Things that dont need permission

D

David Kalver

Member
Ive bought a few decent books that go into product placement, getting probs and copywrite issues etc but theres still some loose ends im interested in finding more about.

Now obviously you cant show logos, like coca cola etc without earned permission however none of these books mention things like clothes!!

Obviously an 'adidas tshirt would be a violation, but what if it didn't have a logo on it? would that be ok? because it may still have those 3 lines going down the sleaves...and isnt that a trademark of its own and even without those stripes someone DESIGNED his pants right??

Again, obviously I couldnt show a BNW logo but what about the car? because isnt that design copywrite protected too?

Also...sounds daft but if the above examples are true how come when I get permission to film somewhere I only need permission of the owner? Why not the architect?

My film 'boy in the adidas tshirt goes to Big Ben in his Bnw' is seeming harder and harder to make into a reality:beer:
 
Its BMW by the way.

You dont need to be so fiddly about stuff like this, for example, I was watching miami ink earlier (the tattoo show) and the guy goes something like

We got a jeep and we want to paint the jeep with some nice airbrush stuff so when we drive our jeep people will see the jeep and will know that its our jeep so our jeep will be a good advertising device. jeep.

Then when they showed the jeep, they had blurred the jeep logo out on the bonnet.

I think if you make an effort to not specificaly feature a certain logo (so no massive closups on the BMW logo) you will be fine. If its just in the background, then there shouldnt be any problems. You definatly wont have problem just showing the car on its own, if you couuld be taken to court for showing a car, we'd all be in prison right now....

Theres some loopholes concerning coincidencial showings, for example if a guy walked past in the background with a logo on his shirt, you dont need to do anything about it, as it happened whilst you were filming and you had no control over it.

You might want to check this with a copyright lawyer or something, but im pretty sure this is correct. atleast in the UK it is...
 
I've been curious about this same thing, car logos just ending up in shots a time or two I found acceptable but wasn't sure. I mean seriously, if a Camry is owned by my main character and the logo is shown twice is it really anger inducing? Toyota - "o no! Don't show people our most popular car model in your film! gah! That might actually advertise it! Dear Lord, we're gonna sue you!"

Not.
 
Yeah I think people get a little too paranoid. I've erred on the side of paranoia myself, just because if it's possible, better safe than sorry, but I think you can go overboard. On my music videos, we've avoided having any brand name clothing, not just because we wanted to keep the logos out but also because we didn't want one company or another to have a presence in the videos in general. It just didn't seem like a good idea. And it was easy enough to make sure that didn't happen by just telling people in advance.

That being said, I'll take my chances if I show a car and you can see the logo. I don't care. If someone else wants to get all paranoid about that and act like it's a big lawsuit risk, great, I'm sure that person worries they have 16 hideous incurable diseases daily too. I'll sign for the liability if that's an issue, they can sue me, but it won't ever happen, not in a million years. I've even seen shows actively comment upon a brand in a negative way, and they never got sued. That's a shady idea in my opinion, I wouldn't go there, but I've seen a character pick up a beer and say something like, "This beer is crap, do you have anything better?" That's pretty bad, haha, you probably could get sued for that but I still don't think they'd win. Which is probably why they don't get sued in the first place. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression -- you have the right to comment upon brands negatively, as long as it's not libelous, and if a character doesn't like a beer it's not making any factual statements that are untrue about the beer itself. Again, I would avoid putting that in my film, I'd just make up a brand name for the beer that didn't really exist, because why chance it? But I've seen major TV shows do that and I seriously doubt they got permission, because that'd be an awkward phone call. "Hey, yeah, we want to place your beer in our scene, only our main character is going to remark upon what a crappy beer it is. Is that ok?" "Haha, sure, we all know it's crap, go ahead!" ;)

I've heard the silliest rules, too, like apparently it's not good to show a lone bottle of alcohol with the brand name on it, for instance, like Jose Cuervo, but if you have a collection of them, I believe it's something like 8 or more (like on a bar shelf), then it's ok to have their brands displayed. We did that in one music video, you can't really tell anyway because they're in the background, but we made no effort to hide the labels.
 
That´s why they put big logos on everything.
They want poeple to see it and regognize it.

I never mind to show a brand or logo.
In my book that´s all political corectness paranoia.

If my character drinks Duff beer - why should I hide the logo?
There would be a logo in the real world so it will be a logo in my film.

In Germany it is ilegal to show a Swastika in real world (in Film it´s O.K.)
So whenever there is a Swastika they put a white sticker on it, so you can´t see it.
It´s still there and everyone knows what is under the sticker but you have to make sure it´s coverd or you get in big trouble.

Now imagine making a film where all the logos are coverd with a white blank stickers.
That would make that insane paranoia pop out.

The companys should sponsoring your film instead of sue you?
I think they actualy do - at least BMW - when I watch James Bond movies.

Frank
 
Just an FYi - logos, trademarks, serivce marks, etc, are not copyright and issues regarding their visibility are a game in a different ballpark with a whole different set of rules.
 
it depends also on what kind of production... is it movie, then is it not always necessary to hide a car or beer logo... how many times we see people in movies drinking a Heineken beer.... but if you use it for a TV show or documentary, then you've to work with different guidelines and set of rules...

from my experience I can tell this... (and some tips from a lawyer who is specialized in international film laws) :beer:

if the JEEP is just a side object, then you don't have to blur it out... but when it is central point of focus during a take... yeh, then you have to blur it out.. or seeking permission with the company... if you film for example two people in a car driving from the front, the people in the car are the focus of the take... not the car...

BLOWING UP THINGS :Drogar-Love(DBG):
when you blow up the car or paint it over, then you come totally in a different field of film law... it's not more a side-object or a generic street subject in normal conditions... take for example airplanes, if you make a movie with a hijacking or a plane that will suffer problems during the flight, you have to use a fake airliner.... same for blowing up MacDonalds in your movie, also forbidden... for the same reason the MythBusters have to tape all logo's of the items they use...

DRINKS :beer:
using Coca Cola in your movie, turn the can on that way you can't see the logo, or just for the half... you don't have to use then any stickers or make it blur... in some countries (in the EU there are different laws regarding advertisements in movie productions) you are forbidden to make advertisement for one brand only... when you actor is drinking a coca cola for example, put then also a pepsi on the table... or drink a Heineken beer and show on the background a poster of a different beer brand... on that way you don't highlight one brand only and become it a part of the set...

STUDIO vs REAL WORLD SITUATIONS
film law makes a differences for takes shoot in studio sets and street filming... for example; you film on an airport and your actor rent a car from the Hertz desk counter... you don't have to blur the Hertz logo out as it is a part from a real world situation... normal daily public streetview... but when you use the same Hertz counter for a fictitious airport, then you've to blur it out or using a fake rental company...

see for example the movie with Tom Hanks on New York JFK airport... TERMINAL... they build a copy of the real terminal in the studio with all original logo's and brands (like MacDonalds).... they're allowed to do this as it reflects a real world situation and if you change anything, people will not recognize it anymore as the JFK terminal... but when your actor comes in his house and you see from his window a MacDonalds logo, then you can run in problems...

CREDITS
don't forget always to list in the credits that for ex. BMW is the original copyright holder of the logo... it showcase that you respect other peoples copyrights and trademarks... then they will respect yours too :)
 
I'm working on a doco at the moment about helicopter pilots. Does this mean that if the pilots talk about the aircraft they fly I have to get permission from Bell/MD etc?
 
MikeD said:
I'm working on a doco at the moment about helicopter pilots. Does this mean that if the pilots talk about the aircraft they fly I have to get permission from Bell/MD etc?
Click to expand...

Bingo - you got it! Now you're qualified as a script reviewer to help mitigate E&O damages...

Regards, Michael
 
Grey Area

Grey Area

MikeD said:
I'm working on a doco at the moment about helicopter pilots. Does this mean that if the pilots talk about the aircraft they fly I have to get permission from Bell/MD etc?
Click to expand...
Is a grey area :Drogar-Thinking(DBG
When the pilots speak from a personal opinion why they like to fly with that helicopter, is it not a problem. Anyone is entitled to give a personal opinion about anything... The pilot has really to say things as '' I find '' or '' Personally...". Compare with a review on the internet, is also from personal opinion and anyone can write that that car sucks.... if you start an advertisement to say that that car sucks, then you get in problems... in the film industry works it the same... both mass media...

You can NOT highlight the helicopter with additional information, for example, a shot of the helicopter and give some technical data as speed etc. For that, you need permission from Bell/MD etc. We all know it is free available on the internet... but you need permission to highlight it to the public. So it is very important that the pilot do not to speak with to much technical details about his helicopter, then it is fine... he can say like '' I love this helicopter because it goes 200 ias a hour, it's climbs quick and.... bla bla "... as guideline I use a maximum of 2 technical facts, then is it always safe...
( be aware, pilots are very passionated technical talkers... :Drogar-Happy(DBG): )

Don't forget to showcase the trademark credits on the end of the documentary, even when you have not requested permission from Bell/MD etc. When you forget it and they will notice it, they can take some steps against you.

If your film goes about one type of helicopter in general, oh yeh, you need defently permission. It can been seen as a commercial. So long you don't blow it up, they will give you permission, it's free advertisement for them... :Drogar-Happy(DBG):

For bigger productions they even will supply you all the information you need, even a spokesperson... or a tour at the factory.... that's why I love to do documentaries like this, you'll see a lot what other people normal not get to see...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top