular business activity, and you can't just blanket register for "all" activities as that would be anti-competitive. I have a trademark "Dreamcraft" for dream interpretation and related activities. However, the name "Dreamcraft" is also a registered trademark for a company selling luxury yachts, and again for a company selling up-market craft materials. A website or organisation that is a gripe-site using the same name would not be in breach of any of these trademarks because it wouldn't be in direct competition with any of these companies.