What A Job: Making Sure No Brands Appear In A Movie
from the holy-waste-of-resources dept
Rob Hyndman alerts us to a column from an entertainment industry lawyer, explaining his job in "errors and omissions clearance procedures." Basically, the job is watching movies to make sure nothing gets on the screen that doesn't have permission:Every single character's name in the script must be checked to ensure there isn't someone out there with that exact name who may think they are being portrayed without their permission. All the proposed signage for stores, institutions and other locations must be researched to ensure the names and logos are not subject to copyright or trademark restrictions. If the characters and locations are real, permission must be granted and consents signed. Only certain phone and license plate numbers may be used.What a stupendous waste of time, money and resources. But it shows what a ridiculous society we've created, where intellectual property law means that you can't have a McDonald's appear anywhere in the background in a movie. I'm sure that's exactly what our founding fathers were concerned about when they put in place the constitutional clause about "promoting the progress."
Once the script is written and production begins, all props on set must be checked to ensure no copyright or trademark infringement exists. Fictional cereal being eaten in the fictional restaurant by the fictional family must be cleared before the box can be put on the table.
A rough version of the finished production is then reviewed to ensure nothing was missed and no golden arches appear in the background of the outdoor shot at an intersection in a busy downtown location.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: entertainment law, intellectual property, jobs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"We need to enforce our copyrights so we can make $200 Million movies, which cost as much because of someone else's copyrights"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No(More)Stalgia
Not only that, but one of the joys I get from watching older movies is seeing how the world used to look "back then"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No(More)Stalgia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No(More)Stalgia
Excellent flick. I think that might be the first "realistic" chase scene filmed. Before that it seemed that most chase scenes involved speeding up the film. Man was that hokey.
More "old days" street scenes in the original "Fun with Dick and Jane", by the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No(More)Stalgia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No(More)Stalgia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No(More)Stalgia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
holly crap
Do they worry about the fake products that have been in other movies? Would they have to worry about using a box with Sugar Bombs on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: holly crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The backgrounds are one of those interesting problems. Most often, it isn't a question of wanting specifically to block something, as much as movies often sell the location and appearance in the backgrounds and foregrounds to companies. The type of car, the soda they drink, etc. All those things are product placements that make money. One of the ways to support product placement is to make sure there are no accidentals. Plus it eliminates any potential legal issues further down the road.
As was discussed in the "picture of the wall street bull" thing, it's a question of ownership rights as well. Releases are a huge part of making any movie or TV shows now, to avoid any legal claims later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether it's usual or not is besides the point. The point is that even if it is usual, it's a colossal waste of effort. It's easy enough to use a phone number that starts with 555 or come up with a fake license plate number, but that's not what's costing all of the wasted effort. It's the liability. Sure, if you sign a contract with Pepsi for product placement in your movie, you'd want to make sure that no Coke products showed up. But, if I'm not selling out by selling product placements, I shouldn't have to worry about whether a Pepsi or Coke product shows up, but that's what they have to do because of the ridiculous intellectual "property" laws we have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heck, how much did that luncheonette place make after being on Sienfeld?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And it shouldn't be. It's a waste of money, time and resources. The systems needs to be changed so that is kind of thing isn't necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothin', since it was as fake as that whole series.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thier so stupid they are falling right in even though it is not really what they will want in the end.
DoH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not like they can't show stuff...
Many other shows (such as Dog the Bounty Hunter) have no qualms about tooling around Hawaii showing everything and meeting in a McDonald's parking lot (at the runner's request).
They don't charge companies for placements and they don't care if they show everything on their show. They do blur license plates and faces of people who don't want to be on the show, but that's it. I've never seen a trademarked logo blurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
That is indeed the problem. See, e.g., the CPSD for the problems a modern documentarian has. At some point, 'trademark dillution' became the ability to veto any representation of your trademark, regardless of whether it's even in the area of competitive commerce.
Y'know what? If you put your crap in public view, it should be public domain. Don't like it? Hide it. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
I couldn't agree more. You give up certain rights when you put your IP out in public. Common sense, right?
You'd think that Hollywood as a whole would have enough clout to push back on these silly restrictions. I mean, if they're paying all of these entertainment lawyers anyway to try and prevent lawsuits, why not let them just deal with the lawsuits that come up with the hopes that eventually enough case law would get established that the lawsuits would dry up on their own. Wait, I've just answered my own question. It's a cash cow for the lawyers. Silly me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
Product placement is much more entrenched and valuable than anybody not in-the-know would believe. There are whole films and TV series making a profit (regardless of ratings) from the product placement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
And they do it because they feel copyright law makes it a better investment to spend all this time and money on it up front, rather than risk a lawsuit after the fact. The point is, they should not have to worry about a lawsuit because a character walked past a McDonald's. It's brain-dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
A fallacy which is also dying. Advertisers are getting a bit smarter on how to spend their money, and the "captive audience" thinking is finally dying.
What then? We're back to the "you want to watch it, you gotta pay for it!" mentality.
Intellectual property is an oxymoron and there should be a "safe harbors" regarding real life settings.
If a moron in a hurry can snap a photo, post it online to a website with ads, and call it IP without worrying about issues, so too should everyone else in any industry.
Oh, wait. My bad. I forgot how the moron in a hurry *is* being subjected to this idiotic IP bull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
Which is one of the reasons that much of the "FREE!" mentality may be wrong. Ad based websites are effectively attemptin to aggregate eyeballs, and turn them into a form a a short term captive audience. CNN does this with the ads they run before videos, which is effectively a short term captive audience.
What does it suggest for the future of "FREE!" when consumers seem to turn off to all forms of advertising? As soon as the public catches on to free as advertising, will they still stay tuned in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not like they can't show stuff...
Besides, if the only way ads get noticed is they're made to be so intrusive that your customer base completely turns off, you're doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using names
This actually goes back to an old Marx Brothers movie (I believe A Day At The Races) where Groucho's character was to be named Dr. Quackenbush. When they discovered that there was such a doctor, it was changed to Hackenbush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same Here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They created this monster
Almost every case where someone was sued because of a product or tm or whatever was shown in a movie, tv or film has failed. Why? Because you are allowed to photograph anything in a public space or a space you have permission to be in. But they are so scared of their own treatment so they spend millions protecting themselves from people just like them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Genericity
1234 Milquetoast Ave
Genericity, Anystate 54321
All the logos should be solid white with big black letters that say what it is, like "BEER" or "COLA" or "HAT".
All phone numbers should be the hard to remember 555-555-5555, and we should see different characters dial this number and reach different people.
All cars should be blurred out while also integral to the movie.
Especially since protection for inadvertent inclusion of trademarked logos is impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genericity
Don't many comics and cartoons do things this way, also? Minus the blurred cars, since drawn cars can be made to look very generic anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
none of this is technically necessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learn something new
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship
Wait for it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STUPIDITY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
movie clearances
I don't know if it'll make the movie, but if it does, I'm going to ask our Higher Ed divison to see if they can get the book adopted at the school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paid product placement is the oldest and newest form of advertising. You can not fast forward through a scene that has the actor's eating a McDonald....
Why do you think the Transformers movie selected the cars they did.... they got paid to select them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"promoting the progress" (once again, mike is wrong)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "promoting the progress" (once again, mike is wrong)
Someone always wants to believe they know it all in all things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "promoting the progress" (once again, mike is wrong)
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 is the clause Mike cites about "promoting the progress." It is what the government uses for patents and arguably copyrights. It has nothing to do with trademarks. You absolutely cannot trademark function, or even a look that is functional (there are multiple cases on this).
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 is the commerce clause, and allows congress to regulate any interstate or international commerce. It is the basis for trademark law, and in following, errors and omissions.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Gets Even Sillier
A few years ago, a major production (I want to say it was "I Am Legend"-- one of the flashback scenes before the plague-- but I could be wrong) got in all sorts of hot water because they shot a scene in Times Square and digitally replaced the ads on all the billboards and flashing signs with ads for other companies that paid to be in the film. The people whose ads got deleted threw a fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Believe It
> must be checked to ensure there isn't someone
> out there with that exact name who may think
> they are being portrayed without their permission.
How can this possibly be? I mean, there has to be a limit to this otherwise no characters would ever have names.
Take "Terminator" for example. There must be literally thousands of Sarah Connors and John Connors in the USA, let alone the rest of the world. Or Robert Neville from "I Am Legend" or Ellen Ripley from "Aliens". I actually know a guy named Jack Bauer and he's even a federal agent.
How can they possibly find names for characters if they have to avoid anyone, anywhere, who might have that same name and consider suing them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knock yourself out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This job has nothing to do with copyright
When they film they film with the brands in place, and then try extorting "advertising" fees from the brand owner. If they don't get the money they then either use CGI to remove the brand or they refilm the scene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising Revenues Way Down. Why Not Stop Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video Games Included
Some larger companies have been so disorganized that one department demands payment for the brand use while another department is cutting a check.
Every name, every picture on the wall, every piece of clothing runs past legal. It gets tricky with international products where translations may be politically bias (ex: flags in a stadium) and the translators are sympathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a McDonalds in the background of several films
[ link to this | view in chronology ]