Creating a list of contact numbers would be a neverending process in my opinion. There are so many people that hold copyright/tradmarks on items. (expecially when getting into reproducing party ware plates and invitations, think mod mom for the baby showers or mod monkey for young birthdays)

The quickest way would be to google. So for instance on the spongebob search the first site that comes up says that Spongebob is a copyright of Viacom and Nickelodeon. It's not a direct link to either one of these companies, but you now know who to contact and you can look up their numbers.

There is not just one number to call for the character cakes. Since each character's copyright is held by a different company you would have to contact multiple companies. As for the character cakes themselves though i doubt anyone would give permission since they can not gaurentee that you would be able to reproduct their copyrighted character to their specifications.

If you're talking about these cupcakes I'm not so sure they would be covered under copyright...the "mouse" shape in the picture is probably too generic to be copyrightable. Of course you wouldn't be able to sell them as "Mickey Mouse cupcakes", but selling them as "mouse cupcakes" or "bear cupcakes" should be OK.

You'll notice that most of the edible projects on the site are based on non-copyrightable generic elements such as "Woody's Sheriff Badge Cookies" instead of likenesses of the characters themselves.[/url]

The Mickey Mouse ears are however trademarked. The rather generic looking mouse ears (which those cupcakes are made to look like) are a trademarked logo of the Disney Corporation. Thus while not protected by copyright, they are a protected trademark which could make selling them even as mouse cupcakes a problem if it was argued they constituted trademark infringement. And in the case of that image, those cupcakes are made to look like the Disney mouse ears logo.

Trademark infringement is more difficult to prosecute than copyright infringement...in order to be successful, a trademark infringement suit must show there is "likelihood of confusion" according to several specific legal elements (see the link below for details). You would probably only have an issue if you implied that your generic "mouse ear" cupcakes are officially licensed by Disney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement

I'm not a lawyer and this post is not to be considered legal advice.

If the school pictures were taken by a third party, that third party owns the copyright to the pictures and would have to authorize duplication. You shouldn't have a problem if you use a picture you took yourself, since you would own the copyright to said picture.

Actually there is a pretty easy test. As a general rule it goes something like this: Are you relying on the intellectual/artistic work of someone else to produce your product (cakes, cookies, whatever)? Keep in mind that there may be exceptions to what kind of works are copyrighted but the artistic works most commonly reproduced on cakes--characters are most definitely protected.

Why is this an easy test? Because when it comes to images it is pretty simple. If you are reproducing a character then it is not a question, you are using someone else's work.

The only way it would not be an infringement (fair use exception does not count for baked goods) if the image has moved into the public domain. Which means its copyright protection has expired--but since copyright lasts the lifetime of the author + 70 years, probably not going to get many cakes where the work is in the public domain. And simply because it has been posted to the internet does not mean it is in the public domain. When it comes to most character images and photographs--the things most commonly produced in cakes the answer will generally be yes.

If your answer is you are not sure--then you should find out. Never err on the side of I did not know so no harm no foul. Infringement does not require intent.

As to trademarks again are you including any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods?

If the answer is yes such as producing a Coach bag with their trademarks on it, it is a pretty simple answer. Trademark infringement may be harder to prosecute but does not mean someone will not come after you.

Again if you are unsure you should check.

The simple rule to live by if you are including the work of someone else (particularly images) you likely have a copyright issue. When in doubt check. Err on the side of caution and you will not have to worry.

I've since found out that IF the school photographer does not offer an 'edible image' as a product, then he should most likely sign a release of copyright for that specific product. I'll have to try that next time!

That's not the way copyright works -- copyright is meant to protect the creator of an original work (such as a photograph) and ensure they are fairly compensated for their time, education, and equipment expense. Just like pastry chefs, photographers are professionals who invest a lot of time and money in producing their products. The fact that it's easier to duplicate the photographer's product does not make it any less valuable.

While technically a child is an original work, the thirteenth amendment would likely thwart your claim of ownership.

In any case, while the work itself (the photograph) is 100% owned by the photographer, your kid still has rights to his or her image, and unless the kid or their parent signed a model release form the photographer must get permission before using the image -- and I'm betting model release forms are required if you want your kid to get a school photo taken. So if you signed that form, the photographer has free reign.

My senior pictures were used in advertisements for the photographer. He didn't ask (or even tell) me beforehand, but did send me a copy of the flier it was being used on. I'm told it was also one of the ones hung up in his studio to advertise for the next year's group.

It might have been my face, but it was his photo and he had every right to use it in his ads if that's what he wanted.

For the record, I was psyched about it and never once had a negative thought about it.

It doesn't matter if the kids aren't paid as models...if their parents signed a model release, the photographer can use the photo commercially.

I've been researching this issue, and apparently a model release is not required to post pictures on the photographer's web site if they are offered for sale, since it is considered a "vehicle of information". In fact, a model release is only required if the picture will be published for a commercial purpose that suggests the person in the picture subscribes to a particular idea, product, or service. The photographer can sell or license the picture to anyone without getting a release.

Interesting stuff.
Source: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#summary

Every photographer I've ever been to made me sign a release saying they owned the pictures and could use them in advertisements or whatever else. The subject of the photo doesn't make it any less the property of the photographer, whether the picture is of a high school senior, a toddler, or an orange.

I was 18 when the photos were taken and used, but my age was never in question, since frankly, it didn't matter.

that form is just a CYA. Due to rules regarding news publications and all that other stuff -- not really needed for yearbook, newspaper, even the school website. This has already been sued over and decided in favor of school's using images taken during day for yearbook, newspaper and website. But, just in case, just to be overly careful, just to sure, they do the forms. (tho' on website always safest and best to use first names only or even no names and just give generic "Two of Ms. Smith's second graders see if Herman the Hamster prefers cake or lettuce for lunch. He prefers CAKE!"

would be needed for advertisements and probably covers the school photographer as well.

model releases are a function of COMMERCIAL sale/resale/licensing of images. If a profit is to be made somewhere, some how, then model release is needed.

my personal gripe is the COST of the packages! a rip-off!

Would that kid really be in a public school, though? It seems like people with specific beliefs like that usually go to private school with like-minded people, or would be home schooled.

Also, my son is in a charter school and I had to sign a release saying they can use any pictures they take for the school website or for publicity.