Can you have a company's trademarks in your film w/o permission?

Cryogenic Filmworks said:
But I have seen tons of TV shows with the mac logo in plain sight. Also with cars, You can cover or not shoot the logo all you want but a Dodge Ram is still a Dodge Ram, A Trans Am is Still a Trans Am, A Corvette is still a Corvette, etc., etc., etc.

I've also heard that if it's in the public view it is fair game as long as you do not denegrate the logo.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can get away with a lot - but it's a matter of what you're willing to chance.
Personally, I wouldn't leave much of anythign to chance, because as Noah pointed out these sorts of things can cause legal issues when it comes to distribution that can hold up the release of a project.

So it's about what level or 'risk' you're willing to take.

As far as "public view" and being fair game - I'm no attorney, but I have a hard time buying that when it comes to corporate logos and the like.

OH, and as far as the shows with the Mac logo in plain sight - I'd be willing to bet every single one had to get legal clearance and got permission from Apple.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
OH, and as far as the shows with the Mac logo in plain sight - I'd be willing to bet every single one had to get legal clearance and got permission from Apple.
Click to expand...

Would agree there too, same goes for TVs being mostly SONY. This would not be a coincidence 90% of the time, but based on a mutual agreement, one where either $ or equipment changed hands.
 
Read the freaking law on it. The trademark law is pretty short, and actually isn't too jumbled up with gobbledygook (unlike the copyright law).

Yes, prod companies talk to corporations. To get mmoney from them, not permission. They don't pay, oh well, we'll not use their product.

Someone tries to sue? Countersue. "Restraint of trade". See how they like what "protecting their corporate image" does for their corporate image.

Coke would look pretty silly suing someone showing people drinking Coke after they've spent billions of dollars plastering that message all over public spaces.

(Of course, that is different from the original question, if DD was "featured" in the film, not just there, i.e. if the film is about what happens in a DD, rather than about someone who stops in and buys some. Especially if they're buyibg kiddie porn in the back room, or something else that could be reasonably detrimental to DD. But if two cops stopping in for a midnight snack? Yeah, right.)
 
Last edited:
GenJerDan said:
Someone tries to sue? Countersue. "Restraint of trade". See how they like what "protecting their corporate image" does for their corporate image.
Click to expand...

Sure. You're right, like I said before... no one said they would WIN a suit.
But how many people here want to get into that legal mess in the first place?

Right or wrong - you already outlined a scenario there which could not only hold up a project indefinitely from distribution - but also cost a filmmaker a lot of money in legal fees. So even if you win a suit - still doesn't sound like a great way to go, in my opinion.
 
hey, just tell them that you want to make a shoot of any kind of shops-which looks an add, and how much would they pay, if you choose them? :)
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Sure. You're right, like I said before... no one said they would WIN a suit.
But how many people here want to get into that legal mess in the first place?

Right or wrong - you already outlined a scenario there which could not only hold up a project indefinitely from distribution - but also cost a filmmaker a lot of money in legal fees. So even if you win a suit - still doesn't sound like a great way to go, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Oooh. Everyone was talking about blackmail, not law. Sorry. I misunderstood.

(Ever wonder why no one, anywhere, ever answers with a cite of the applicable law, section & paragraph? Because it's not there. Just like they never come back with case law.)
 
GenJerDan said:
Nonsense.

If it were true that you can't use logos without permission, you'd better make sure no one wears clothes (Calvin Klein might sue, Adidas might sue), drives a car (GM can afford better lawyers than you can), drinks beer out of recognizable bottle (label showing or not), uses a non-generic computer...
Click to expand...

It's not nonense! I had a friend who was in a film last summer and they had him wear some name brand shirt. When they enterd it into a festival, they got denied because they didn't have permission to use that image. It's a fact, not urban legend.
 
GenJerDan said:
Oooh. Everyone was talking about blackmail, not law. Sorry. I misunderstood.

(Ever wonder why no one, anywhere, ever answers with a cite of the applicable law, section & paragraph? Because it's not there. Just like they never come back with case law.)
Click to expand...


You may be right on that - doing a bit of digging, I found an article about merchandising on an entertainment law attorney's site. Here's an excerpt:

"Note that displaying a product in a film without permission is not necessarily a violation of a manufacturer's rights.
Nevertheless, it is often easier to obtain written permission than risk a possible lawsuit."

It's the 'not necessarily' aspect which becomes questionable - and often times can wind up getting sorted out in court, or arbitration.
It's not that difficult to either gain permission or shoot around products/logos.
Making a film is hard enough - no reason to make it harder in the distribution phase than it already is.

Whether or not the letter of the law permits it, no distributor is going to release a film without full clearance of everything.
 
Last edited:
vidled said:
Would agree there too, same goes for TVs being mostly SONY.
Click to expand...

I did some freelance work tracking and painting the Sony, Nikon and Pepsi logos out of The Man with the Golden Gun for ABC a few years back :)
 
GenJerDan said:
Oooh. Everyone was talking about blackmail, not law. Sorry. I misunderstood.

(Ever wonder why no one, anywhere, ever answers with a cite of the applicable law, section & paragraph? Because it's not there. Just like they never come back with case law.)
Click to expand...

Where does it say in copyright law, "filmmakers are allowed to use any trademark or logo they wish without any fear of legal action?" Or do you just *know* all this from your firsthand experience with getting a film distributed, dealing with E&O insurance and having weathered several trademark infringement lawsuits. I think not.
 
I believe GenJerDan and Noah K. should settle this in the ring.

lightweights.jpg
 
NoahK said:
Where does it say in copyright law, "filmmakers are allowed to use any trademark or logo they wish without any fear of legal action?" Or do you just *know* all this from your firsthand experience with getting a film distributed, dealing with E&O insurance and having weathered several trademark infringement lawsuits. I think not.
Click to expand...

Copyright law does not apply to Trade Mark. Two different things (but it is easy to bleed from one to the other, depending on circumstances).
 
Ought2bCommitted said:
It's not nonense! I had a friend who was in a film last summer and they had him wear some name brand shirt. When they enterd it into a festival, they got denied because they didn't have permission to use that image. It's a fact, not urban legend.
Click to expand...

That might very well be the case. No doubt at all.

And has nothing to do with the law.

Like I said. Where's a cite? With all the thousands of films being made every year, surely someone got burned. Should figure prominently in any search, even in Google. I'll even be nice and cite one for ya. The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders vs. Pussycat Cinema because of "Debbie Does Dallas".

The Cheerleaders won the suit because the film defamed the organization (even though the film never said she was Cowboys Cheerleader). Not just because she looked like a DC Cheerleader. If "doing Dallas" involved nothing but a shopping spree and sightseeing, they would have lost.

Can't find any others even remotely applicable. And the cool thing about Trade Mark law is the owner has to defend their TM, or risk losing it. There should have been thousands of suits over the years.

I never said you could do whatever you wanted. There are limitations.
 
This whole issue drives me crazy. My feeling is that if a company puts their logo in public view, whether on a store sign or a t-shirt, then they need to shut the ____ up if that logo ends up in a film. Regardless of what the law says, it's completely backwards. If Coke doesn’t want their logo to end up in films, then they shouldn’t put the stupid logo on their cans. If a company doesn’t want their billboard in a film, don’t put the billboard where I can shoot it from public space!

I'm shooting a fictional film this year in a documentary style (it’s more pseudo documentary a la “Husbands and Wives” than it is mockumentary a la “Best in Show”). I think I may address this directly in the movie by deliberately shooting corporate logos on signs, blurring the snot out of them in post, and have the characters actually address the issue in dialogue. It would actually fit the film thematically, so it wouldn’t be out of place in the story.

Cheers,

Josh
 
lucidz said:
who is that in noahK's avatar?

It looks like halle berry grabbing her hoohoos
Click to expand...

Yup, that's my guess

Josh_Boelter said:
This whole issue drives me crazy. My feeling is that if a company puts their logo in public view, whether on a store sign or a t-shirt, then they need to shut the ____ up if that logo ends up in a film. Regardless of what the law says, it's completely backwards.
Click to expand...

And I completely agree. I call shenanigans on litigiousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top