Let us know how that works out.
rogar-KnockedOut(D
). ). However, if you were to play a song from a record label or show a video or something in your film they can prove they were harmed because you directly violated the copyright and probably did harm them. Ben, I'm curious -- did you even watch that video? Can you please explain how it has any relevance to what we're discussing?
Opinion is free, although slander, libel, and defamation of character are most definitely not free speech, even if they are your opinion! Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected free speech. Saying "I think Walther Schlossenberger is a lying thief" is not protected free speech, it's defamation -- unless, of course, you have documented evidence that Walther Schlossenberger is indeed a lying thief...
Try that with the Hollywood sign. Try that with the New York city skyline.
I agree with this. There are some very draconian attitudes out there and the danger is quite overblown. But that doesn't mean the opposite is true and people should just go shooting willy-nilly and clamoring that the first amendment gives them the right to do whatever they want, either. Education, understanding of the law, and fighting for your rights are paramount. Security guards have no right to confiscate your private property, for example, and any security guard demanding you turn over your camera or tapes is acting illegally.
I think this statement has little to no basis in fact. Companies can sue for many reasons, including intimidation, and they don't have to have any expectation of winning. If the company decides they want you to shut up, and they think you don't have enough money to defend yourself, they can file suit, and by default win if you can't appropriately defend. Regardless of what the law is. Is this "right"? Of course not, it's an abuse of the legal system, and bullying. But it does happen, so your statement should not be said as fact. You said "Companies don't sue unless they can win." That isn't true. A true statement would be "It would seem that a company shouldn't bother suing you unless they are certain they can win, but unfortunately there is no such provision in our legal system; companies (and individuals) can and will sue for many reasons, sometimes legitimate, sometimes not... and it's a huge hassle on the defendant."
This is entirely true -- of course they won't sue someone unless there's something in it for them. But their desired outcome, and the law, don't necessarily always agree. In a perfect world they should, but we don't live in a perfect world, we live in this one, and we have to deal with things the way they are.
This is entirely reasonable. And one could hope that the company in question would see it that way. But you're offering this as legal advice, and it isn't legally defensible. If someone decides that you using their copyrighted work (such as the artwork on that can of coke) is something that they're upset about, then you're in the wrong and they can and may come after you.It's hard for them to say that they've been harmed by a Coke appearing in your film, and even if they have been harmed by a character's ranting tirade against coke, that doesn't make that illegal (plus personally I know I wouldn't change brands because a character in a film told me to
You're oversimplifying it! You don't have to prove that someone "harmed" you, all you have to prove is that they broke the law. If you're on vacation, and I pick the locks on your house and stay there for a week without your permission, but before you get back I vacuum and clean up the place, even bring in a maid and have her clean it up better than I found it, maybe I even fix a leaking faucet that you had... have I "harmed" you? Could I argue that you're actually "better off" because of my actions? Sure, I could argue it, but the fact of the matter is I COMMITTED BREAKING AND ENTERING! The law was broken. I don't get to rewrite the law by cleaning up the house and fixing a faucet!
Agreed, from a common-sense perspective. But we are talking about the law, not common sense. People have a right to determine what happens to their property, and other people do not have a right to appropriate someone else's property without their permission.
The building's design is a protected trademark, so no, you can't go appropriating it. Same with the Chrysler building, the Empire State building, the Hollywood sign, etc.
Well, this is where we get to "incidental use". If something is purely incidental, there's usually not a problem. It's very difficult to film any street without seeing SOME car manufacturer's logo or other. Those logos are protected trademarks, but ... if the use is purely incidental, unavoidable, etc... then it's something that would typically be completely overlooked. If, however, you're making the logo a point of interest or attention, that's where you stray out of the "incidental" use and have to start looking at whether you're appropriating someone else's trademark/protected property for your own benefit.
It would only be a violation of copyright law if the expression of Coke's artwork (a copyrighted and/or trademarked protected work of art) was being appropriated in a non-incidental way. (this statement could be said to be stated as fact, but take it as opinion and the opinion of someone who's not a lawyer either!)
