Brand and after effects questions

[HueyNRolf]

Caveat - I'm an After Effects wizard, not a copyright lawyer.

There we have it. Seems to be a lot of confusion about trademarks and copyright.

[azmyth]

so far the only conclusion I've come to is that its not illegal to show "trademarks" as long as it doesn't paint the company in a bad light and represents the company for its intended purpose and is not the "focus" of the scene. However, if you want to be safe, remove em..

So, because I know they CAN be removed with a little effort. I'm gonna get the film done, if a distributor wants to buy it.. then I'll worry about removal.

[HueyNRolf]

not illegal to show "trademarks" as long as it doesn't paint the company in a bad light

What about 'Super Size Me'?

[Janke]

I'm gonna get the film done, if a distributor wants to buy it.. then I'll worry about removal.

Good idea, that "then"...

[Dr. Benway]

Super Size Me didn't represent the company for it's intended purpose. Spurlock was grasping at straws. I thought in many of the cases that the McD's staff were quite pleasant and responsible.

[HueyNRolf]

Indeed. I'm still waiting for something more convincing than 'better safe than sorry.' As a good reason for blurring out trademarks.

[arco1]

"I'm still waiting for something more convincing than 'better safe than sorry.'"

Caveat - I'm an After Effects wizard, not a copyright lawyer.
You can always take the risk. But it seems to me that, after you've sunk your heart-and-soul into making a movie, another few bucks to play it safe is cheap insurance. (Better yet, get permission beforehand, or put significant trademarks in the out-of-focus background.)

Intellectual property cases are usually motivated by money. If you have a small, self-distributed film that doesn't even make back its costs, it's probably safe to say that few folks are gonna chase you with milllion dollar "infringement" issues. Even if they win, they'd likely never collect.

But if you land a big money-maker, someone will try to convince a judge/jury that you're presenting them/company/logo/signage/etc in a bad light. Even if you're intentions are healthy, and you're goals are pure, there is a possiblity that the jury won't see it your way.

Remember that the first serious step from those you've alledgedly infringed will likely be to seek an injunction to prohibit any showings, releases, DVDs, net-viewing, etc until AFTER the case is resolved - and that might take YEARS!

And EVEN IF YOU WIN.... it will still cost you quite a few bucks to defend yourself. Do you want to make movies, or spend your time with the legal folks?

[HueyNRolf]

Caveat - I'm an After Effects wizard, not a copyright lawyer.

Intellectual property cases are usually motivated by money.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Trademarks are not covered by copyright or patent laws.

Better yet, get permission beforehand

Why is this necessary? Show me your source please.

[net]

Indeed. I'm still waiting for something more convincing than 'better safe than sorry.' As a good reason for blurring out trademarks.

The issue is what Mal pointed out:

How -and to what extent- might the sign(s) affect the person or persons who will decide whether or not to release your movie on DVD?

Even if you're right that a trademark doesn't need to be blurred out - azmyth may present the film to the distribution person who may not know the reality of trademark and copyright and/or may have strong views about it (even if technically incorrect)..

[HueyNRolf]

azmyth may present the film to the distribution person who may not know the reality of trademark and copyright and/or may have strong views about it (even if technically incorrect)..

That's just ridiculous. Distributors are only interested in making a return. I suspect that such ignorance would drive any business into administration.

[net]

That's just ridiculous. Distributors are only interested in making a return. I suspect that such ignorance would drive any business into administration.

I should have phrased it "the issue appears to be..."

[1]

What about 'Super Size Me'?

Super Size Me was a documentary film, and as such does get treated differently, as it moves closer to "news gathering"
which has probably the most lenient of rules as far as getting permissions (i.e. non existent).

For a narrative project the rules are far more strict, and one should secure location releases, talent releases, and yes, trademark issues do play a role also.

[1]

Spurlock was grasping at straws.

This [and several helpings of M. Moore's offerings] only goes to show that you can "construct"
and guide & steer ANY particular point-of-view, and people will mostly believe it as
it gets spoon fed into their brains...

Documentary films especially hardly ever [never?] offer unbiased points of view, nor
are they hardly ever "honest" in their way of going about it.
Moore and Spurlock are simply getting away with being more blatant about it, yet the crowd still gobbles it up.

("Oh, wow, McDonalds is so mean, and their food will kill you!";
"Oh, wow, GM is so mean, and their corporate bosses are so mean,
and the poor union members are so trodden upon!")

Cinéma vérité is only a style really. And reality TV is about as far from reality as any narrative work.

Clever? Yes.
Cunning? Yes.
Proof that people are gullible? Yes.


It's all baloney!

[1]

That's just ridiculous.

YOU'RE still barking up the wrong tree, my friend.

There's a reason for E&O insurance pertaining to the entertainment industry. It covers this exact issue discussed here and many other potential problems.

Fact is, the powers to be WILL check a movie for possible problems down the road, and the insurance policy premium (I'm sure) will depend on how likely such problems might be.

Simple economics; investment and return potential. For a movie with huge return potential there is willingness to spend money to tidy things up legally and spend money on protection (insurance).
For a movie that is not so guaranteed whether it will make any money, I'm sure any negative issues (such as infringements) that appear during the viewing process WILL UNDOUBTEDLY have an impact on the
decision making.

It's simply logical deduction.

[Dr. Benway]

As a good reason for blurring out trademarks.

Or, as on T.V. in Thailand, guns, alcohol, and cigarettes. It seems a little arbitrary with the guns though. In some soaps where badasses are pointing guns at people the guns are blurred out, and others they are not. But alcohol and cigraettes? They're a big no no.

[azmyth]

luckily since the shots are short I now know how to remove them.

[HueyNRolf]

What about the scene with the band, are you going to blur out the instruments, amps etc.?

[azmyth]

nope. the only one I really care a whole alot about is the ones in the cop scene.

[ejolson]

Couldn't blurring and altering a trademark also cause trouble?

Using after effects to remove the "Sunoco" and "BP" signs will make the gas station look run down. However, the gas station will still be recognizable as BP/Sunoco due to the color scheme and building. Because you have digitally altered its appearance, the gas station is no longer incidental background, but an artistic part of the narrative. Would you then be responsible for defaming a particular brand?

[Janke]

I'd say: leave as is, let the (future?) distributor decide what needs to be done. They should have more legal experience than you.

[HueyNRolf]

Would you then be responsible for defaming a particular brand?

You never know. There's no credible source posted by the people who think you need permission to have trademarks in your pictures, but they seem so convinced, best to heed their advice. You should nuke the whole gas station, just in case.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

[Almohada]

Worry about it after you find distribution... just lock the picture already.