How much is too much?

Thunderclap

Thunderclap

I'm not sure where to post this so since I'm working on setting up distribution I figured here.

Okay... as we all know you technically can't show a product or logo that is trademarked. A work around is by obscuring part of the product. In my feature we use a well known propane lantern (at least here in the States). Here are two frames from the film, the two that I consider the most problematic.

Should I be concerned about releasing the film with these two shots (frames) or do you think I'll be okay?

Frame 1
Frame 2
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Funnily enough I read on this site somewhere that the rules about using trademarked products aren't as stringent as they seem. To be honest we had quiet a few on L4D be it Adidas T-Shirts, Batman Comics, Bruce Lee Images and many others but teh film got E&O without an issue and has been released so far in 14 countries will no fall out.

To be honest Thunder whilst you, like I, should have considered this whilst filming most people dont.

But more over most companies wont even notice as unles syour film breaks huge teh chances of this causing any problems is slim to next to nothing.

In short I wouldn't sweat it too much
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
this is a touching thing, anything that owned by anyone that are 'used' or 'shown' can be liable for a lawsuit, according to my entertainment attorney whom specializes in copyright infrigement stuff...

HOWEVER, if the 'copyrighted' material said is in a frame as 'part' of the scene, and it is NOT as a 'method' to sell the scene, then you should be able to get away with it... An example she cited was: a bedroom where there are some 'movie posters' on the wall, if the movie is used as a decorative of this teenage boy's bedroom, then it's 'ok' (please note, I put a '' around ok, cause this is all depending on how much the company who owns the poster want to get you).

Now, she also said that the company who owns the copyright or trademark, if they see the film and it doesn't 'sound good' with them (like they hate the plot, or it might represent their product in a wrongful manner), they can stop you... but that's usually a 'small chance'.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, the Coleman lantern is used for what it's designed that being a lantern. And in the end it does help protect the characters. What better way to ward off zombies than a Coleman lantern? :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The chances are you'll have no problem since the product is being used as intended. The article oakstreet linked is a good one - but is ultimately of no use to filmmakers like us. Disney can afford the legal fight. Even if you win, can you afford to fight Coleman? More important - will the distributor interested in buying the rights be able to afford a legal fight with Coleman - even if they win?

Have you contacted Coleman?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Have you contacted Coleman?
Click to expand...

There is a fairly fine judgement to be made here -- if you contact Coleman, you are giving them permission to refuse you the right to use those shots, simply by making an issue of this.

As they have little to gain from saying yes -- chances are they will say no.

If you raise the question with the distributor -- i.e. you ask them whether they feel that it's going to be an issue -- then suddenly it will become an issue -- because as directorik correctly points out, they are going to take the most conservative line. So that's not a great option either.

At this stage of the game, I'd be tempted to just keep quiet and see how it shakes out -- providing that you are absolutely sure that the product isn't brought into disrepute. However, that is a strategy with a small amount of risk attached -- and ironically the more successful the film the greater the risk!

At the moment your options are:

1) Ask permission from Coleman -- opening the door for a refusal
2) Keeping your head down and your mouth shut -- leaving you on a marginal risk of litigation
3) Reshoot
4) Stick a garbage matte blur over the offending logo (a tacky, but easy fix)
5) remove the logo completely frame by frame in photoshop (a perfect, but time consuming fix)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
you could rotoscope it out.. depending on what software you have available to you for post, this could be very easy or very time consuming.. either way though it would save you a reshoot. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually the chances are they'll say yes. Big companies aren't always the ogres many people think they are. They need to protect their property, just as we all do, but if they are asked, rather than forced (like the Disney example) they can be very reasonable.

While the risk of litigation is marginal, no distributor wants to be put in that position. This isn't something they will miss. So the way I see it:

Every distributor is going to ask if you have clearance.
If you don't you are going to have to get rid of the logo.

Colman might give permission.
If they don't you are going to have to get rid of the logo.

On a show I did a few years back Red Bull not only gave us permission, but sent five cases to the set. On a no budget, horror movie shot independently, without a distributor. I tried the same thing with Ford a year later. We didn't get five cars delivered...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rik is right.

I hadn't taken into account the level of conservatism amongst distributors.

Sorry to have muddled the waters. I just think it's such a ridiculous thing to have to worry about.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
oakstreetphotovideo said:
I know absolutely nothing about movies, but a little about Trademark protection. Just for giggles, I googled and found this;
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archi...ers_in_the_movies_and_trademark_missteps.html

If the author is correct, and she does cite a jucidial ruling, you have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...


I got the same info at a seminar given by a prominent film producer. However, if you want to be extra careful, you can contact the legal dept at the particular company and get formal sign off.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So as I see it now, my options are: a.) ignore the problem and see if anyone makes a stink (which they probably won't), or b.) take a gamble and contact the company to see what they say thereby alerting someone to the problem. Hmm...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No. The way I read it the options are:

1) Take a gamble of losing a distribution deal by not having clearance
2) Take a gamble by asking permission from Coleman
3) Put more time into post production masking the problem -- which you'll have to do anyway if Coleman say no.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So, I guess nobody here is in the movie business to push a social agenda; like the defence of our constitutional rights to free speech, or attacking the hegemony of corporations. I can't say anything, because I've only released one feature, and that was self-distributed. I don't know how hard it would be to take risks if you have to convince your distributor to go along with it (another, undue, corporate influence). However, I see a real problem with editing movies as a form of conflict avoidance; especially if it's in response to corporate extortion.

I know, I know, we live in the real world and we all have to pay our bills. Don't get me wrong; I'm not an idealist, and I'm not lecturing, BUT when there is a legal precedent in your favor, it would be foolhardy for the corporation to bring a lawsuit that they could not win; unless you cast their product in a really bad light. Even then, the publicity might backfire on them and double your sales volume.

I have to do more research on this subject. It seems like we're setting a terrible precedent by giving in too easily.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm a pure escapist when it comes to movies...so few of the non-escapist movies have been able to keep my attention.

As for corporate ownership of their trademarks...um...I think I just said it...can I have your camera? I promise I won't use it for anything untoward.

:)

We as independant filmmakers seem to have an interesting dichotomy of thought. We want to make films on our own terms so our vision of our properties (films) stay true to our intentions...but when big $$$ corporations want the same, we cry boo! It's easy to ask. My father always says..."It never hurts to ask...worst they can do is say no."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
However, I see a real problem with editing movies as a form of conflict avoidance; especially if it's in response to corporate extortion.
Click to expand...

I have to do more research on this subject. It seems like we're setting a terrible precedent by giving in too easily.
Click to expand...

The problem is not with the law as it exist or as it can be defended in court -- the only issue here is what stance a distributor will take.

The distributor doesn't want evidence that if they go to court they'll win -- they want to hear that they won't be in court at all.

The whole issue is fundamentally about how conservative distributors are -- in terms of litigation avoidance.

In this game the ability to defend is not an issue -- the mere fact that a distributor might have to spend money on court appearances to make that defence is enough of a risk to jeopardize a sale.

In reality 90% of all legal conflict issues are about using the fear of having to fight a legal battle, rather than the battle itself -- in these kind of games the person perceived to have the deepest pockets wins almost every single time.

The distributor will look at the issue and ask themselves one simple question, Is the money I can make from this film worth the cost of going to court against Coleman? -- whether they could win or not.

Because of this one of a Producer's primary roles is providing a complete set of delieverables -- some of which are technical things -- but the vast amount of which are the contracts and permission that prove to the distributor they will not end up in court -- period.

In the case of this film, they are currently one document short of proving that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top