Exactly. I can’t recall ever seeing a blurred logo on the BBC - though I’ve not been looking out for it.
Exactly. Here’s a scene from Clerks. I’m certain Kevin Smith did not obtain permission for all the products you can see in this scene. But would M&M’s really be able to sue Smith because he showed their product on a convenience store shelf in a movie? I’m not asking if they would bother - I’m asking if they would have a realistic legal basis for doing so if they decided they wanted to.
If I recall correctly, Ray Davies had to change “Coca-cola” to “cherry cola” in the single version of The Kinks’ song “Lola” in order to get it played on the BBC. Of course, that was about 40 years ago (yikes! has it really been that long?); I don’t know what their policy is nowadays.
Absolutely not. All of the American Idol judges are always drinking out of cups with the Coca-Cola logo prominently featured. Coke is one of the biggest sponsors of American Idol, and I’m sure that’s why they do it. Interesting to hear that it’s blurred out in the UK broadcast.
The next time you are on the US East Coast, look carefully at a Verizon payphone or service van. You might well see the old AT&T/Bell System logo (which they used extensively when they were called “Bell Atlantic”) imprinted somewhere. My understanding is that Verizon is doing this so that they can retain the rights to use the logo, just in case they want to bring it back sometime in the future and be clear that they have retained the rights to use it.
Then, if there is a legal dispute, they could argue that they never ceased to use or abandoned the logo - they just toned it down when they became Verizon.
WWE will blur their old WWF logo when showing older footage. Has something to do with them losing a lawsuit to the World Wildlife Federation.
You misspelled “loser leaves town” match.
As other posters have said, this is not true.
IP law is my field, and I can tell you that this is wrong. (Hmmm … Gfactor, where is that staff report?)
Once a merchant has put a logo on a tangible item, it does not implicate the merchant’s trademark rights to simply depict that item, with logo, being used. Infringement comes into play only with “use in commerce,” which is use in connection with the marketing or sale of goods or services as an indicator of the source of the goods or services.
In fact, what is shown doesn’t even have to be an actual example of such goods. There was a case in which Caterpillar objected to the use of bulldozers bearing prominent “Cat” logos by the badguys in George of the Jungle 2, an animated film. The bulldozers weren’t even real. But that doesn’t mean that a depiction of Caterpillar bulldozers implicates Caterpillar’s trademark rights.
I’ve only seen it on MTV “reality” shows but on UK Channel 4’s Big Brother they put white labels over products the contestants are consuming.
I think the answer is that Coca-Cola paid for the sponsorship rights in the U.S., but not for overseas, and the producers (or the network) decided, “if you want your logo seen in overseas broadcasts, we’ll be happy to negotiate that into your contract. Otherwise, we’ll blur it.”
That’s what I assumed.
That’s called greeking… Mythbusters does this a lot too. Sometimes they even put “Mythbusters’ brand” labels over the products they use.
Free speech trumps trademark law. Companies do have to defend their trademarks, but nothing prevents you from taking a picture of any trademark in any work of art. I know for a fact that you don’t have to ask permission to use a trademark name in written fiction, so why should a film be any different?
Case in point: Michael Moore showed the GM trademark many times in his film “Roger and Me.” Do you really think GM granted him permission?
Another case in point: Watch the news tonight. Note the many times they show the BP logo. Do you think they need to ask permission from BP?
Trademarks only protect products: If you make a car and put the GM logo, then you need to have GM’s permission, and they’ll come after you like sharks if you produce a car with a logo like theirs.
But if you’re not manufacturing a product (and a product that is the same or confusable with the trademarked item), then you aren’t infringing.
In fiction, you can say your hero is driving a Ford, that he has an iPod, and that he blows his nose on a kleenex. The last is clearly going to raise the ire of Kimberly-Clark, who insists that you say “Kleenex tissue.” If you use “kleenex” to refer to a tissue, you will get a stern letter from Kimberly-Clark telling you that this is an improper use (assuming they find out about it).
And what happens if you ignore the letter? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. The fact that they sent the letter proves that they are defending the copyright and they don’t have to do anything more. And they would be utter fools to try to take you to court for ignoring them because what if you won? Better to save the court appearances for someone actually manufacturing a tissue named “kleenex.”
So, ultimately, there is no legal reason to get permission to show a corporate logo. Note this doesn’t mean “using a logo,” which would be something like selling a T-shirt with a logo on it. This means photographing a logo, especially while shooting video. If the logo is on a product that’s legally manufactured by the logo owner, the owner has no legal basis to stop you.
Ultimately, getting back to the OP, the reason is as others have mentioned: because the logo is a competitor of the show’s sponsor or a potential sponsor. Or because they want to be paid to display the logo.
Yes, if he was correct, a street scene in a movie set in America would have to have the Logo of every car blurred, every ad in a store window blurred, every product in a store blurred, every billboard seen in the background, etc. Just ain’t so.
It happens for a variety of reasons…
As mentioned - if the sponsorship deal was for one country and the show is seen in another country, obviously - why give away free what might be a revenue source? Or, the local network may have a different deal and want to not show the product. When seen live in Canada, the Coke glasses with logo are not blurred.
(As for McDOnalds in Times Square - there was some racing videogame where the McD’s in Times Square is replaced with a sponsored restaurant - Subway?) So there’s another reason - the logo conflicts with an existing sponsorship.
Fair use is always a *defence *against claims of trademark infringement, but like all defences - it depends on the judge and jury. Often the lawsuit is not worth the nuisance value. The more valuable the show, or the more widespread its distribution, the more likely that it’s worthwhile to blur the logo. A widespread distribution means more countries and more places - tv, theatres, DVD rentals - where the owner of the rights may take offense.
Another issue is artwork. Just as an artist may sue if, say, their song appears in a snippet of a documentary as a radio playing in a passing car - an artist may sue if their creation -art, sculpture, etc. - appears in a work. Modern art on the wall in reality shows is often blurred. (Art can be worth serious money and artists may be tempermental and/or greedy) IANAL but I believe there is a principle that says “how relevant is the included work to the whole piece?”
If the artwork or logo say is the picture behind the hero’s desk or on his shirt, on-screen for half the movie and part of the plot - you would have a hard time arguing it is not an important part of the show and the original rights owner should have a share of the profits or some say over how his art is used… Nike might not want all the bad guys wearing swoosh logos, for example. A t-shirt seen in passing on the street will not usually win anyone any sympathy in court.
Inserting someone else’s logo (other than generic obvious coverups) is a recipe for disaster. Puting a Chrysler logo on a Ford or BMW will most likely get you a nasty letter from the logo owner, and I bet they’d win damages.
OTOH, when the item is part of the show - such as Waynes World Myers insisting he would nto sell out while smarmily opening a prominently logo’d Pizza Hut box and holding a Pepsi is too difficult to remove; plus, no doubt when something like that is made, the deal is likely for ALL showings of the movie, not just for one country or a limited time.
Giant Hollywood movies are the favourite target because they have wider distribution and make so much money they are useful sitting ducks. So are really big TV shows like Idol. However, the average Hollywood movie is made in such a controlled environment that they can usually filter out every questionable item and do not resort to blurring. Reality shows- lss so.
Documentaries are a problem however, because they are usually made by an independednt who them goes looking for a distributor. Since the theatre owner could also be sued, distributors insist on insurance against such suits. The film-maker must then demonstrate to an insurance company who specializes in the business that they have made every effort to prevent inadvertent infringement. First, anything that needs rights, they have to chase down - usually music and old movie/tv footage. I suspect this includes going through the movie and blurring out anything that might be questionable. If you are taking on the liability, why would you permit anything that might invite even a niusance lawsuit?
However, even where a nuisance lawsuit might be possible, odds are they do not happen. I’m sure someone like Micael Moore can say “go ahead and sue, i can afford it and you’ll waste your money”. For the others, the odds are the insurance company or whomever will often pay off the lawsuit rather tahn waste legal fees - thus encouraging more suits.
SO that’s the simple short answer - just in case they get sued…
Have you seen the movie Josie and the Pussycats? Despite its origin it was actually a satire of corporate sponsership in popular entertainment. Part of the satire was showing the characters surrounded by corporate logos at all times. And they used real corporate logos.
Now the producers said that they realized that they were leaving themselves open to accusations that they were practicing the very thing they were satirizing. Their overly excessive product placement, while intended as satire, was after all still product placement in a mainstream movie. So they made a point that because they did all this product placement as satire, they had not requested payment or obtained clearance from any of the companies whose logos they used.
There have, historically, been instances where a blurred logo occurred as a result of the company denying permission to use their logo. One that comes to mind is the movie Grease. After shooting scenes in a malt shop with several Coca-Cola signs prominently displayed, the filmmakers realized that they hadn’t consulted Coca-Cola about using their logo. Coke denied permission, stating that they didn’t want their logo associated with such a “raunchy” film. By that time, the film was in the can and reshooting was economically unfeasible, so they just blurred the logo using some clumsy pre-CGI techniques. Cite for all this.
Of course, that happened in the era before “product placement” really took off; nowadays the studios have people on staff specifically to oversee these things and prevent such screw-ups.
On a related note: Watching a lot pf programming on HGTV lately, and have noticed that paintings inside of people’s houses are getting blurred. Is it that those are one-of-a-kind works of art, and the artist hasn’t given his or her permission to broadcast the image? Never seems like it’s a poster with tyopgraphy, but actual fine-art paintings.
(bolding mine) IANAL, but I don’t think this is true.
I remember watching one of those “making-of” features on a DVD of The Shield, and the director was talking about not being able to use a particular take because one of the extras was wearing a Red Sox cap and they didn’t have enough in the budget to pay MLB for the licensing.
No, it is true, as far as a statement of law.
The producers of The Shield might have decided not to rely on this, probably out of overcaution, but they’re the ones risking their money, so that’s their business. Anyway, I wouldn’t rely on a TV director’s statement of what his bosses allowed him to do to understand trademark law.