Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is it allowed to show brands in an indy? without permission

Wow, a lot of fuss over NOTHING. Be safe. It's very, very easy to do. Nobody's saying you can't do it. But not showing logos, and having releases for people on screen that you can RECOGNIZE is all very easy and doable. It's so easy to do and your art doesn't have to suffer for it.

But if you don't take the advice that's been pretty clear here, than be aware that you're taking your chances. You might not get sued but be ready for it. And if you do get sued, you might win. Awesome. Power to the people and all that. But it's just a shame when you could have avoided it... because the only people that benefit from all that is the lawyers.

Plus, this is not about making it harder for the small guy,because someone wants to keep you down. That's a stretch.

When you show someone's logo, it's someone's property. It could be Coke, or it could be the bakery down the street. Just respect the person and or corporations right to own it and protect it. You might do the same. And it's slander BTW. Slander is what is "said" and liable is what is "written". Generally, trademark law is about market confusion not about property. There's plenty of legal elements.

Also, you talk about the big guys getting away with murder. Well they do sometimes, but I can assure you with the Electronic Arts, LucasFilms, LucasArts, Activisions, Microsofts that I've legally worked with don't take risks. They are pretty conservative. Because the lawyer that approves your risk, is the lawyer that gets fired when the $hit hits the fan. You should see the list of words and terms George Lucas has registered. I'm sure you can find it online (lightsaber, stormtrooper, Klatu, Bradda, Nikktoo are in there). I know, I had to review them and I even created some of my own.

Examples of the big guys losing:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118971/alternateversions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Monkeys#Lebbeus_Woods_lawsuit

All this discussion about something that's easy to fix. So you might want to try. But if you do want to fight it, do it, but do it BIG and make sure it means something. Logorama is the shining example of that.
 
You should, to the best of your ability, avoid showing the brands of products and stores that you do not have written permission to use. It's not very hard to turn a can of coke so that you do not see the word COKE.

You should have written permission for all locations that you are shooting at. If you don't have time to get a release from everyone, or the ability to control the background of passers-by you can always post signs that read something like, "Filming in Progress, by entering this area you agree photographed or to appear on television, or to be otherwise recorded"
 
So I've had a question along these lines. I did some filming on a building from a public street, but I compositing out the building logos and such with my own fictitious company. Is this okay?

Same thing with products. I have a telephone I am using in a scene, if it is a unique phone, do I have to have a release? It has no logo on it but I thought the shape might be trademarked.
 
As far as I know it as to be unique and recognisable for there to be an issue.
Bland office block not so much, iphone yes.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The real issue is that if you can't prove that you have proper clearances and releases, most distributors won't touch your movie because once they buy it, it becomes their movie and their liability. So all this talk about defending your freedom of expression is fine... but you're not the one who would end up defending it.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.
 
When we were starting the negotiations to distribute our film with HBO, one of the first things they asked us was to bring all the release forms, permits and insurance papers for every single person, building and business seen in the movie, including extras. We even had to show release forms from the artists whose paintings were on the walls of a real location. Without that, the sale simply would not have happened.

When shooting, we took care to cover up every single logo and trademark on every piece of wardrobe. And if we later discovered we had missed one, during post we either edited around the logo, or in some cases matted it out digitally.

And never, never, never use somebody else's music without their explicit written permission. Music rights are a whole other ball game, and distribution of your film will come to a grinding halt unless you get the permit, or replace the music.

If you want to have a shot at distribution, you need the releases. Period.
 
Jaime Vallés said:
When we were starting the negotiations to distribute our film with HBO, one of the first things they asked us was to bring all the release forms, permits and insurance papers for every single person, building and business seen in the movie, including extras.
And never, never, never use somebody else's music without their explicit written permission. Music rights are a whole other ball game, and distribution of your film will come to a grinding halt unless you get the permit, or replace the music.

If you want to have a shot at distribution, you need the releases. Period.
Click to expand...

If you shoot that building outside in a public place and you've composited new names on the building, do I still need a release to show that building? There is NOTHING special about the building, I just needed a building to turn into a fake corporation in my film.

Outside of that, for interior locations and every person in the film, I have /will have releases.

And good thing I am a musician :) I score all my own work.
 
Rick Burnett said:
If you shoot that building outside in a public place and you've composited new names on the building, do I still need a release to show that building? There is NOTHING special about the building, I just needed a building to turn into a fake corporation in my film.
Click to expand...
That's a very good question, and I'm not sure of the answer. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to get a permit from the building manager. Most people are willing to help out an indie producer with their film, as long as it doesn't make them look bad. You'd be surprised what people will agree to with a little schmoozing. :beer:
 
I actually asked the Logorama team these very questions.

http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/logorama-2009/

As for the toxic swill called Coke or Pepsi, the only way I would ever consider showing them in a film is in a "disparaging" way. Ditto for fast food craphouses.

Interesting case studies:

McLibel

Super Size Me

RIP! A Remix Manifesto

I've asked around for the story on "K-Mart Sucks!" in Rainman. Were large fees paid and permission required to say this? How much?

For the best marketing advice, you can always turn to the late Bill Hicks.

Logorama was a bit of a fluke, and I wouldn't count on getting away with what they did. I find it quite a good thing that copyright is being challenged everywhere though. The copyright law is out of control (95 years!).

For these logos they stick in our faces at every opportunity, we need the right to stick it back to them. Why should these communications be in one direction? They shove their advertising at you, and you don't think you should have the right to shove back?

We need more wolves not more sheep.
 
Logos fall under trademark law, not copyright. Music is copywritten. Important difference. Copyright is life of the author plus 70 years, and even more for works of corporate ownership. It's really shameful.

I really don't understand the whole sign thing. Do you have to prove you put one up?Can't you just say "Oh we put up a sign up?" even if you didn't?

I also don't get how the show Robot Chicken gets away with using all those copyrighted characters. I'd really love to find out about that.

Another thing to think about is that brands are freaking distracting. Your eye is immediately drawn to them. Unless you're getting paid to put them in, it really serves your film better to not show them, IMO.
 
As an independent filmmaker, as a part of most distribution / broadcast agreements, you will be required to purchase E & O (Errors & Omission) insurance. This insures the project against possible future liabilities, which may include copyright issues. This insurance can be very costly. The legal team at the insurance company will assess the film looking for potential issues--big or small. Based on this assessment, they will determine the premium. If they see possible big issues the premium goes up or they decide not provide coverage at all. Getting a dist deal without E & O is very difficult.
 
Remember though, that docs and fiction have two sets of rules. If your film, for example, Obama giving a speech in Times Square, you can't be sued for the logos of stores in the background. Asking doc filmmakers and journalists to do this would be totally unreasonable.

If you say "New York City" is a busy city" and show a crowded street this is also fine. It's not OK to say "New York City is crammed with sleazebags" over the same shot - then it's slander.

It's when you are distorting the "truth" about something that you can get nailed. For example, if you main character worked in a coffee shop, and he was non-positive in ANY way, and that coffee shop was Starbucks, then you are opening your door to teams of lawyers.

If a skyscraper looms over city they cannot forbid you from showing it. If they did, it would suddenly be impossible to shoot on 100s of nearby streets as soon as any new tall building went up. You could conceivably be barred from shooting in your own back yard. What they can forbid you from doing is adding a new logo on a building, like say for "Evil Corporation" that is not there in real life. Then you are again distorting the "truth". Of course, if your camera is on their private property without permission, it is another story.
 
Chris Pickle said:
As an independent filmmaker, as a part of most distribution / broadcast agreements, you will be required to purchase E & O (Errors & Omission) insurance. This insures the project against possible future liabilities, which may include copyright issues. This insurance can be very costly.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true.
Getting a dist deal without E & O is very difficult.
Click to expand...
If not impossible.
 
And if a big corporation sued you, try get it in the press and you'll get some free promo.
 
Joshua, Robot Chicken gets away with it because it is parody - they flash a disclaimer at the start of the show saying so. Same way SNL can make fun of Palin and nothing she can do about it. In the long run it is safer to just cover your butt if you plan to sell your movie. Sure you might have a movie like CLERKS were there are name products in every frame but the studio who buys that film may spend more than the film cost to make just to cover the rights. I remember(details may be fuzzy) one of the Batman movies was sued because in one scene the lighting fixtures in a location was done by a famous artist. He claimed the movie used his design even though it was part of a public mall they used as a location. He won. If your movie makes any money people will come out of the woodwork to get some. LLC's and release forms are your friends, don't fight them. The Blur tool is your friend too.
 
What about summat like facebook, I've got it in my most recent short, it's far away but the layout is distinctive, you can't see the logo though but there are ads running down the side. With some kind of military computer I bet they could sharpen the image and make out what it is.

Now I don't like facebook and it kind of comes across in the plot, when do they have a leg to stand on? What's my exposure here? If I had taken the time to make my own site and called the movie Defacebook would I still be likely to get trouble my way?
 
INAL but if its recognizable they'll come after you if it goes into festivals etc, a quick selective blur on the screen to blow our a little detail is generally enough for something like that.
 
Thank you to everybody who contributed to this thread, these are answers to the questions I've been asking for years.

Mike Brent said:
I will incorporate a company all right...in Panama.
Enough... people are trying to make it more difficult to others. People are trying to make it more difficult to themselves (so they won't even try, from fear of failing).
Click to expand...

Mike if all of the smart and successful people here were trying to make your career more difficult they would tell you to show a Walmart logo in the sex scenes and title your movie "Coca Cola Sucks" because that way they could be certain your movie would never find distribution and you will never become competition. I think you have to accept that this is one of the many hurdles in filmmaking and if you want your work to go beyond youtube distribution you have to find a way to work around it.

It can work in your favour as well. The last film I worked on had a bar scene where people had to have beer in their hands. We didn't want the brown bottles with ripped off labels so went to a small local brewery and not only did we get permission to use their bottles and logos, we got all the beer for the shoot AND the wrap party for free! That is how I approach all of my shoots. I don't shoot in Starbucks, I shoot in Bob's Crazy Coffee Emporium, and getting permission from Bob isn't that hard because he's there every day.

I have another question. I work on a lot of low budget music videos and have always wondered about getting permission from Fender or Gibson for using their guitars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top