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

[Mike Brent]

In the case of showing a product like pepsi, do you think, as long as you don't show it in a bad light, a company would pay their lawyers to sue an indie production that has by definition shallow to empty pockets?

No, I don't. But I thought I should come here and post it as a question, just to see what people say, and I've got about 10 different answers.

I really think it's not that big of a deal and nobody would care (except for music). I feel that the people here who say that it IS a big problem and that I should not do it, are those who want to raise the barrier of entry to the industry and to discourage indy people from even trying.

In Japan if you want to become a real Sushi master, you need to spend the first three years of training learning how to make rice. Three years. Rice.

Is it really necessary to learn how to make rice for three years? No.... but the Sushi masters (closed and small society) want to make it impossible for others to become masters. So what do they do? They raise the "barrier of entry".

Why do you need three voucher to become SAG? Are SAG background actors who obtained three vouchers are "better" background actors? They just stand there....

Its all bull$hit.

I'm sure there is a sushi forum somewhere, where people ask "do I really need to learn this for 3 years?"

And then some master sushi chef answers: "Yes of course, what a silly question. Rice is very small.... very hard to make.... very small.... very hard...."

You need to boil the freaking thing.

 

[Mike Brent]

In case you think I am making this up:

http://www.culinaryed.com/article/sushi-chef-training.htm

From Minakai to Itamae-San
In Japan, sushi chef training is guided by an Itamae-San, or expert chef. The beginning student's title, Minakai, means 'watch and learn'--and this captures the essence of the apprentice's job. It can be three years before the apprentice slices into a fish. In the meantime, the Minakai perfects the art of cooking and shaping rice, cutting vegetables, washing dishes, all while watching and learning.

 

[Jack Cooper]

I recently took a class at Calumet Photo about this very subject. The instructor said that a public area like a street is fair game, shoot away. It might be different for video, but I doubt it. How do you think paparazzi can shoot celebs without releases if that wasn't the case?

Joshua...The Calumet instructor would better serve the students not to make such a blanket, generalized statement about such a complex topic.

Case in point, "public figures" fall into a different category. Paparazzi don't need releases to shoot and sell the images (still or video - think about shows like TMZ).

 

[Jack Cooper]

No, I don't. But I thought I should come here and post it as a question, just to see what people say, and I've got about 10 different answers.

I really think it's not that big of a deal and nobody would care (except for music). I feel that the people here who say that it IS a big problem and that I should not do it, are those who want to raise the barrier of entry to the industry and to discourage indy people from even trying.

Mike, Please don't kid yourself about intellectual property holders "caring". That's why they employ legal staff. It has nothing to do with barriers to entry.

Whether its trademarks, copyrights, or the like, its about protecting "brands".

I can only suggest contacting a good attorney in your area, review what you want to do, and get some sound advice.

 

[Jay Gannon]

Unfortunately what you think should and shouldn't happen doesn't mean jack in court.
If you film someone and they sue you they will win and you will be bankrupt.

Practice safe moviemaking, get a signed release kids.

 

[Mike Brent]

Mike, Please don't kid yourself about intellectual property holders "caring".

Thanks. I really do think they care. I think Apple would care if Microsoft would steal part of their software. I don't think anybody is going to care when a nobody shoots some random store or a logo in the street for 2 seconds, enough to make it clear to someone what the character is looking at...

And if the movie becomes SO important that someone would care enough to sue me? In that case I should be happy because it mean I'm going places.

But again really thank you for the input, I'm not being sarcastic. Its good to know how other people see this. There is the dry law and there is reality and these are two completely different things.

:emote_popcorn:

 

[Mark Allen]

Here is a good read for you http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

From what I've gathered over the years dealing with this issue is that the biggest concern is just not wanting trouble. And it's easier to avoid it from the start than later.

The trouble is not always people suing you. If you're not being malicious or commenting on the brand in question, then what's the harm done? Well, the trouble often ends up being that a TV station has a great deal with say, Coke, and then in the movie people are drinking Pepsi and Coke doesn't like seeing people drinking pepsi when they're paying big bucks to put Coke ads during commercial breaks and so on.

Frankly - I hope this fear based craziness ends one day. I feel like people need to just "deal with it." We're strangling our industry.

 

[Jay Gannon]

Your movie will never be able to go places if you dont have releases.

 

[Doug Pasley]

Your first step should be to set up a production company and incorporate it. Not that difficult to do, and keeps your personal assets safe from paralegals with time on their hands.

 

[Mike Brent]

I will incorporate a company all right...in Panama.

Jay, do you think El Mariachi had releases?

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).

 

[Mike Brent]

BTW -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom's_Restaurant

"Early Seinfeld episodes showed the entire neon sign; later, allegedly to avoid royalties[citation needed], the "Tom's" portion was cropped out, showing only the "RESTAURANT" wraparound."

So you want to tell me they just removed the "Tom's" and even that they were showing an actual place, they didn't have to pay royalties? So what does THAT mean?

That its all bull$hit - that if you are NBC you can do whatever you f want but if you are a nobody indy filmmaker, everybody will tell you to hire a lawyer. You know that these people are $500 an hour, right?

 

[Brian Langeman]

So you want to tell me they just removed the "Tom's" and even that they were showing an actual place, they didn't have to pay royalties? So what does THAT mean?

It means that you can save some money by being creative.

I cover up logos and use non branded clothing on my sets all the time. It does not take away at all from the video. If anything, it helps because of less distractions from all sorts of branding showing up.

Quit whining, and be a bit more respectful towards other people's work.

 

[Mike Brent]

Removing the word "Tom's" is not being creative, and I'm not whining. It just shows that the big players show real places and don't pay for them, and this is in contrast to what other people said above. (not to show anything, I will get sued for sure, etc).

I think I'll go into that place tomorrow and ask them if they were ever paid, just for sports. Its just a few blocks away.

 

[Jay Gannon]

Yes I know that Mariachi had releases for all its locations, and showed no-one else that required them.
Feel free to ignore the advice of people who do this for a living, its just giving you a bad rep for the day you want to start shooting.
Rep, attitude and talent are the three things that will get you places in this industry. Think about that.

 

[Ken Willinger]

I work on a national PBS kids show. We have to get releases for everyone who appears in any shot, even in public places (unless of course it's a public event and we get permission from the site... but then have to post signs that we are filming there and if you do not want to be in the film, either let us know or stay away from us). We have a PA who watches what we record and gets people to sign releases... and we end up having lots of releases. We also have to get site releases for every location we film. We are constantly gaffing over logos and always avoid recording them if possible. All music we use is original or public domain. The legal department is really strict about this stuff. David Mullen is correct. If you want your project to go anywhere, be aware of what is in your frame and get releases for everything. BTW, we do not pay people for their releases... once they sign, we've covered our asses.

 

[Mike Brent]

Rep, attitude and talent are the three things that will get you places in this industry. Think about that.

Thanks I will. I wonder how sleeping with 14 years old didn't hurt Polanski's career but that's a different thread

 

[michael zaletel]

I'm sure there is a sushi forum somewhere, where people ask "do I really need to learn this for 3 years?"

And then some master sushi chef answers: "Yes of course, what a silly question. Rice is very small.... very hard to make.... very small.... very hard...."

LOL

-michael zaletel

 

[michael zaletel]

What do people say about Logorama? The Academy sure doesn't seem to mind Independent filmmakers using brands without permission.

Logorama has received the following nominations and awards:
Kodak Discovery Award for Best Short Film (the Kodak Prix)- Critics' Week, Cannes Film Festival 2009
Audience Award - Festival International de Curtas Metragans 2009
Audience Award - Lille International Short Film Festival 2009
Jury's Special Prize, Audience Prize, Fuji Prize for Best Directors - Cinanima International Animated Film Festival 2009
Best Short Film - Stockholm International Film Festival 2009
Best Direction, Audience Award - Vendôme Film Festival 2009
Gold Medal for Animation - Zinebi, Bilbao International Film Festival 2009
Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film - 82nd Academy Awards 2010

Uses over 2,500 major brand logos and many in disparaging ways.

 

[Doug Pasley]

What do people say about Logorama? The Academy sure doesn't seem to mind Independent filmmakers using brands without permission.

Logorama has received the following nominations and awards:
Kodak Discovery Award for Best Short Film (the Kodak Prix)- Critics' Week, Cannes Film Festival 2009
Audience Award - Festival International de Curtas Metragans 2009
Audience Award - Lille International Short Film Festival 2009
Jury's Special Prize, Audience Prize, Fuji Prize for Best Directors - Cinanima International Animated Film Festival 2009
Best Short Film - Stockholm International Film Festival 2009
Best Direction, Audience Award - Vendôme Film Festival 2009
Gold Medal for Animation - Zinebi, Bilbao International Film Festival 2009
Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film - 82nd Academy Awards 2010

Uses over 2,500 major brand logos and many in disparaging ways.

That one is going to end up being a case study in law schools for a very long time. The ultimate irony is that one of the youtube pages featuring the film was replaced with the following tag: 'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Autour de minuit Productions'

 

[James McLellan]

Mike, essentially you can do what you want. Anyone can. I would suggest however that getting releases and obstructing the view of brands in your films is really not as hard to do as you make out.

You talk of a shot where a character is looking in a store and you don't want to have to get releases for everything in the shot. I would say it would be a very rare circumstance where I was unable to take said shot without being able to obscure or avoid copyrighted material if I had 5 minutes to prep the location. Not even prep the location. Five minutes to scout the location.