Zombie Copyright

greeches

greeches

Veteran
I've noticed alot of fantastic zombie flics that have corporate logos featured in shots. How strict are they for competition purposes?
 
Showing a logo (unless it is integral to the story...that can get sticky) is not a violation of copyright or trade mark.

It's not a smart idea, but for other reasons. For instance, if Pepsi sponsors a contest, they might not be thrilled by all the Coke cans in the fridge...
 
Including a corporate logo in a film is gray area. Using unlicensed music is a definite clearance problem. So far I've only DQ'd one film for a clearance issue and we had a filmmaker withdrew his film for similar reasons. Jarred and I will have to make a call by call basis on what goes onto the DVD.
 
Barry_S said:
Including a corporate logo in a film is gray area. Using unlicensed music is a definite clearance problem. So far I've only DQ'd one film for a clearance issue and we had a filmmaker withdrew his film for similar reasons. Jarred and I will have to make a call by call basis on what goes onto the DVD.
Click to expand...
If there's anything you've noticed that's borderline maybe you could give notice to those filmmakers before they submit for DVD (in your infinite freetime), or if any filmmakers want to take the initiative -- maybe its better to blur them out before you send in your DVD submission ala MTV. I know it sucks for narrative work but better than not getting on the DVD.

The budweiser can logo in Shed was carefully turned away from camera BTW :happy:
 
You know who could probably answer this definitively? Greg Harrison, director of "November". In the shots in the convenience store, I don't think I've ever seen so many product names and logos blatantly displayed. I wonder if they went and got permission, or if they just didn't care, or if their legal counsel somehow figured that there wouldn't be any problem?
 
Use of trademarks in a film (or book or other media) is generally allowable. I can't imagine that the producers of November asked for permission to display all the trademarks inside that store--it would be near impossible. Even the paranoid productions that carefully turn the labels on products will usually admit, they don't need to do it, but they're just being extremely cautious. The intellectual property protections that apply to trademarks are fairly weak--allowing for their use in new works. So I don't see any need to DQ any film based on displaying trademarks.
 
Well, if you're showing a city street, it's generally allowable, because there's nothing you can do about it.

If you're in an enclosed space, it's a different story.
 
"...if a product or service is used in the same way that it is used by the general public, the filmmaker need not seek the company's permission."

---International Trademark Association web site

http://www.inta.org/articles/productplacement.html

I'm not aware of any legal distinction between indoor and outdoor use, but in general, I think avoiding trademarks when *reasonably* done is good practice.
 
Well, being the International Trademark Association, they're referring to the trademark. :) I mean, that's how products are typically identified in films--by display or mention of a trademark. If you don't see or hear the trademark, the product is generic or anonymous, no? I think if you read the full article I referenced, their position is pretty clear.
 
You see the products all the time; that can't really be avoided. But often the trademarks are covered or altered.
 
I don't think it hurts to obscure a trademark, but in a lot cases it isn't necessary. It's done to avoid *any* possibility of litigation. As a filmmaker, you should be comfortable that you have all your necessary clearances--so obscuring is an easy way to make sure something is a complete non-issue. Do you have any references to support your position?
 
Well, there's Title 15, Sec 1125 of the US Code:

(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or
services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word,
term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any
false designation of origin, false or misleading description of
fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which -
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such
person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or
approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities
by another person, or . . .

. . . shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
Click to expand...

"Damage" could be, say, the false impression of an endorsement, which could be implied by something as simple as prominence. Or a case could be made of it.

As a filmmaker, yes, I definitely want to have myself covered. As a lawyer who's never practiced trademark law, I might not know off the top of my head exactly where the line exists -- and there might not even BE a bright-line rule, which complicates matters even more -- but I'm sure going to make sure I find out before I put something out there. It's just good advice all around.
 
"A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such
person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or
approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities
by another person, or . . . "

I think it would be tough to make a case that the casual display of a trademark implies sponsorship or affiliation with a film. Thus, the Mexican standoff situation that currently exists. Filmmakers try to obscure trademarks when it's reasonable to do so, but the inclusion of trademarks is not necessarily a barrier to distribution. On the other side, trademark owners are not in the habit of bringing spurious lawsuits against filmmakers that use their trademarks without permisssion. I certainly agree that you should always play it safe. Who want's to be involved in litigation, even if you ultimately win?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top