For all those who ask if they really have to get permission for stuff

Interesting. I'm not sure if this is really a cautionary tale for getting a location permit. According to the brothers, they had permission from the store manager to shoot there after hours. The reason they were sued was for supposedly making the store look bad and costing them customers. Couldn't such a lawsuit happen regardless of whether permission is gotten to film at a location?

They only had verbal permission and perhaps not from the right person, but even if they had a totally legit shooting permit, would that have included a limited liability clause for lost sales on the part of potentially offended customers? Seems like this case will probably not go anywhere - the biggest points being that the filmmakers got permission of some sort and did not film any store logos. Curious to hear more from someone who knows more about this stuff.
 
Wow, sucks to be them. Seriously though... $1 mill? The law is the law of course but perhaps A&P should relax just a hair. Fire them, yes. Make them take the video down, yes. File a suit for $1 mill, um... not necessary.

I hate to think of the kind of trouble I would have been in if youtube was around when I was 19. Yikes.

It does go to show how important it is to get those signatures. You never know.....
 
This has less to do with location and more to do with brand image. A&P is overreacting but the video does suck. So nobody really loses in this scenario. Two guys thought they had another "Lazy Sunday" on their hands. Turns out they'd just get sued.


You never know, they may be cast members of Mad TV in one years time.
 
Never would have known it was A&P in the video if they hadn't mentioned it in the news story. Also, it wasn't going to be a popular video until the lawsuit brought attention to it.

As already mentioned, they should have just quietly asked them to take it down or threaten a lawsuit. But now the video will get more attention.
 
firing them from a&p was the appropriate solution. suing them for 1 million is absurd.
 
I completely agree, it is absurd.
But I thought it was worth posting for that reason.
So many times people seem to think that a company wouldn't bother suing a filmmaker over something small like this. Well, absurd or not - they do it.

And granted, I doubt A&P will be awarded 1 million dollars.
But I don't think most of us see winning a lawsuit as a goal...the goal is usually to stay out of the courtroom all together.

I realize you can't stop people from suing you, especially in this day and age.
But you can make sure you've got all your ducks in a row when it comes to releases - both for location, actors, and any copyrighted material.
At least you won't be caught with your pants down - so to speak.
:)
 
PK Gillock said:
Never would have known it was A&P in the video if they hadn't mentioned it in the news story. Also, it wasn't going to be a popular video until the lawsuit brought attention to it.

As already mentioned, they should have just quietly asked them to take it down or threaten a lawsuit. But now the video will get more attention.
Click to expand...
well not quite -
one of the brothers dons a hat with a recognizable A&P logo, but the brothers counter that the emblem is far from prominent.
Click to expand...
This was their mistake. If the association with A&P could not be determined in the video, then A&P would have no suit.
 
The logo on the hat just looks like a blob because of the video compression. Again, I never would have known it was A&P if they hadn't mentioned it.
 
I have to go with PK on this - i couldn't tell either.
BUT that's the whole point - it's now up for a court to decide if it's "prominent" or not.

Regardless - they could have still sued. Customers who shop there would recognize the store from the video if they happen to see it. So at least that particular location could seek some form of damages.

Point is - had they gotten permission, or been more careful in considering the use of recognizable names in the frame, then there wouldn't have been any problem. Or at least they would have a much better defense.
 
It comes down to location permission (was there a valid agreement) and trade libel. A manager saying verbally "you can shoot here" is not necessarily permission. They didn't film logos so is a familiar location enough? Well if you have a good location agreement, you exclude that option for the owner in writing.

I have my money on the kids though, it isn't a slam dunk either way IMO. It probably will be settled with a public apology and a token nominal undisclosed amount paid.
 
If you go over to one of the threads about copyright, you'll find members lamenting about having their work stolen and their copyrights violated. I find it amazingly fickle that when it's "someone else's" intellectual property (i.e. A&P), many are siding with the infringers.
The "fuzzy video" defense is ludicrous. Try photocopying someone's novel and then claim you're not infringing because the copy came out crappy! If WE copyright holders (artists) don't respect intellectual property laws, then we have no business whining when someone infringes on OUR stuff.
 
while I think the million dollar suit may be a bit much, I cant say I argue with A&P - they boys did something stupid and now they are paying for it. You cant tell me they honestly thought they were doing nothing wrong?
 
danv said:
If you go over to one of the threads about copyright, you'll find members lamenting about having their work stolen and their copyrights violated. I find it amazingly fickle that when it's "someone else's" intellectual property (i.e. A&P), many are siding with the infringers.
The "fuzzy video" defense is ludicrous. Try photocopying someone's novel and then claim you're not infringing because the copy came out crappy! If WE copyright holders (artists) don't respect intellectual property laws, then we have no business whining when someone infringes on OUR stuff.
Click to expand...
A grocery store is not "intellectual property."

The photocopied novel analogy is not accurate. A copy of a book/movie/cd loses sales for the owner and creator, obviously. Are people not going to shop at A & P because they can go see the store logo for free in the unauthorized video? Different types of property and different useages.

Besides which, the hat logo is in motion and blurred to the point that you can't tell what it is.

jdajda said:
while I think the million dollar suit may be a bit much, I cant say I argue with A&P - they boys did something stupid and now they are paying for it. You cant tell me they honestly thought they were doing nothing wrong?
Click to expand...
Then why did they bother getting permission from the store manager?
 
danv said:
If you go over to one of the threads about copyright, you'll find members lamenting about having their work stolen and their copyrights violated. I find it amazingly fickle that when it's "someone else's" intellectual property (i.e. A&P), many are siding with the infringers.
The "fuzzy video" defense is ludicrous. Try photocopying someone's novel and then claim you're not infringing because the copy came out crappy! If WE copyright holders (artists) don't respect intellectual property laws, then we have no business whining when someone infringes on OUR stuff.
Click to expand...

And this is why filmmakers should see an attorney. This case has nothing to do with intellectual property nor copyright and it is very easy for a layman to confuse different areas of law.
 
my bad they're just dumb and asked the wrong person. still their fault. has anything happened to the manager though? I'd be going after his job too if I were A&P.
 
bosindy is right - its about getting permission (from the right people and signed) to shoot. Cover your butts people or the man's gonna get you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top