Info on legalities of logos and trademarks

[Ernest Worthing]

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=773268

Quotes from the article:

Although product placement, where companies pay producers to have their brands seen on-camera, have become ubiquitous in movies and television, experts say studios are not obligated to get permission before featuring a product in their work.

Despite the companies' dissatisfaction with their inclusion in the film, experts say there is little they can do about it legally.

Trademark laws "don't exist to give companies the right to control and censor movies and TV shows that might happen to include real-world items," said Daniel Nazer, a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project. "It is the case that often filmmakers get paid by companies to include their products. I think that's sort of led to a culture where they expect they'll have control. That's not a right the trademark law gives them."

 

[AnywhereButHollywood]

That's interesting. I worked on a short film in which the director bent over backwards to make sure the Apple logo was obscured on a laptop. He insisted he was legally bound to do so. I disagreed. Glad to know I was (apparently) correct!

That also makes perfect sense, btw, because trademark law is intended only to stop competitors from using a logo they don't own - a filmmaker is not a competitor... in most cases.

Which actually raises an interesting question... what if you make a film and give prominent placement to a movie studio logo throughout the movie... Could they argue you're trying to use their logo to market your competing product (or to disparage theirs)?

Of course, the bottom line is that, legal or not, if a studio (or manufacturer... or whatever...) wants to throw money at the case, you don't stand a chance. There's no way you can fight it with the resources of an individual.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

Well, that's what I've thought all along as well and I'm not sure about this article but we should look further into it. That's why I posted it here.

Meanwhile, it would still be a good idea to cover your bases in the Indie world by obscuring or using generic logos. Studios can weather a lawsuit, independent filmmakers can not.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Thanks for sharing! I'd heard something similar before, and it was coming from an entertainment lawyer, but I'm not experienced enough to know for sure. In my opinion, the info in this article seems very reliable.

 

[Sweetie]

It depends.

Summary: The safest bet is to either use generic and/or get permission to use the logo's but its not always necessary depending on what you want to achieve.

If you're making a short for a film festival, so long as you're not showing the product in a bad light, you're unlikely to come under fire from the company in question. Even though, it's still safer to get in contact with the PR side of the office and just get permission anyway. It's often easier to blur it out, replace the logo or just not shoot it in the first place. If you can get permission in advance, you may be able to strike up some sort of deal for advertising/promotion or for smaller productions (especially from food and drink producers), free product to nourish your crew. I used to do this many, many years ago.

If you're making a movie and hoping for distribution, that's a totally different kettle of fish. Before almost any distributor will touch your film, you're going to need (or the distributor must be able to attain) insurance called Errors and Omissions Insurance. This is to protect the film, distributors and everyone else to do with the film from liabilities that most commonly come from law suits. It's due to this insurance that most films need clearance people (part of which are those release forms you get people to sign.... you do use those right???), to make sure you're cleared to use what you're using.

Don't take this as legal advice. Get your advice from an entertainment attorney.

 

[Metrostar]

I am making a short drama and the question has come up about filming the outside of a car driving along and also, a barroom scene with all the bottles and drinks in the background. I would have thought this is ok to do if they are just background. After reading this thread, I am not so sure.

 

[enlguy]

Clearance needs...

I also, feel saying it's just fine, might be misleading. I worked on a film where we wanted to use a high school's mascot on a hat to show the main character at one time played football there. We were advised we needed a clearance, and in the end, the school did not grant us the clearance and so we used a more generic hat with a madeup team. There's also no reason "Greeking" would exist if it didn't matter. Wardrobe constantly advises extras to wear shirts without logos, items are obscured, etc.

Doesn't everyone seek distribution at some point? I mean, are there really people that spend $250,000 just to make something to show their kids?


As far as the bottles and stuff in the background, what's always happened on my projects is you either have the bottle turned so the logo is not visible, or your production designer creates a label for a non-existent beer brand and you simply remove the original and adhere the new one.