Why are all art works blurred on HGTV shows?

[GHO57]

What I find odd is some TV-shows blurring the emblems of cars.

[SmackFu]

@BobLibDem

What I can’t figure out is why AFV now blurs out the date that’s on so many home videos. Like is it some sort of state secret that the dog peeing on the bridesmaid did so at 12:46:12 on 09/03/2009 or something? They didn’t use to do this and now it seems to be universal.

That one seems pretty clear to me: so you don’t realize how old the content they’re reusing is.

[Unintentionally_Blank]

@BobLibDem

What I can’t figure out is why AFV now blurs out the date that’s on so many home videos. Like is it some sort of state secret that the dog peeing on the bridesmaid did so at 12:46:12 on 09/03/2009 or something? They didn’t use to do this and now it seems to be universal.

Actually, it’s to hide the fact that most americans are stupid…they’re blurring out:

12:00:00 01/01/1980

[BobLibDem]

@SmackFu

@BobLibDem

What I can’t figure out is why AFV now blurs out the date that’s on so many home videos. Like is it some sort of state secret that the dog peeing on the bridesmaid did so at 12:46:12 on 09/03/2009 or something? They didn’t use to do this and now it seems to be universal.

That one seems pretty clear to me: so you don’t realize how old the content they’re reusing is.

I wouldn’t say that, once in a while they’ll show something that looks like it was converted from 8mm home movies and it’s still gold. If a video sits in someone’s shelf for 10 years before they send it in, I don’t really care.

[Duke_of_Rat]

@Cyberhwk

@Loach

I’m pretty sure WSOP still has a rule that a player can only show the logo of one sponsor. They blur out the logos of the other sponsors.

They tried to COMPLETELY ban it one year until the online poker rooms threw a fit.

Slight Hijack:

2006 was the year a few of us went out to cheer a Doper on in the WSOP. This is also right after online poker became gray area illegal. PokerStars was heavily represented (our Doper was sponsored by them), and all the swag handed out had PokerStars.com on it. The .com was a huge deal, it could not be televised. You can televise .net, PokerStars.net commercials run nonstop during the televised WSOP coverage now. So gaffer’s tape and even unraveling the embroidery was rampant as things got under way.

Thanks Aholibah for the PokerStars.com WSOP players hat and tee!

[ministryman]

@BobLibDem

What I can’t figure out is why AFV now blurs out the date that’s on so many home videos. Like is it some sort of state secret that the dog peeing on the bridesmaid did so at 12:46:12 on 09/03/2009 or something? They didn’t use to do this and now it seems to be universal.

So they can recycle the same video over and over again when no one is sending them material.

[sfurr]

@Hello_Again

It’s a copyright issue. There’s a famous case about it, Ringgold v. BET. It involved an artist who was pissed because a reproduction of her work was shown unblurred and without permission on the set of the sitcom “Roc.”

You can’t violate copyright even if the use objectively benefits the copyright holder, ie by promoting their work.

Okay, so there’s a famous case about it. Your citation doesn’t show that the case had any merit. It leaves the whole issue up in the air, since the lower court made a mistake in issuing summary judgement. The appeals court reversed the summary judgement and turned it back to the district court. What happened after that? It appears to have been settled or abandoned.

Granted, it blows holes in fair use defenses in the context of set decoration. Bear in mind that set decoration takes a conscious act to feature the art work in the production of a fictional progam (or possibly, say, a news/editorial program).

Since no decision was ultimately rendered on the underlying claim, the status is confused.

For nonfiction programs where set decoration is not a feature, the fair use defense may well still apply.

The problems here are:

• The typical television producer has no more clue of IP law than the average internet poster (which is to say virtually nil)
• The typical corporate lawyer is such a conservative beast that he/she is apt to tell you to sit on your hands all day for fear of injuring someone
• Nobody really wants to spend the money on being the test case, when they are already dealing regularly with copyright clearances/licensing or simply blurring

N.B. as indicated, this applies to art work. Logos (trademark) have nothing to do with rights issues, just with maintaining good commercial relations with promotional partners who pay to have their products features.

[River_Hippie]

I’m a guitar nut and have noticed a few times that the logos on the headstock have been blurred out or covered with a different sticker or electrical tape. Can’t think of a specific example but I’ve seen it a few times.

[Dan_Norder]

@sfurr

Okay, so there’s a famous case about it. Your citation doesn’t show that the case had any merit.

1. Zombie thread.

2. Um, of course it had merit. The artwork was displayed to the public in a commercial product without the copyright owner’s permission. If it had no merit it would not have gotten as far as it had in the first place and the appeal court would have said it had no merit instead of sending it back for further review over some of the points.

3. Hi, Opal!