You’re basically saying “If I take artwork created by another person, resell it in a different form, would anyone care?”
The answer is yes - they would absolutely care, and you would more than likely be receiving a cease and desist, it would just be a matter of how long before someone actually saw the product you were selling.
You could create similar looking ones which might fly under the radar as well (just like knockoff Iphones do) but ultimately if the entire jist behind the product is leveraging “Look it’s something from an iPhone” to sell it, then you are going to be busted.
Even if the product is something totally irrelevant (like the coasters) you are leveraging their IP and art for your profit - and at no point would any legal team anywhere be OK with that.
My question related to the link I posted… as you can see from the images the coasters use the exact same graphics as the iphone app icons which is obviously owned by Apple. Would it be considered fair use because it’s kind of a parody ?
I can only assume that as it’s a niche product and sales are probably pretty slim Apple doesn’t care… if anything it’s advertising for them.
I think as I’m starting small and the product isn’t related to mobile phones or anything I’ll keep my fingers crossed. If it gets big… I may have to switch the artwork up a bit. If I did get a cease & desist… ah well, I’d probably frame it and put it on my wall
“In Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc Supreme Court recognized parody as a fair use, even when done for profit.”
A parody (pronounced /ˈpærədi/; also called send-up, spoof, pastiche or lampoon), in current usage, is an imitative work created to mock, comment on, or trivialise an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.
With that in mind, would those iphone coasters be considered parody ?
Could it be classed as a physical parody of digital icons, a ironic imitation ?
Also, just because it’s a physical product doesn’t mean it wouldn’t effect Apple’s profits. Everyone who uses Apple’s copywritten and trademarked images should have to pay a licensing fee to Apple. And for all we know that’s what this guy is doing.