I’m posting this in General Questions because I am looking for factual answers.
People use things in films, obviously, and things in films happen ‘in the wild’. Cameras and computers almost always have their brand or logo prominently displayed on them, and filmmakers usually cover the brands and logos. For example, a camera may have the brand name on the prism housing covered by a piece of electrical tape, or a Mac might have a sticker placed over the lighted Apple logo.
I am aware that product makers do not want their products depicted negatively, and filmmakers may disguise the brand name so as to avoid any possible offence. This didn’t seem to happen as much decades ago. A character would use a Nikon camera, and everyone could read ‘Nikon’ on it. Characters driving along a street would pass billboards and businesses that are clearly identifiable. As I understand it, anything in public view is ‘fair game’.
So why disguise brands and publicly viewable advertisements and such? I asked a friend why he disguised a camera in one of his films, and he said, ‘Because they didn’t pay me to use it.’ I know product placement is an important source of funding in some films, but in other films it’s not. I know that filmmakers want to avoid disparaging a product, so they don’t get sued. (Tim Apple says, 'Hey! Did you see how they showed our computer locking up! Libel suit! :mad: ) Is it more than filmmakers protecting themselves from lawsuits? If the script says ‘Mr. Smith raises the camera to his eye’, are there legal repercussions if we see ‘Canon’ or whatever on it? What if the Bad Guy uses a Colt to commit his crimes, and perhaps The Detective mentions ‘The murder weapon was definitely a Colt’? That would seem to cast Colt in a negative light; but I don’t see that sort of thing disguised as often as I do other products.
In general, there’s no legal reason to disguise brands. Even if they are used negatively, freedom of speech overturns trademark concerns. And, though you can ask to be paid for product placement, you can still use the product without being paid.
There could theoretically be a lawsuit for disparaging a product, but the filmmaker holds all the cards legally. If a character says “Apple makes lousy computers,” the filmmaker has a solid defense (though, of course, they will have to pay to defend themselves, so they may just want to avoid that).
It probably dates back to the old studio system, where they felt that naming actual products was just giving free advertising. Trademarks were hidden or something else was substituted. Product placement was unknown (the first example of it was in the Marx Brothers’s Love Happy, where the final chase scene involves several well-known commercial logos).
There was a case in which the maker of the waste disposal “InSinkErator” filed a suit against NBC after one of the characters on “Heroes” got their hand stuck and mangled inside a disposal and the name of the product was clearly visible on screen. NBC ended up editing the name out of future broadcasts.
Overwhelmingly it’s just the “Don’t want to give someone free advertising.” reason.
It is amazing the lengths a lot of cooking shows go to not show a brand on something. Cooks magically have entire shelves and fridges with no name brand products at all.
Another somewhat rarer condition is a network doesn’t want to show a sponsor’s competitor.
If they’ve already been paid by someone for product placement they may have an exclusivity clause. If Chevrolet has paid them you can understand why General Motors may be reluctant to have a billboard advertising Ford trucks show up in the finished product.
I get the occasional background actor role, and one thing they’re careful of is to obscure any logos for just this reason, even logos for strictly local companies. Even if the logo is not for a product that competes with one already under contract these negotiations are ongoing, and the guys on set don’t always know what the people making these deals are up to.
The article isn’t clear, but did Insinkerator actually dispute that your hands will get mangled if you stick them in a running garbage disposal?
I can understand if Saw Stop, say, sued a TV show that showed one of their saws chopping off a finger. Their saws are specifically designed to not chop off fingers. So showing that it chopped off a finger could possibly be construed as slander. But garbage disposals really will mangle a hand. Right? I mean car companies aren’t out there suing every movie that depicts a car accident.
This makes me think of a Japanese music video, that begins directly in front of a certain storefront, where the sign is crudely pixelated out. But why choose to film in that location if you have to hide the sign? Did they wait until after filming to ask for rights?
The answer isn’t so much a hard and fast line having to with settled law, but one having to do with risk tolerance. For example, the sports leagues are notoriously litigious, so most productions will go to great lengths to avoid jerseys, logos, and other marks (unless it’s approved by the league)–even if they could “win” a resulting suit, it’s not worth the money. Crowd shot on the streets for a documentary and someone in the throng has a Lakers shirt on? Probably okay. Crowd shot for a fiction film? May not be okay, because the production has control over what the extras wear.
“Did they wait until after filming to ask for rights?”
Very possibly. Or it didn’t occur to anyone that they might need rights until a lawyer took a look.
I’m so used to products being greeked that I genuinely find it unnerving when ATK actually tells me the good and bad brands in their food and equipment tests.
This is where you go wrong. Product placement is a HUGE source of funding in film making and it is so well known that just about every film made, no matter the budget will try to take advantage. So, almost all film makers today are going to be reluctant to give away funding opportunities.
And as Bill Door points out the companies giving out the money are gonna want to make sure that money has as big a punch as possible. Almost all product placement contracts have exclusivity clauses. And often times the brands are bundled into packages. So that you have all of the products of a parent company represented in the same film.
I watch reruns of Perry Mason regularly. For a time (not very long, and I think in just one season), they had pictures of products in the closing credits. Mostly they are for products that I’ve never heard of, and assume no longer exist. But why not edit them out?
Does their original contract require the product picture to be included whenever the episode is rerun? Or did they just decide it wasn’t worth the bother? Or what?
But aren’t the studios’ motives now pretty much the same now as back then? Studios are in the business of selling product placements, so it’s in their interest to gin up some scarcity and ensure that the only way for a company’s product to show up in a movie is if that company paid for placement.
I mean, if a script calls for a smartphone or a laptop to appear, there are reasonable odds that the prop people will supply an iPhone or an Apple laptop. So Apple has no real incentive to pay for placement unless their logo gets obscured when they don’t pay.
This recent skit from Saturday Night Live features a DJ with an Apple laptop on the right side of the frame, but the Apple logo is covered with an unobtrusive sticker. Apple laptops are nearly universal among DJs right now, so the prop is appropriate. But the logo is covered, I suspect, to give Apple (and any other companies) a reason to pay for placement.
It’s sort of rent-seeking behavior, I think, but few companies would bother to pay for product placements otherwise.
In Australia on our public broadcaster (ABC) they actively avoid product logos in shots as they have a no advertising rule but don’t go to the extent of blurring them out.
True, but I don’t think they paid for the plug. Macy’s clearly cooperated with the film – there’s a shot of Edmund Gwynn addressing the Thanksgiving Day crowd from the Macy’s marquee – and probably thought that the free publicity was enough. Several other NYC department stores at the time are mentioned in passing.
Still, it was unusual to mention real businesses at the time, and fake names were often used. Christmas in July, for instance, featured “Maxford House Coffee.”
Love Happy had budget issues and in order to finish the film, the producers went to various companies and offered to use their logos in the final sequence for a payment. The motion picture trades soundly criticized them for doing so.
The most expensive film I’ve worked on had a budget of under $100,000. In my experience (second-hand, as I’m never involved in the budget management) no-budget filmmakers will try to get money for product placement, but companies with the money to spend on product placement tend to give it to ‘real’ movies and not an indie film that may never be seen.
You’re not thinking broad enough. Product placement for a low budget indie can be something like getting to use a restaurant as a location free of charge as long as the actual name gets shown or mentioned. Or getting your local pizza parlor to cater craft services because their pizza box is shown in a scene. City tourism boards often have money for small films shot in their town. The possibilities are endless. And I guarantee you that the producer on your small film was doing everything she could to get ahold of some of that money!
I’ve been doing a little acting in student movies lately. I was just shooting one this weekend where my character has to carry a box to his apartment. After several takes on one shot, one of the students noticed that the Home Depot branding was visible on the box. They talked about it and decided to leave it as it was to preserve continuity with previous shots where I was carrying the box. I didn’t ask about it. I assume they weren’t selling product placements, nor were they paying for locations (this and the other student film I was in shot in public places and student apartments). I thought maybe they were just trying to meet the expectations of a professor who told them to avoid unintentional product placement.