Will there be trouble if a short film displays a company's logo?

Showing logos and brands isn't actually against copyright. It's only once you represent their image in a negative manner that they can sue you.

However, you should note that a lot of things can contribute to a "negative" manner and anything they can try to justify in a court.

You're from the UK so I'll use an example I know of from there... Danny Boyle had to remove all the Mercedes-Benz logos from the cars in Slumdog Millionaire because the company didn't want to have their cars shown in the "slums". They were perfectly fine with it being the car of choice for gangsters though.

Then an example from here in the States. Seth Rogen tried to get product placement from liquor companies for his movie Superbad. Not only did they all reject his request, but they also informed him that they would sue if he used their brands in a movie about minors getting alcohol (& their quest to lose their virginity).
 
Nit picking here. It's more likely Trademark law you're going to trample upon.



Another nit pick. They can still sue you, it's just less likely until you stir up the pot as per say.

I'm using the terms copyright and trademark interchangeably pretty much, I'm not a lawyer, don't repeat my advise as a defense case :)

Also... "stir up the pot" isn't that the same as me saying they'd have to represent the brand negatively?

TV and Movies don't cover up logos because it's the law. It's limiting their liability. They do it in the off-chance that one of those companies try to take action.

----

Also, it's a common misconception that you can't show images or posters that are copyrighted. You most certainly can, as long as they aren't the focus. (Which means no B-Roll of them).

Here's the simplified version for people who aren't lawyers:

http://www.videomaker.com/article/c2/14257-whats-legal-placing-products-in-your-production

And for those that do understand legal lingo:

http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=125518
 
The only reason they try to avoid showing trademarked logos in film and television is in the case of sponsor obligation.

Say you own Pepsi and you just paid for ad time or product placement in a show. Then, say they have a scene where the characters are in a gas station and you can clearly see Coca-Cola's logo in a few shots. Well, you'd be a bit peeved that they just gave your biggest rival some free product-placement wouldn't you?

It's to prevent various interests like this, and a few of Sky's points that these things are avoided. Though, depicting products in a negative manner is still acceptable as long as it's founded on truth and isn't slander or libel. For example, you depict Pepsi as something that causes obesity, versus, you depict Pepsi as something that causes insanity.

Then they can't sue you.... unless they paid you for ad time or product placement and it's in a contract that they can't be depicted that way.

Ultimately, you can show it all you want, especially if you're small-time and neither you or anyone backing you has any corporate interests to protect, and as long as you aren't making up nonsense about the product
 
For example, you depict Pepsi as something that causes obesity, versus, you depict Pepsi as something that causes insanity.

I don't know... I still wouldn't try that. Especially if you say out right in the film that someone is obese because they drink Pepsi...

You'd have to word it as the person's individual fault. Pepsi doesn't make you obese, drinking too much Pepsi makes you obese. :3

That's the approached they'd take to a lawsuit in that case, in the least.
 
Also... "stir up the pot" isn't that the same as me saying they'd have to represent the brand negatively?

In what I was saying it was meant that way. They can sue for whatever reason they want. You don't have to put them in a negative light. Their lawyers can find a plethora of ways that your angel can be the bad guy, as per say. You'll then need to defend a lawsuit.

TV and Movies don't cover up logos because it's the law. It's limiting their liability. They do it in the off-chance that one of those companies try to take action.

Indie's often cover up due to poor advise. Hollywood cover up due to the brand not paying the sponsorship fees.

Will there be trouble if a short film displays a company's logo?

To answer the initial question: It depends. Some companies are very litigious and protective, others not so much. Are you in a financial position to defend a drawn out law suit against the potentially endless corporate bank accounts?

While working for a foreign corporation, even though the legal team was so far removed from what I did, a few times a year, lawyer crap would spew across my desk for the most stupid of reasons. Sometimes it was late teens (occasionally contractors) doing stupid crap breaching their intellectual property, other times it was copyright, patent and trademark infringements, and other times, they were going after people who I believed were well within the confines of the law. I believed they were just being bullies. But I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure I didn't have all the information.

I'm just saying, you don't necessarily do something illegal to come under fire from a companies legal team.
 
I don't know... I still wouldn't try that. Especially if you say out right in the film that someone is obese because they drink Pepsi...

You'd have to word it as the person's individual fault. Pepsi doesn't make you obese, drinking too much Pepsi makes you obese. :3

That's the approached they'd take to a lawsuit in that case, in the least.

I agree with you, but tis just my example :)

If said in an off-handed comment by a character, they probably wouldn't have a case. If said directly to camera with no context other than some sort of "official statement," then they might.
 
Last edited:
ANY company with a copyrighted logo or trademark can sue you if they want to spend the money on legal fees. Their argument is simply that "a copyrighted logo or trademark cannot be duplicated in any fashion without permission"...and if you PHOTOGRAPH those images, you are certainly duplicating them... Just my two cents worth.
 
ANY company with a copyrighted logo or trademark can sue you if they want to spend the money on legal fees. Their argument is simply that "a copyrighted logo or trademark cannot be duplicated in any fashion without permission"...and if you PHOTOGRAPH those images, you are certainly duplicating them... Just my two cents worth.

That quote you just gave is NOT the law though. Misinformation is the reason he asked this question about a clock that most likely it's logo isn't even readable in his film. He's paranoid like so many others because people have given them the wrong information and they can't afford a lawyer to find out the truth.
 
Yeah, Sky beat me to this, just because you've heard information from someone who doesn't understand copyright law, doesn't make it fact. He can show the logos all he wants
 
Will there be trouble if a short film displays a company's logo?



41523051.jpg
 
Thanks for the replies.

Also, I can't seem to find information about the company. Not even a website.

Let's just say, theoretically, Minster has been liquidated (no longer in business) and the law indeed forbids logos from appearing in short films without consent, would showing Minster's logo still be illegal?
 
Let's just say, theoretically, Minster has been liquidated (no longer in business) and the law indeed forbids logos from appearing in short films without consent, would showing Minster's logo still be illegal?

Assuming your position is correct, potentially yes. It may depend on whether the logo/trademark (perhaps even the goodwill) was part of the liquidated assets.
 
Thanks for the replies.

Also, I can't seem to find information about the company. Not even a website.

Let's just say, theoretically, Minster has been liquidated (no longer in business) and the law indeed forbids logos from appearing in short films without consent, would showing Minster's logo still be illegal?

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:99h468.2.31

That is the only registered trademark of "Minster", so the company logo you're looking at is NOT even trademarked.

Also... the law does not forbid showing it anyways... If you're paranoid... motion track the clock and mask it out.
 
I'm not sure if a US search of trademarks is the best place to come to a conclusion seeing the OP has their location as "United Kingdom". What if it wasn't registered in USA?

Opps lol... I did a search in the UK database, and it came up with 36 results... I went through the trouble of looking at all dead trademarks, and none of them made products similar to clocks.

If that is a UK company, the trademark is still Active and can be enforced.

-----

Here is your UK search database if you'd like to go looking for it https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmtext/

----

Update: This seems to be the company... which is indeed UK based and seems to be pretty popular with clocks haha... and seems active

http://minsterstylishliving.com/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top