Budweiser Asks Paramount To Remove Their Beer From The Movie Flight
from the maybe-their-lawyers-were-drunk? dept
As product placement in television and film becomes more prevalent, it was only a matter of time before intellectual property silliness had to follow. For example, we've seen such wonderful cases of egocentrism as a copyright claim over a painting shown in a movie. Couple that with product placement examples that are awkward for all involved and you've got a recipe for litigious fun not seen since a murder trial involving a former Buffalo Bills running back.Reader Chris writes in about a story that appears to be a nice crossroads of these two aspects of product placement, in which several alcohol companies are apparently upset that their products are being shown in the movie Flight doing what those products do: get people drunk.
Anheuser-Busch said Monday that it has asked Paramount Pictures Corp. to obscure or remove the Budweiser logo from the film, which at one point shows Washington's character drinking the beer while behind the wheel.Now, you may be asking yourself, "Why didn't the film get permission to use the products in their film?" The answer is about as complicated as a straight line; they don't have to. Studios are not required to ask for permission to include every little brand in their movies -- even if some companies now think that's the case. True, Denzel Washington's character in the film is a drunk and Budweiser may not be pleased to be associated with that aspect of the story, but the law isn't concerned about Budweiser's pleasure. Trademark law isn't about making sure you're always happy about how your product is displayed.
Budweiser is hardly the only alcoholic beverage shown in "Flight," which earned $25 million in its debut weekend and is likely to remain popular with audiences. Washington's character frequently drinks vodka throughout the film, with several different brands represented. William Grant & Sons, which distributes Stolichnaya in the United States, also said it didn't license its brand for inclusion in the film and wouldn't have given permission if asked.
Even going beyond trademark law, it's not like they were "misrepresenting" anything. I, for one, can assure you that the depiction of beer being able to get a person hammered is spot on accurate, and if you won't take my word for it, I'll give you the phone numbers of some of my neighbors who can relate their experiences living near me on NFL Sundays. The point is that there's a reason these companies didn't give their permission: nobody asked them for it.
Trademark laws "don't exist to give companies the right to control and censor movies and TV shows that might happen to include real-world items," said Daniel Nazer, a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project. "It is the case that often filmmakers get paid by companies to include their products. I think that's sort of led to a culture where they expect they'll have control. That's not a right the trademark law gives them."Unfortunately, with the wonderful garden of permission culture that IP laws have fertilized so well for us, companies think they can control...and control...and control. But just because sometimes filmmakers seek out product placement, that doesn't mean that all brand appearances need to first receive approval. Thankfully, thus far, the courts have recognized that they cannot keep their products out of film this way. Now let's all go have a non-generic beer.
Jay Dougherty, a professor at Loyola Law School, said the use of brands in films has generally been protected by the courts, even when the companies aren't pleased with the portrayals. "It wouldn't have been as effective a film if they used a bunch of non-generic brands," said Dougherty, who is also the director of the school's Entertainment & Media Law Institute. "In a normal situation, if the alcohol were just there as a smaller part of the movie, they might have created an artificial brand for it."
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: budweiser, flight, movies, product placement, trademark
Companies: anheuser-busch, paramount
Reader Comments
The First Word
“And they would be summarily dismissed, or did you not read the quotes from experts in the linked article? Along with the case history they cited?
"IP genius Timmy G is not one for issue-spotting or analysis."
Uh huh. That must be why the experts cited agree with me. Which experts are agreeing w/you on this one exactly?
"He thinks the opinion of "a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project" is reliable."
Certainly more reliable than "a resident fellow at dont-exist school. You still haven't cited anyone?
"That's like asking Pirate Mike if some copyright defendant has a viable fair use claim. You know the answer before asking."
We all appreciate you using capital letters for our titles, balls-stompingly incorrect though they may be.
"Great job writing an entire article about the legal issues with unauthorized product placement in a movie...."
The placement may be unauthorized, but it sure as shit isn't illegal because....
"....but without the bother and hassle of actually consulting the actual law."
...."Dougherty and Mark Partridge, a Chicago intellectual property lawyer, also noted that a court rejected an effort to get by Caterpillar Inc. to get its logo removed from tractors driven by the villains in 2003's "George of the Jungle 2." The company had argued its trademark was harmed by having its product associated with the film's villains." is a direct quote from the article I linked to, which also mentions another case, and which renders your entire post full of bullshit just that.
"You are prime TD material--dumb, opinionated, and uninformed."
From the mouth of babes. Stupid, ignorant, and apparently illiterate babes....
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, the corporate attitude is very very simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thick Irony
Typical douche bag maneuver.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interesting to find out it's even more screwed up than that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This was intentional
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bus should change their Image for me while at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He wasn't drinking beer. He was drinking Budweiser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
> a guy drinking their product and getting
> into massive legal trouble because of it
Who exactly would get into massive legal trouble from the depiction of beer in a movie?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
> ending up in a super bowl commercial.
Especially not for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You Reap What You Sow
This, times a million. YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW. The cows have come home to roost, as the saying (by way of Naked Gun) goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
> exploit another's product and be
> backed by the courts, but no one can
> use products of the movie people.
Actually, every other company is just as free to include Paramount logos in a film or commercial as Paramount is to include theirs.
There really is no double standard here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah, so what? Neither is a viloation of copyright OR trademark law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
> it's about the image of the company;
> and drinking while driving is illegal.
Yes, we know that. No one claimed otherwise. The point is that companies don't have a legal right to demand removal of products from movies that make them look bad.
And whether the actions portrayed in the movie are legal or not is irrelevant. Smith & Wesson can't demand a movie production stop using its guns in scenes where characters commit murder, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buttwiper
U
Deserve
What
Every
Individual
Should
Enjoy
Regularly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
He's talking about the guy in the movie getting in trouble. You sure you're a lawyer? You don't seem too bright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Dilution or false endorsement would be the claims. IP genius Timmy G is not one for issue-spotting or analysis. He thinks the opinion of "a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project" is reliable. That's like asking Pirate Mike if some copyright defendant has a viable fair use claim. You know the answer before asking. Great job writing an entire article about the legal issues with unauthorized product placement in a movie, but without the bother and hassle of actually consulting the actual law. You are prime TD material--dumb, opinionated, and uninformed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hollywood, CA. Outside the Paramount Studios lot. A young man ("Steve") angrily storms out onto the sidewalk. His friend ("Alan") sees him in his perturbed state and walks up to him
Alan: Hey bud, what's going on?
Steve: Those jerks are robbing me! Get this. They used MY script to make a movie. A movie which ended up making over 350 million dollars. And yet they insist that it actually lost money so they don't have to pay me the 2.5% of the profits my contract says! Can you believe that?
Alan: Wow, that sucks. Come on; I'll buy you a Bud Light.
Steve: Thanks, man. I'm feeling better already
Fin
Or, they could make a commercial with a Clydesdale crapping on Paramount logo. Either way, funny!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You Reap What You Sow
The problem is there is NO breach of trademark (or any other IP) since it is irrelevant therefore fair usage does not exist since using a real world product that has been legally purchased for its legal usage is LEGAL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The courts don't even back them since their is no case to answer, and therefore no defence... the laws as they stand give no grounds for exploitation nor anything else.
There;s an easy way for companies to control how they want there products to be shown in the real world.. DONT FUCKING SELL THEM!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
your point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
...What, you thought the MAgic Sponge had something else in it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You Reap What You Sow
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Reap What You Sow
Lanham Act. 15 USC § 1125(c)(3) Exclusions:
(Emphasis added.)
You thought wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And they would be summarily dismissed, or did you not read the quotes from experts in the linked article? Along with the case history they cited?
"IP genius Timmy G is not one for issue-spotting or analysis."
Uh huh. That must be why the experts cited agree with me. Which experts are agreeing w/you on this one exactly?
"He thinks the opinion of "a resident fellow at Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project" is reliable."
Certainly more reliable than "a resident fellow at dont-exist school. You still haven't cited anyone?
"That's like asking Pirate Mike if some copyright defendant has a viable fair use claim. You know the answer before asking."
We all appreciate you using capital letters for our titles, balls-stompingly incorrect though they may be.
"Great job writing an entire article about the legal issues with unauthorized product placement in a movie...."
The placement may be unauthorized, but it sure as shit isn't illegal because....
"....but without the bother and hassle of actually consulting the actual law."
...."Dougherty and Mark Partridge, a Chicago intellectual property lawyer, also noted that a court rejected an effort to get by Caterpillar Inc. to get its logo removed from tractors driven by the villains in 2003's "George of the Jungle 2." The company had argued its trademark was harmed by having its product associated with the film's villains." is a direct quote from the article I linked to, which also mentions another case, and which renders your entire post full of bullshit just that.
"You are prime TD material--dumb, opinionated, and uninformed."
From the mouth of babes. Stupid, ignorant, and apparently illiterate babes....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But you and I both know that no matter what the facts are, you will always think there is no infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then, having found that Caterpillar had demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, the court looked to the other prongs of the temporary restraining order standard. And on balance, the court denied the motion for the temporary restraining order.
So all that case says is: On the very limited record before the court, Caterpillar was sufficiently likely to be successful on its claim of trademark infringement for use of its mark in the movie. However, after weighing that factor with the other factors, Caterpillar did not make a strong enough showing to justify the temporary restraining order. That's it.
And you're turning that into the statement that unauthorized use of a mark in a movie is not infringement in general. That's NOT AT ALL what that case said. Heck, the likelihood of success on the merits prong went to Caterpillar.
So again, you haven't bothered to actually read the case you're citing to see what it says. And, honestly, have you even seen the movie? Have those experts? Did you really think you could write a whole article about why something isn't infringing without even having seen that thing or identified and applied the actual law.
Seriously, dude. You fit right in on TD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As for your claim about dilution.... NO! There is NO trademark situation anywhere on the fucking planet where that has ever or will ever be any sort of trademark, or other IP violation in any way shape nor form.
Did you actually do any law at school? or like most AC's actually like to state a huge claim with no actual citation of fact nor reasoning nor or of any qualified knowledge you might have somewhere.
hmmmm?
As for your hyperbole about being opinionated and uninformed.. well there's a pot and there's a kettle... and there is you being both at the same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whereas Caterpillar is NOT used by everybody.
Therefore the usage of "Caterpillar Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 287 F.Supp. 2d 913, 920 (C.D. Ill. 2003)" as a case cite is quite wrongful. AND YOU KNOW IT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. In my state, it's illegal to have an open container in your car, even if the driver doesn't drink any.
As for your claim about dilution.... NO! There is NO trademark situation anywhere on the fucking planet where that has ever or will ever be any sort of trademark, or other IP violation in any way shape nor form.
I suspect that the dilution claim would probably fail, but I haven't seen the movie and I don't have any evidence. To claim that there's no dilution without looking at any evidence is the definition of working backwards. It's funny how TD mocks others who used faith-based methodologies, but then that's what TD does itself.
As for your hyperbole about being opinionated and uninformed.. well there's a pot and there's a kettle... and there is you being both at the same time.
Timmy G decided there was no infringement the moment he heard about this situation. His conclusions are so obvious and predetermined that it's sad. Look, I have no problem with this being noninfringement. I have issue with his substance-less article where his conclusions are reached without looking at the facts or analyzing the law. It's just mindless idiocy--Pirate Mike's bread and butter, no doubt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got it.
That's right. And this is a criticism I have for Mike many times as well. I don't care what your conclusion actually is, I care about how you arrived at it. I'm criticizing the process, not the substance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
> the claims
They can make whatever claims they like. It's not a violation for a movie to show brand names without permission.
Neither is there any legal principle which *requires* a movie to include brand logos in depictions of the real world, as a bunch of companies claimed a few years ago when a film included a scene set in Times Square, and then went in and digitally removed all the advertising from the huge twinkling signs on all the buildings and replaced them with the logos of companies who paid them for the privilege. The real companies cried foul and sued over it. They were quickly sent packing by the court.
See how that works? The fact that some big company makes an IP *claim* doesn't mean there's a valid IP *issue*.
> IP genius Timmy G is not one for issue-spotting
> or analysis.
And you seem to think just because someone can make an issue out of something, that means they have a case.
> He thinks the opinion of "a resident fellow
> Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project" is
> liable.
It's a helluva lot more credible than some narcissistic alleged law student with delusions of grandeur posting comments on a tech blog. At least we can be sure of the Standford guy's credentials. You-- not so much.
> Great job writing an entire article about
> the legal issues with unauthorized product
> placement in a movie
Such an article would actually be pretty short. Since movies don't require authorization to use real-world products, there are no legal issues involved in doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> getting in trouble.
It was vague antecedent, which is why I asked for clarification, chuckles.
> You don't seem too bright.
Ah, the ad hom. The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Nice to see you 'just trying to engage in an honest debate' again, AJ.
You're a hoot, that's what you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hope they don't show any cars, chairs, clothing...hmm, I think their next commercial is going to have to be a beer bottle floating in space.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
> whilst driving is NOT illegal, it is
> ONLY illegal if you are caught, have
> no valid defences (if there are any)
> and found actually guilty in a court
> of law.
Huh? Let's see if that works for other crimes.
The initial act of aggravated rape is NOT illegal, it is ONLY illegal if you are caught, have no valid defences (if there are any) and found actually guilty in a court of law.
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This was intentional
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But as any LEO knows the perfect crime is one where no one knows that a crime has been committed..
ie: Always obey the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not get caught
Though 80% of the time it's ethically and morally better that you don't do the crime in the first place :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? I think the companies just weaseld their way into it and now just like the rightsholders and payola now want to have their cake and eat it too. Fortunately it won't fly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
flight
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its Okey To USe By The Movie People
If you dislike it then remove it from your drinks.
No-one would ask you not to do so..
And since the movie peoples are backed up by the courts, so its okey, that they are using it..
What's the problem??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Buttwiper
[ link to this | view in thread ]