What prerogatives do extant companies have over historical portrayals?

Cafe Society
1

I just ran across this portrayal of Conrad Hilton in Mad Men, listening to a pitch involving the Hilton brand. My golly, he’s prickly. Would the present day Hilton Hotels & Resorts have any say in how the guy himself is portrayed, or usage of the Hilton name or logo in this scene? Just as an example; I’d also be curious about any other fictional portrayals of real life companies in the context of, say, World War II (IBM & the Nazis) the or early 20th century racism (? maybe Walt Disney?) or anti-Semitism (Henry Ford, I’m pretty sure). What about simply a picture of Mickey Mouse in the background of some period piece – would permission have to be sought to show it, even if it were historically significant?

2

Seems to me there are two different things going on here.

  1. Conrad Hilton was a real guy, and can be portrayed any way the producers want. (Nobody sued anybody over Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter, right?)

  2. Hilton Hotels (or whatever the corporate parent’s name is) still owns the rights to Hilton trademarks, logos, and such. They cannot be used without said company’s permission.

2.5) Don’t even think about putting Mickey Mouse, or any other Disney trademark, in a shot.

Of course, IDKJ*, so I could be wrong about the first two. I know I’m right about the third one.
*I don’t know Jack

3
  1. You don’t need anybody’s permission to use a trademark in a fictional narrative. Trademark infringement is narrowly defined and occurs when you use a mark (or something confusingly similar) in relation to a similar product.

2.5 is a copyright issue. That’s completely different.

4

  1. In general, you can’t libel the dead, so Hilton can’t do anything about it anyway.

  2. As** friedo **pointed out, you don’t need anyone’s permission to use a trademark in anything other than trade. Works of fiction and nonfiction can use trademarks freely. The first amendment trumps trademark law, and the worst that will happen is that the company might warn you (but do nothing else) if you use a trademark incorrectly (e.g., “He used a kleenex.”).

2.5. Certainly you can have a Disney character in a shot. Disney isn’t treated any differently than any other trademark. If you show someone in Mickey Mouse underwear, or mention Donald Duck, or name your alien planet Pluto, it’s perfectly legal. Many years ago, John Varley used the term “disneyland” as an SF term meaning an amusement park, and Disney couldn’t do anything other then send a letter to protect their trademark. Disney fumed, but the law was not on their side.

It only becomes a trademark issue if you have The New Adventures of Donald Duck as your movie and show Donald as a character. Or manufacture underwear with Donald Duck on them without permission.

5

So if I understand correctly, the takeaway is that the linked scene in Mad Men was free and clear in every respect, because (1) Conrad Hilton was a historical personage, and (2) usage of the Hilton trademark in the presentation didn’t constitute any form of copyright infringement. However, if hypothetically (2.5) it was a matter of historical fact that old Conrad never went anywhere without wearing a pair of Mickey Mouse ears on his hat, that would have to be omitted since that’s a copyrighted character, not a trademark. Is that about the size of it?

ETA: I didn’t see RealityChuck’s post just now; I guess Conrad can keep his Mickey Mouse ears then.