Question about product placement legalities

R

RockmanX3

Well-known member
I was wondering what the standard rules are for product placement legalities in films.

For a short film I want to do in the future, I want to show my Xbox 360 getting stolen, but what are the legalities showing it on screen? I know it's all fair game showing stuff only on the internet, but for film festivals, distributors, etc, would they have some issues with product placement? Do film companies have to pay royalties for product placement?

I remember one example from the film "Friday" that starred Ice Cube and Chris Tucker, there was a Captain Crunch cereal box that had the title completely replaced with something else (I think it was replaced with "Crunch" or something, I haven't seen the movie for a long time). I know several movies have gotten away with showing the "Coca Cola" logo.

Not all of us can be like Michael Bay and have a movie completely made of product placements (Transformers), so what kind of risks are involved? Thanks!
 
If your film is for film festivals you should be okay, generally the festivals don't have a problem with product placement. It's when your film gets picked up by a distributor you should start to worry.

If you feel you have a good enough product that your end goal is to get major distribution then I would shy away from showing any product logos etc..

Also, if you absolutely need to show the product logo, then as long as you don't show the product in a negative light you should be okay.

Using your "Friday" for example, I would assume Captain Crunch didn't want there product to be associated with a movie like friday because of the drug use, so that's why I think that logo was replaced or blocked. As long as you don't have someone pissing on the Xbox you should be good, but remember this is just my opinion as I'm not a lawyer.
 
capitalP said:
If your film is for film festivals you should be okay, generally the festivals don't have a problem with product placement. It's when your film gets picked up by a distributor you should start to worry.

If you feel you have a good enough product that your end goal is to get major distribution then I would shy away from showing any product logos etc..

Also, if you absolutely need to show the product logo, then as long as you don't show the product in a negative light you should be okay.

Using your "Friday" for example, I would assume Captain Crunch didn't want there product to be associated with a movie like friday because of the drug use, so that's why I think that logo was replaced or blocked. As long as you don't have someone pissing on the Xbox you should be good, but remember this is just my opinion as I'm not a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Alright, thanks!

I also remember in the show "Chuck", certain video game covers would be replaced with something else. Since Chuck heavily promotes video games (like the call of duty series), I dunno why they had to do that.
 
My understanding is the "product placement" is where the manufacturer or supplier of a product or service pays the filmmaker in order to have their product visible in the film, not the other way around. It's great advertising when the audience sees the hero flying home to his girl on United Airlines.
 
Steve House said:
My understanding is the "product placement" is where the manufacturer or supplier of a product or service pays the filmmaker in order to have their product visible in the film, not the other way around. It's great advertising when the audience sees the hero flying home to his girl on United Airlines.
Click to expand...

If you're an indie filmmaker don't expect to get paid in fact you need to contact the manufacturer and get permission from them. If their product is not being seen in a good light don't be surprised if they say no you can't use their product. Product placement works for Bay (Transformers), or Jackson (District 9) the larger films that will be seen by millions. Not for our little picture ('The Killing Strain'- http://thekillingstrainmovie.blogspot.com/ ). My advice is get an Entertainment attorney and clear everything legally.

Just my 2 cents.
 
As Allen say, product placement is a marketing expense by the product owner. If the film does not have any guaranteed distribution, with plans to hit millions and millions of viewers, the pay will be commensurate with what your expectations are for the film. For most independents, getting clearance is the best to expect. In some cases, like beer, food items, the maufacturer will give you enough for cast & crew to enjoy.

Also, the context in which the product is being shown is crucial - they will want to see the script etc. There was a story a few years back about a film in an Italian film festival that got taken out because of Coke licensing issue that was not cleared. The story was simple; Jesus Christ came back and was photographed drinking a Coke. The story is about the advertiser and campaign around that captured moment. The problem was not clearing it with Coke... While it seems harmless at the surface, Coke sells into every part of the world, with many religions to consider - the sad part is the film was done and screening in a festival before this was noticed - no money back for those investors and a hard lesson for the producers.

Michael
 
Was just pointing out that there is a difference between product placement and clearing the appearance of a trademarked product. If one is contacting a trademark owner, it would be a good idea to ask them for the right thing. Especially for an indy, they might not mind their product is seen on camera yet they wouldn't be interested in actually paying you to put it in the scene. Product placement means they've paid you to put it in as a form of advertising.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top