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 :)

Shot of person holding RED camera in movie

R

Roshdi Alkadri

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Does anyone know what's involved if i wanted to show a camera operator holding a scarlet x in a feature length movie. I do love RED and what they're doing in the industry. The shot is part of the plot in the film. Of course it would be a nice promo for RED but are there any legalities against doing this? Someone from RED replying would be appreciated.
 
Ok, i will do that too. Hopefully they can respond here as it might help others who are thinking of the same thing.
 
My assumption is that it would be a case-by-case use basis, since there isn't some blanket release that I know of.

Every time you see an Apple product in a Movie or TV in the past 10+ years? Apple knew about it, wanted it there, and all the right paperwork was filed. Smart on their part, since the Apple stuff was always being used by cool hip people doing smart hip things. One of the (many) contributing factors to their meteoric rise. But make no mistake: highly orchestrated and controlled.
 
One thing to consider right away is the context in which the product appears. In the case of a RED camera, is the character that is holding it a real idiot? Is he the character that nobody likes and obviously makes poor choices? My point is simply whether the camera is being shown in a good light or something less. If it is being used by an extra in the background who has no real back story, I don't see how anyone can object. Unless, of course, the film is about murderous film making scumbags who travel around scamming people. :-)
 
Terry VerHaar said:
One thing to consider right away is the context in which the product appears. In the case of a RED camera, is the character that is holding it a real idiot? Is he the character that nobody likes and obviously makes poor choices? My point is simply whether the camera is being shown in a good light or something less. If it is being used by an extra in the background who has no real back story, I don't see how anyone can object. Unless, of course, the film is about murderous film making scumbags who travel around scamming people. :-)
Click to expand...

Those are good points. I emailed RED about it. I can't disclose much about the story yet but thanks for your reply.
 
Correct, case by case and an agreement that needs to be signed by both parties if we move forward. PM me with your email address to start the process....
 
Nick Cassavetes was filmed holding an Epic in an episode of Entourage. I am curious to know if anyone from HBO contacted Red for permission.
 
Its not possible to contact every company to get permission to use there products in a movie. There would not be any television news if you had to report and clear permission for every product that in the frame. If you release a product to the world, dont you expect it to be used?
 
The copyright process has specific exceptions for news gathering and academic works involving copyrighted images.

If you are sure that your work falls within the exception, you don't have to worry, otherwise not having a signed release leaves you open to copyright infringement.
 
I wouldn't worry about it. Read this article:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-budweiser-seeks-removal-flight

If Anheuser-Busch couldn't get Paramount to play ball, (And their products were made out to be *THE DEVIL* in this film) I seriously doubt that RED is even going to bother or have legal standing if they did.

Think about it:

For every fender bender on TV that results in an explosion, shouldn't there be an irate Ford?

Every airplane crash a furious Boeing?

Every murder a litigious Smith & Wesson?

The law gives leeway for storytellers (Thankfully) to tell stories. See the examples in the article or the other thousand you've most likely seen yourself.

It never hurts to ask and many times product placement is a gainful experience for cash strapped films.

Unless your encroaching on libel, you should be just fine.
 
No problem. Just thinks its odd rules but its not up to me. Not sure if indie films have the same rules thoe?
 
Joel Arvidsson said:
No problem. Just thinks its odd rules but its not up to me. Not sure if indie films have the same rules thoe?
Click to expand...


The rules are all the same, But for commercials things can be bit more tricky because there is usually some body with money behind it all so they can sue. And they do not sue the film maker but the company behind the film. A client of mine did a Ebay commercial with a toy robot in it, one of those that you can buy on the airport, with remote control and such. And in one of the scenes of the ebay commercial, this robot needed t be retouch out since the asian maker of the thing was informed about it and just did not want it there, or in other words realized his chance to make a buck from Ebay. So I was paid over 40k USD to retouch the robot out of the shots and insert a new CG robot.... good for me, but not so good for Ebay or the guy with the robot :)

But simply you can fly by luck and hope no body sues you or you can take full precaution and have everyting on set made as props etc.. usually it goes some where in between. For example I do not know how many times I retouched out the apple logo on apple laptops in commercials... usually that is something producers wants to have done for the above reasons, but I think it's even a bigger "fellony" as you then clearly modify a designed item in your film and by doing so the one that owns the rights to the item has even bigger reason to sue you...

But I think the best practice is to make sure the things in the film are not showed in a bad way and if they are they should b made props with no tie to any brand or such.
 
Joel Arvidsson said:
No problem. Just thinks its odd rules but its not up to me. Not sure if indie films have the same rules thoe?
Click to expand...


Copyright infringement has actually brought a lot of unwary indie films down unfortunately. From scuppering distribution deals, to losing pivotal scenes or character props and references or being held over a barrel to get permissions. Once it's in, you've already infringed, just taking it out may not even suffice. It's not something we can ignore unfortunately. Even if only portrayed in the best of lights. It depresses me that so many parts of our every day lives cannot be easily depicted, but the thing is companies spend millions to billions to develop their brands, and so understandably are very careful about anything they will let them be associated with. If in doubt always best to seek permission, find another way/leave it out. Talking to a lawyer early is the best idea though it can be a crazy depressing realisation of what things will put your film at risk. But better to spend some money upfront than in when you were on the edge of securing distribution, but don't have all your clearances in place.
 
Last edited:
You could just tape over the logo -- it's the logos that are copyrightable and need clearance, not the actual device even if they're clearly recognizable (like a unibody mac or iphone; just tape over the apple logo and you're clear.)
 
Mike P. said:
You could just tape over the logo -- it's the logos that are copyrightable and need clearance, not the actual device even if they're clearly recognizable (like a unibody mac or iphone; just tape over the apple logo and you're clear.)
Click to expand...

No you are not. The design is also under copyright. For example if you make a move and the "wrong guy" drives a Mustang but you do not see the mustang logo or you removed it from the car, well then Ford will for sure make contact if your film has any kind of success. So gaffer up logos is actually not working, but it's a handy way as it's keeps some film producers calm as they think it's what's needed. Then they fly wit it and usually nobody is jumped at... But do not take the logo cover up as a way to get to use a product in shot, it's simply not.
 
Are you sure? While not the foremost sources these were the quickest I could find:

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logo_Copyright/Trademark/Typeface

So since a computer (apple or otherwise) and a car and a camera have an intrinsic function (aka Useful Article) which can not be separated from the (artistic) design, their designs are therefore ineligible for copyright protection. The design of a RED camera is useless without its function/electronics as a camera and hence covering the logo (which can be copyrighted separately, same as a drawing/design/schematic of the camera because it stands on its own as a drawing/design/schematic with no other intrinsic function) means its no longer necessary for clearance.

Most "Intrinsic Function" copyright examples use a car analogy since it's the most obvious/controversial one. Although it may be US only and could be different elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting information all across. Well, i'm in Canada where different laws apply. Nonetheless, i didn't want to infringe on anyone's products. I could cover the logo and not worry about it, but if its beneficial to RED to show the camera with the logo then i'll do that with the proper release forms once someone contacts me with some info regarding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top