One of the most admirable aspects of the TV show Mad Men, IMO, is how they often use real product brands: Kodak projectors, Utz potato chips, Maidenform and Playex undergarments, to name just the ones that come quickly to mind.
Now, we’re not talking about fast fleeting comments or gratuitous product placements. No, we’re talking about using these brands as virtual centerpieces in whole episode storylines. And not always in a flattering way. I would think that the way the Utz campaign is playing out on screen, for example, would make the Utz people run as far away from the *Mad Men *producers as possible.
How do the *Mad Men *people do it? Do they get permission? Do they need to? Do they pay the brand owners? Or maybe the brand owners court the Mad Men producers so that their products end up in a cool, hip TV show.
IANAL, but it’s my understanding that, no, they don’t need permission.
Where movie producers often negotiate with product manufacturers is when they, the producers, want to be paid for inserting the product as an advertising placement in a film or show.
Now, if the filmmaker makes the product look bad, they can be open to legal action, but not just for mentioning it.
Again, this is anecdotally gathered stuff from having a grandfather who was a patent/trademark attorney, and through reading various movie-related things.
I’m fully prepared to backpedal like a mofo if a real trademark attorney shows up to correct me.
I notice that on alot of MTV shows brands are blurred out. This would suggest either MTV expects to be paid for every product placement or permission is required from the trademark holders.
There are no legal issues with mentioning brand name – that’s what the manufacturers want. You’re only in violation of trademark if you use the brand name for a competing brand.
However, manufacturers often don’t want their products to be attached to anything negative, so if you use the brand name in a derogatory way, then they will object. But they can’t do much about it other than complain – a court case probably isn’t worth the effort, and it’s not particularly likely they’ll win. Ultimately, freedom of speech trumps trademark law.
Product placement is a separate area. If you pay to have your product appear in a show, there are probably contract provisions that prevent the mention of a competing product. That could be why brand names are blurred out, or it could be because they are shown in a negative light.
That’s the way I understand it but I am not any kind of lawyer either. I may be wrong, but you can imagine how maddening it was for me last summer when I shot a movie and one of the main concerns of the producers was avoiding any mention or shot of any product at all times. This meant masking/electrical tape, creative angles, creative focusing, dialogue rewrites, ad nauseum. The setting of the movie? INSIDE A FREAKING CONVENIENCE STORE.
I appreciate all the insights being provided here, but I get the feeling that some (most? all?) the posters here have not seen the show.
It’s not like they merely show two guys are in the elevator and one guy goes to the other, “Hey, did you hear that Smith & Jones lost the Utz potato chip account. Bet heads are going to roll. So, how’s the wife?”
No, we are talking about real brands being discussed *at length *in positive and negative ways. Ad campaigns about those brands are created and pitched. And actors playing the representaives of those brands say and do all sorts of things on the show. For example, in one recent episode the execs for Playtex (or Maidenform – I forget) go to a girly club with the advertising team after work. Everyone is drinking and smoking up a storm while nearly topless girls are grinding away on stage. One older, roly-poly Playtex exec sees Peggy, one of the ad girls, and tells her to come over and “sit on papa’s lap” (or something like that) and she does.
Given treatments like that, I don’t think the same rules that govern incidental product placements or mentions apply here. Or maybe they do.
I’ve seen it. Since they’re discussing products realistically, I don’t see there’s much danger of their being sued for misrepresenting the products. And I don’t think a company can legally prevent you from mentioning their product. So I don’t think they have to consult with the companies in any way. Whether they do or not, I don’t know. Maybe, they play it safe, they have the scripts vetted by company lawyers. I don’t know. But again, I would be surprised if this were required. Remember, an advertiser can mention a competing product, even negatively. Obviously they don’t get permission to do that. But as long as they’re accurate, however negative, they’re (afaik) safe from civil action.
Nothing changes just because they do more than mention a product. Images are trademarked, and trademarks last forever or as long as the company stays in business, so they’re separate issues. Two different controlling laws.