Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 55 of 55
  1. Collapse Details
    #51
    Chapelgrove Films
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    4,416
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by offbeatbryce View Post
    Then why are reliable lawyers from A music law college telling me that's not what it means? I've seen concert videos and music videos. They all have logos in them. The correct ones.

    I have in writing that my use of trademark logos in incidental fair use because with a music video I can't control who plays what instrument so it's an incidental use of the logo unless I intentionally zoomed in on the logo.
    As I said, every situation is different. Risk it if you want to. "Fair use" is a defense you present in court AFTER you've been sued -- not a protection to KEEP you from being sued.
    David W. Richardson
    Writer/Producer/Director/Editor
    Chapel Grove Films
    Celtic Cross Films
    Bliss Video Productions
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1400903/?ref_=tt_ov_dr


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    247
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David W. Richardson View Post
    As I said, every situation is different. Risk it if you want to. "Fair use" is a defense you present in court AFTER you've been sued -- not a protection to KEEP you from being sued.
    go here. http://imgur.com/sGZOC7I This is a screenshot of an answer I received from an attorney on justanswer a site to pay and ask lawyer questions. Read it then tell me what you think.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #53
    Default
    What's the speed limit for that road?

    There is no sign. So, the only safe speed is zero.

    But I need to go on it. It's the only road between Schrodinger and Heisenberg.

    Well, if you were really serious about reaching Heisenberg, you could rent a helicopter. Then you would know for sure you weren't breaking the law. Or you could take Highway 11.

    Highway 11 goes 500 miles out of the way, through the Jungles of Jalopy.

    If you are serious about reaching Heisenberg, and want to be sure you weren't breaking the law, that's what you must do.

    This is ridiculous! Why can't they just post a speed limit?

    Well, the speed limit is mentioned in their legal code, if you go down to the Department of Records. Officially, any speed over zero miles per hour is grounds for arrest. However, there is an exception clause called Fair Use. It's vaguely outlined. I would consult a lawyer. He can give you advice about what speed to go. Be sure to get it in writing.

    A lawyer is several hundred dollars, maybe several thousand.

    That's what people do who are serious about reaching Heisenberg.

    How about the people who have already consulted lawyers tell everybody else? In fact, I just spoke to several people, including some lawyers, and they said 60 MPH.

    Yeah, but were they good lawyers? And besides, it doesn't matter how good of a lawyer you get. You could still get sued.

    What?

    Yeah, someone could still see it some other way and sue you. You may end up winning in court, but it could be a costly legal battle. It's better just to not go down that road at all.

    Fine! I guess I won't . . . Whoa! Look out, a car! . . Wow, we almost go hit. He must have been doing 100. Who was that?

    That's the guy that they hired to go down that road.

    What!

    Well, somebody's got to go down that road. There are a bunch of businesses alongside it, and if nobody ever travels that road, then the businesses won't see any customers. So every now and then they hire someone to go down that road.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #54
    Chapelgrove Films
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    4,416
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by offbeatbryce View Post
    go here. http://imgur.com/sGZOC7I This is a screenshot of an answer I received from an attorney on justanswer a site to pay and ask lawyer questions. Read it then tell me what you think.
    This is where it gets sticky, in my opinion: "When an image of a trademark appears in a film such as yours, there is very little likelihood that the appearance would cause confusion, a mistake, or deceive someone as to the film maker's affiliation, sponsorship or approval with the company that owns the trademark."

    First, there's that pesky phrase "very little likelihood" -- which doesn't mean "no possibility". So you're already into a grey area where you assume some degree of risk.

    More concerning to me is that the display of a registered trademark might very well strike the owner of that trademark as indicating "sponsorship or approval" of your film, your film's message, or even you personally. If they have some reason -- any reason at all -- not to want to be associated with your film, they can sue you.

    As we've said repeatedly, even if you are on solid legal ground, they CAN sue you. You may win the case, but it will cost you a lot of time and money to do so, and may damage your professional reputation in the process.

    If a company does decide to sue you, it will do you no good at all to send them the opinion of this, or any other, lawyer. That won't make them say, "Oh! Well in that case, we'll drop the lawsuit." So it's not a protection from being sued. It may help you in court, but by the time you get to court the damage -- financial and otherwise -- has been done.

    I'll say it again -- if it's a risk you're willing to take, then so be it. But if you're looking for absolute assurance that you can't or won't be sued -- well, the only place you'll come close to finding that is by sitting down with a qualified intellectual property attorney and discussing -- in detail -- your film, the specific trademarks that are likely to appear in it, and in what context they will be seen. And even then, if you ask 3 different qualified intellectual property attorneys you may get 3 completely different answers.

    Weigh the risks against the benefits. It's your decision, no one else's.
    David W. Richardson
    Writer/Producer/Director/Editor
    Chapel Grove Films
    Celtic Cross Films
    Bliss Video Productions
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1400903/?ref_=tt_ov_dr


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #55
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    543
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by David W. Richardson View Post
    First, there's that pesky phrase "very little likelihood" -- which doesn't mean "no possibility".

    It's a certain probability... Well under 15 US Code 1125 and "fair Use" it is which of course doesn't apply.

    The Band are using Sherif Amplifiers. Sherif are a well known European amplifier company who registered their trademarks in Europe. The first time you broadcast in Europe (by uploading to Yotube) they will want to sue you under European law. Well you are living in the US so what do you care. Not a lot really but don't go to to Europe.... or Canada (which is part of the UK Commonwealth) Or for that matter don't let anyone involved on the production or distribution travel to Europe.

    Now a LOT of big bands use Sherif amplifiers and I am sure they (or more likely their people as we all know all rock musicians are permanently stoned/drunk all the time) will take note when Sherif let it be known that they have a problem with On-Beat-Bruce. OB-Bruce will find that anyone who is anyone won't want to work with him and the word will get round. Nothing formal like it's just that phone calls /emails won't get returned, doors won't open etc... There is more than one way to skin a cat.

    I have just been doing some conference videoing for a respectable industry organisation but the hotel holding the conference said they did not want any of their logos visible. It's just their policy.


    EDIT:- I have just had a call from Deputy Amplifiers Lawyer who says I am taking the P out of their client by using the name "Sherif" in a story clearly aimed at them and they are going to sue..... It will probably come to nothing and my initial 12 minutes with my Lawyer is free but it looks like it is going to cost me 5,025 USD to get my Lawyer to say "go away" to theirs BTW it was 5,000 USD but I had a coffee and 2 of the biscuits offered.
    Last edited by jamedia.uk; 02-10-2017 at 09:24 AM.


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •