I’m curious about what happens when a tv show is filming and they catch the logo of a popular brand in the scene. For example if they are filming on the streets and catch a Honda in the background, or a McDonalds, or a guy wearing a Nike shirt.
Does somebody need to acquire permission from these companies before the TV episode can be broadcasted?
Is this any different than say when a star or guest actor, or even an extra, on the show wears or uses something with a company logo on it?
I’m curious as to whether there are any any fees/royalties/payments, and where they would go. On one hand the TV show is using a company’s logo in their product, but on the other, the company is receiving a form of visual advertisement. So does money get paid somewhere, and to/from who?
Don’t you think that McDonald’s is thrilled if their logo can be seen in a TV show? It’s even more likely to happen the other way around: McDonald might pay to have someone use their logo. It’s more blatant in films, which nowadays usually have someone coordinating product placement.
But TV product placement goes a long way back, not even counting when sponsors were providing the programming in the 50s (you’d see a lot of game shows with a sponsor’s logo on a sign in front of the host of guests). For instance, in the show, The FBI, Ford supplied all the vehicles, bought ad time on the show, and changed their slogan to “Ford has a Better Idea.”
However, you can use a company logo pretty much however you want for a movie or TV show as long as it’s used properly (McDonalds might complain about a murder mystery implying that the normally serve rotten meat, but they really can’t stop it). I’m guessing, for instance, that the negative portrayal of Costco in Idiocracy did not require that Costco give permission. No payment is required, and that’s especially true of a sign that happens to be in the background of a shot.
Trademarks only come into play when you use them for a product that might be confused with the original. Naming your hamburger a “Big Mac” and selling it is a trademark violation; mentioning “Big Mac” in a movie is not.
An extreme case would be the use of the trademark White Castle in Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle. I don’t know if the makers of the movie sought permission, but I suspect that the owner of the trade mark would have been very happy to give permission.
Since it’s fresh in my mind, I saw “Freedom Writers” on an airplane a couple of weeks ago. There’s a scene where a teacher goes into Borders to buy books for her students, and the Borders sign features prominently. Then back in the classroom, she has this row of shopping bags lined up, each with a big Borders logo. Then she says, "Each one of you pick up one of these Borders bags. . . " You get the idea. Borders paid dearly for that exposure.
I’m starting to get tired of paying so much for movies that have such blatant advertising.
Elsewhere on this board, people have noted that in some TV showings of a movie, prominent logos are blurred out. Probably because the sponsor didn’t want to pay extra for the exposure on TV.
the main reason I asked was because I was thinking of the case where a company becomes upset that their brand/logo was prominently displayed repeatedly in some manner with a show they no longer want to be associated with (and expressed written consent or agreements weren’t sought beforehand). Say for instance there’s some big media uproar because an actor did something off camera (like that seinfeld guy).
And slightly related, when a music song is inserted in a TV show, is there money paid for its use, and in which direction?
As I mentioned in another thread, when American Idol is shown on British TV lots of logos are blurred out, e.g. the Coke cups sitting ludicrously prominently in a line on the judges’ desk, and the Ford badges on the cars shown driving the contestants around.
It’s pretty pointless, IMO, as the brands are still instantly recognisable: bright red cups in the trademark Coke shape, and a blue oval badge on the front of a 4x4. Hmm, I wonder which products these could be…?
There are ways to eliminate brands after the initial show is run. For example, if Coke wanted to disassociate itself from “Seinfeld” after Michael Richards’s tirade, the Coke logos can be digitally altered when the show is packaged for syndication or a box set.
As for songs used on TV, permission must be obtained and royalties must be paid unless the song is in the public domain.
This can cause huge problems down the line if the show is syndicated. The original contract for the use of the music may not have included syndication rights. A show that was heavily dependent on music like WKRP in Cincinnati was badly hurt by this. They tried substituting other songs for the originals, but everybody hated that. The DVDs were delayed for years by the lack of music permissions.
This happens over and over with older shows, tv and movies, made before syndication rights were common.
Re: using songs in TV and radio shows, this caused problems for the makers of The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, as IIRC several pieces of music were used without the necessary clearance being obtained, and could not be used in later re-runs. The main theme music was an Eagles tune, but they couldn’t get permission to use it so they re-recorded it for future series and CD releases.
It’s not really heavily hurt. In WKRPs case it is hurt because there is NO APPEAL for the DVDs other than the die hard fans. And usually die hard fans are purists that can’t stand one single frame being removed, or it’d RUIN their experience. Not that they’d even notice, but they THINK it’s betters. If WKRP was a popular show like “I Love Lucy,” it wouldn’t effect anything