I have a montage of driving through Hollywood that inclused a few seconds of various landmark businesses like the Comedy Store, Laugh Factory, Hustler Hollywood, etc. What are the law governing this stuff? Does the trademarked business have to be less that 10% of the screen or a limited amount of time?
Legalities: real companies in shot
- Thread starter Blade_Jones
- Start date
Actually that is a big misconception. I know for music people always say that if it's less than 6 seconds that it's fine, but that's wrong. Even if it's a note, you need permission.
As for buildings, I'm not quite sure. It goes back to acceptible risk.
There is a great possibility that it is illegal to show trademarked anything in your film. The thing is, are you going to be making money with this film? What is your intent for the trademarked signs? Is this for home viewing, festivals, or theatrical release?
If it's home viewing then it's probably a very low risk. Festival means more exposure, so there's a medium risk, especially since you have to sign a release to most festivals. Theatrical release is a very high risk where you should have everything signed for and released. Straight to DVD sales, High risk since you still have to have everything signed for, I guess if that distrobution. If it's self sales, probably Medium risk.
SO, what level of risk are you willing to accept responsability for?
Maybe someone can comment on the legalities part of trademarked signs.
As for buildings, I'm not quite sure. It goes back to acceptible risk.
There is a great possibility that it is illegal to show trademarked anything in your film. The thing is, are you going to be making money with this film? What is your intent for the trademarked signs? Is this for home viewing, festivals, or theatrical release?
If it's home viewing then it's probably a very low risk. Festival means more exposure, so there's a medium risk, especially since you have to sign a release to most festivals. Theatrical release is a very high risk where you should have everything signed for and released. Straight to DVD sales, High risk since you still have to have everything signed for, I guess if that distrobution. If it's self sales, probably Medium risk.
SO, what level of risk are you willing to accept responsability for?
Maybe someone can comment on the legalities part of trademarked signs.
...first of all, did you ask the owners of these establishments for the permission to shoot their fascades? Maybe if you just ask, they might not mind the free publicity...
...the way I understand it, here is an example of what you can't do:
...if you happen to be shooting in Paris... (I know, I know)
anyway, you can shoot the Eiffel Tower in the daytime, however, a night shot of the Tower is protected and you will pay through the nose for using it.
...the same with the Hollywood sign, from what I understand, and I get my info from a person who works for Getty Images in Chicago....
...be careful of what you shoot...
--spinner
...the way I understand it, here is an example of what you can't do:
...if you happen to be shooting in Paris... (I know, I know)
anyway, you can shoot the Eiffel Tower in the daytime, however, a night shot of the Tower is protected and you will pay through the nose for using it.
...the same with the Hollywood sign, from what I understand, and I get my info from a person who works for Getty Images in Chicago....
...be careful of what you shoot...
--spinner
If I'm RIGHT I don't like to ask, because that in and of itself can be a sort of admission of guilt or be used against you. That's what I read in a law book.
Asking for permission is the last thing I do when I realize that I'm not protected.
Asking for permission is the last thing I do when I realize that I'm not protected.
Blade_Jones said:
...but then don't you run the risk of not being able to show your film at all because of the lack of rights? Sounds alittle scary to me. I wouldn't want to put everything into my project and not be able to show it...
...and I agree with CootDog, sometimes you can be surprised at what you can get when you ask....
--spinner
if your film is a 'documentary'or it is for research, educational usages, or it has less than 10% of the finished film that contain copyright material, you can 'get away' under fair-use
BUT, you still is liable to be sued and you must go to court to prove to the court that you were doing it under fair-use clause.
So... Anything that is copyrighted or trademarked, you MUST get permission, some people said parody/comedy 'CAN' get away it, but not really...
I did a parody fan film so kinda digged a lot into copyright concerns, plus recently I was approached by a fellow about shooting his feature that has a lot of political and corporate names in it, plus pictures, etc. after consulting with my entertainment attorney, she said I have 60% chance of being sued, and it might tarnish my reputation, I have to think twice on it...
So, ask them, you have nothing to lose, I once emailed Sigur Ros and asked to use their song and music video, and within 24 hours, I got a yes, sure for a short film of mine.
Also keep in mind, MOST film festival would not be that interested in any films that have copyright material in it, just because they may liable to be sued as well. Distribution wise, you need clearance so again, something to think hard about...
Best of all, ask them, or consult an entertainment attorney (or a bunch, make sure they also understand intellectual property law), make sure you REALLY provide the information so they wouldn't give you wrong advise (this happens a lot).
Johnny Wu
BUT, you still is liable to be sued and you must go to court to prove to the court that you were doing it under fair-use clause.
So... Anything that is copyrighted or trademarked, you MUST get permission, some people said parody/comedy 'CAN' get away it, but not really...
I did a parody fan film so kinda digged a lot into copyright concerns, plus recently I was approached by a fellow about shooting his feature that has a lot of political and corporate names in it, plus pictures, etc. after consulting with my entertainment attorney, she said I have 60% chance of being sued, and it might tarnish my reputation, I have to think twice on it...
So, ask them, you have nothing to lose, I once emailed Sigur Ros and asked to use their song and music video, and within 24 hours, I got a yes, sure for a short film of mine.
Also keep in mind, MOST film festival would not be that interested in any films that have copyright material in it, just because they may liable to be sued as well. Distribution wise, you need clearance so again, something to think hard about...
Best of all, ask them, or consult an entertainment attorney (or a bunch, make sure they also understand intellectual property law), make sure you REALLY provide the information so they wouldn't give you wrong advise (this happens a lot).
Johnny Wu
And if you pay to meet with a lawyer thay will probably just advise you that it's a big grey area of law and therefore you should take everything out or seek permission. What a waste of $300.00.
Someone at the Comedy Store said that if it's driving footage then it's legal stuff. I do focus on various landmarks for a couple of seconds. That's the problem.
So the Comedy Store was cool about it. Waiting on the Laugh Factory and Larry Flynt Publications regarding Hustler Hollywood. Larry Flynt and Co. were douch bags about it when I asked to use some of their magazines in a scene. Gimme a break. They're in the business of smut and they're all sensitive about having their magazines in a comedy movie? Simply douch bags.
I tried to get permission to mention some real products (harmlessly) in a prank call CD release and a bunch of companies like Penzoil, manufacturers of Dentyne gum, and some others said NO. These companies have NO sense of humor and they're all paranoid.
Someone at the Comedy Store said that if it's driving footage then it's legal stuff. I do focus on various landmarks for a couple of seconds. That's the problem.
So the Comedy Store was cool about it. Waiting on the Laugh Factory and Larry Flynt Publications regarding Hustler Hollywood. Larry Flynt and Co. were douch bags about it when I asked to use some of their magazines in a scene. Gimme a break. They're in the business of smut and they're all sensitive about having their magazines in a comedy movie? Simply douch bags.
I tried to get permission to mention some real products (harmlessly) in a prank call CD release and a bunch of companies like Penzoil, manufacturers of Dentyne gum, and some others said NO. These companies have NO sense of humor and they're all paranoid.
Douch bags? Paranoid? NO sense of humor?
Companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting their trademarks and intellectual property rights. What you consider harmless, may not be considered harmless by the company.
I have no way of knowing how you approached the companies - I will assume you did it professionally - but sometimes companies say no to everything. They need to be "buttered up" a bit. Show how the appearance of the product in your project would be a benefit to them and their product.
I've cleared some montage type rights in the past. It was well worth the $500 to speak to a lawyer.
Companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting their trademarks and intellectual property rights. What you consider harmless, may not be considered harmless by the company.
I have no way of knowing how you approached the companies - I will assume you did it professionally - but sometimes companies say no to everything. They need to be "buttered up" a bit. Show how the appearance of the product in your project would be a benefit to them and their product.
I've cleared some montage type rights in the past. It was well worth the $500 to speak to a lawyer.
LOL! It's called being ANAL! How is Hustler gonna be HARMED? LOL!
The Mars company was ANAL about it when Steven Speilberg wanted to use M&M's in Close Encounters. So he wound up using Resse's instead. Sales of Reese's peanut butter cups shot way up after the movie came out.
I've MET with lawyers. They're more worried about you sueing THEM over bad advice. So they tell you to take everything out, even though you might have a fair use right. That's what you get for $500.00
While it may be frustrating, it's theirs to say no to. If you want that to not be the case, make your own smut publications that become a household name, then use them in your films...You should be able to pull that off with about 30-40 years of hard work. Sarcasm aside, how does it benefit their company financially to appear in your film? What is the conversation/situation happening when the magazine is used? If so, can you provide them with the potential market impact numbers of their allowing you to use their product. These folks are business people, if you can't make a business case for it, have a reconizable name and bring a posse of lawyers with you to ask...anything they don't have control over is a potential threat to their shareholders, they can't afford to take the chance without lawyer drawn contracts and written assurances of intent.
Does you script contain any Violence? Profanity? Nudity (you may laugh since we're talking about hustler, but it's a legal concern, not a logical one)? Sarcastic/Parody use of the product or by a character who uses the product. Sometimes even just the affiliation to a project that contains any of these things is enough to turn off a company.
Hustler is not a smutty magazine to LF Productions, it's not even just a magazine...it's a product that customers pay for period! It is up to LF Productions to protect their shareholders money. The product is irrelevent, the intent is irrelevent, only the money matters. Even bad business decisions are ok if they look good to the shareholders. Appeal to that mentality, let them know that the exposure and free publicity will be beneficial, prove to them that they need to sign the release for their shareholders benefit.
Does you script contain any Violence? Profanity? Nudity (you may laugh since we're talking about hustler, but it's a legal concern, not a logical one)? Sarcastic/Parody use of the product or by a character who uses the product. Sometimes even just the affiliation to a project that contains any of these things is enough to turn off a company.
Hustler is not a smutty magazine to LF Productions, it's not even just a magazine...it's a product that customers pay for period! It is up to LF Productions to protect their shareholders money. The product is irrelevent, the intent is irrelevent, only the money matters. Even bad business decisions are ok if they look good to the shareholders. Appeal to that mentality, let them know that the exposure and free publicity will be beneficial, prove to them that they need to sign the release for their shareholders benefit.
They may be full of themselves but they also make millions of dollars and could unleash a gang of lawyers that will make sure you never work in the film industry.
So photoshop your own smut cover and wrap it around a copy of popular mechanics, call your mag "Tustler" and get on with your lawsuit free life.
Do you REALLY need to stop and focus in on these places? Isn't there some way around it? Some way to elude to it rather than take the chance on being sued?
Don't get me wrong it's nice to know the legalities of these things but if it's slowing down your shoot then go around it. Kind of like the opening sequence in "Bugs Life".
Lawyers, love 'em or hate 'em, we're stuck with them. Would be a good idea to talk to the same lawyers that South Park uses. Money well spent if you ask me.
There may be stock footage you can buy. It's my understanding (maybe not in CA) if you buy a legal copy of it, you can do what ever you want with it.
So photoshop your own smut cover and wrap it around a copy of popular mechanics, call your mag "Tustler" and get on with your lawsuit free life.
Do you REALLY need to stop and focus in on these places? Isn't there some way around it? Some way to elude to it rather than take the chance on being sued?
Don't get me wrong it's nice to know the legalities of these things but if it's slowing down your shoot then go around it. Kind of like the opening sequence in "Bugs Life".
Lawyers, love 'em or hate 'em, we're stuck with them. Would be a good idea to talk to the same lawyers that South Park uses. Money well spent if you ask me.
There may be stock footage you can buy. It's my understanding (maybe not in CA) if you buy a legal copy of it, you can do what ever you want with it.
Okay Blade. You win.Blade_Jones said:LOL! It's called being ANAL! How is Hustler gonna be HARMED? LOL!
The Mars company was ANAL about it when Steven Speilberg wanted to use M&M's in Close Encounters. So he wound up using Resse's instead. Sales of Reese's peanut butter cups shot way up after the movie came out.
I've MET with lawyers. They're more worried about you sueing THEM over bad advice. So they tell you to take everything out, even though you might have a fair use right. That's what you get for $500.00
If you can convince any of these companies that by including them in your movie they will get the same kind of exposure Reeses got in ET, then I bet they would be happy to make a deal with you.
But you could be right. Hustler may be making a huge mistake by not allowing you to use their property in your movie. And you could be right that running this past a lawyer is a total waste of time and money.
Having a 2 second shot of the Hustler Hollywood store in my movie isn't gonna add up to a hill of beans one way or the other for Larry Flynt. I'd like to keep the shot because I don't want to re-edit the scene and because it's hard to get a good brightly lit shot at night even on the strip. We got a nice surreal 6 frames a second shot of the Hustler store while driving by. But it's lawyers who are so wrapped up in thier paranoia that they have to have a knee jerk NO reaction to friggin' everything.