White Westinghouse LCD

[hauser]

While browsing at Best Buy today I stopped dead in my tracks when I noticed a stack of LCD TV boxes in the aisle.  On the box was a prominent picture of a red Pagoda with aux fog lights and no grill star.  I don't know if anyone noticed me standing in the middle of the aisle smiling.

[doitwright]

I saw a commercial on TV the other day (I do not remember what it was about) where Joe Torre (LA Dodgers Manager) was driving a w107 SL and the the grill star was removed from both the front and rear views of the car.

[mdsalemi]

I don't get it.  Maybe a lawyer or someone in the entertainment industry can explain it to me.

Lately there is this spate of either prominent product placements (i.e. the Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the National Treasure II movie; the Coke tumblers of the judges in American Idol, and various other items that are so blatant they stick out like a sore thumb) or of blurred out branding; such as grill star removal (the first thing I noticed was Joe Torre's R107, the second was the missing grill star!)or making a brand "blurred" on the screen so we apparently can't identify it.

Are producers now of the ilk that one must pay the big bucks for any product placement OR they'll blur it out?  Or is it that for some bizarre reason a producer must "pay" to use a product?

Anyone have the real answers?  I have plenty of speculative ones.

[Jonny B]

Mike would those suspicions involve any conspiracies?

[peterm]

i sense a Michael Moore film in the offing-

[Richard Madison]

Mike:

Trademarks used for commercial purposes can require compensation to the trademark holder. Product placement in a film for example, is probably a paid-for license or is done with the mark holder's permission in return for showing the brand mark to a wide audience.

Next time you see a major league sports player endorsing a product, you may notice in many of them the sports figure is either not in uniform or is in a generic uniform that does not have the team logo...this avoids having to pay the major league for the use of the trademark symbol.

Bringing the question back to our interest here, a prominently displayed Mercedes symbol for commercial use might result in a demand to cease the use or to pay a licensing fee.

Here in the Big Apple, managers of several well known buildings (Empire State, Chrysler, and others) demand fees for using the building image prominently displayed in a photo or video for a commercial purpose.

You can pose Aunt Martha in front of Madison Square Garden but watch out if you use a tripod and a refector.
 
Richard M, NYC

[mdsalemi]

quote:Originally posted by 280SL71

Mike:

Bringing the question back to our interest here, a prominently displayed Mercedes symbol for commercial use might result in a demand to cease the use or to pay a licensing fee.

Richard M, NYC

It seems to me that if you are a filmmaker, there is a very fine line between PAYING money for this licensing fee as Richard describes, or RECEIVING money for "product placement".  That's the part I don't get...which is it??

[Richard Madison]

Mike:

The simple answer is, who has the greater value to offer...the Mark Owner or the film producer? I suspect that if I were a Trademark owner of a product sold at retail, I'd be willing to pay to get my product placed in a film.

But if the film plot required a character to use a specific product not sold at retail (one that would not gain sales from exposure) then the Producer might have to pay to show the Trademarked product in the film.

Richard M, NYC

[66andBlue]

quote:Originally posted by 280SL71

.... But if the film plot required a character to use a specific product not sold at retail (one that would not gain sales from exposure) then the Producer might have to pay to show the Trademarked product in the film...

Interesting .... but what if the "producer" is, for example, a professional photographer who wants to use the car for wedding pictures. Since M-B wouldn't make any money from this should the photographer be obligated to pay a license fee? Or what if Joe Torre really owns a W107 and wants to use his own car in a promo to advertise himself? Does he need to pay M-B?
IMO, in both cases M-B shouldn't get a penny. This urge to make everything a trademark or "intellectual property" is going way to far. The reference to MLB is indeed to the point, they even wanted to license the use of players names and their statistics. Fortunately, a [non-]decision by the US Supreme Court stopped that greed for now: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/sports/baseball/03fantasy.html?ref=sports

[Raymond]

I'm not an intellectual property attorney, I'm a Producer.  There is a doctrine called "Fair Use" that has a 20 point test to determine copyright infringement.  Those points would be argued if there was litigation.  When doing anything commercial, you have to weigh not whether or not you would win, but whether or not you want to be in a fight.  The willingness of Disney to take anyone to court for anything, has kept them out of Florida Tourism videos.  (They actually told a friend of mine that he would win, but they had enough lawyers to "crush" him before it was over.)

Regarding buildings and skylines, my feeling is that if you can see it from the public street and the general public can see it anytime without fee, then seeing it in my work is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  

Why no star in Joe Torre's 107 I don't know.  Was it for Viagra?  Maybe they didn't want viewers confused as to what was responsible for the desired effect.[:p]