Just to mention, even after consulting a lawyer you are not safe. You are just "safer".

"short" *20 minute video* Thanks for providing quality content in this important conversation, John (+ everyone at the channel)!

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

You can tell that was written before the rest of the video was :P

How did you manage to make something so boring so interesting?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

That's what my law professor did! Case law is fascinating because it's so nuanced. It really makes you think about why we order society the way we do and the millions of caveats reality creates!

@EricLefebvrePhotography

5 жыл бұрын

Casue he's awesome?

@jamesslick4790

5 жыл бұрын

Not really "boring", I've thought about this stuff for DECADES!,lol!

Longtime fan of your channel here. This was your best video yet. Clear, funny, educational, fascinating topic, all in a concise run-time. I just wish you had 40 more minutes of this.

Wow.......as an image consultant , exotic photographer and amateur film maker myself......I love you and the subjects that you talk about !!! I even think you're funny !! Please , keep up the good work that you do.......because you're awesome !!!

Haha, this reminds me so much of Fringe. "Oh don't use your phone, my new Ford has a cool new feature." *Five second shot of someone pressing a button*

@TryptychUK

5 жыл бұрын

The Nissan Leaf plug was even worse.

@JayTemple

5 жыл бұрын

Watching reruns of "Bones" is occasionally awkward for the same reason.

I find the use of public trademarks like the one in Good Will Hunting, normal. The brands don’t have a case, if they don’t want their trademarks to be viewed by public, they should remove them from public view. If I’m shooting at a location, I’m shooting a public space, I shouldn’t have to pay to alter it in anyway I do not want. The same goes for bottles, cans, and al sort of packaging, if they exist and are for public consumption, they are made to appear in public! Why do u have to hide them??? It makes absolutely no sense.

@jamesslick4790

5 жыл бұрын

I agree, If some company puts a sign IN PUBLIC where it is SUPPOSED to be seen by the PUBLIC, Why hide it? Hell, If I had a business and my sign was to be seen by consumers in a small space (like a bar), AND THEN it's in a MOVIE, I'm in heaven!!!

@chrisbaker2669

5 жыл бұрын

Brand gets free advertising they should be happy.

@TheDuckofDoom.

5 жыл бұрын

Which is why the test includes "explicit misrepresentation" The logo with product as it sits in public is just fine. The logo with purposefully inaccurate representation is not fine, eg if they poured a Guinness and it was lumpy, off-colored, or having unrealistic effects on the characters(such as magic, a drug, or poison). If the Louis Viton example had instead been presented by a serious character and possibly shown noticeably low quality no L.V. bag then this would be mis representing the product. If however another character responded with "that isn't a real LV bag" within a reasonable frame it would no longer be misrepresentation.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Nope. Freedom of speech allows you to criticize a product trademark.

I thought it was odd a few years ago when I first started noticing that car logos on grilles are covered with gaffer tape in TV commercials.

@brickman409

5 жыл бұрын

Also, in TV shows and Movies, you'll notice that logos on computers will typically have stickers on them. One thing that is really common is a black circle over the Apple logo on iMacs and MacBooks.

Finally! It's awesome and important to find out how our unique trademarks can be presented and acquired for films. Stay safe and keep it up!

Thank you for the important information--and for presenting it in such an understandable and interesting way.

You just saved me a ton of research! Much thanks for the excellent summary.

Thanks so much for making this one, John!

I identify as a goofy, pudgy guy on KZread with glasses who likes to talk about movie making. So many people know only me as this that it is my trademark. You obviously used this description to piggyback off of my success and mislead your viewers. Further, you have damaged my trademark by telling people not to listen to me. I will see you in court.

@YoungBlaze

5 жыл бұрын

You have the punchable face look

@deankumar

5 жыл бұрын

incorrect because he is technically describing himself so therefore your argument is invalid

It’s refreshing to come across somebody who actually knows what they’re talking about on this topic! So often people come up with incorrect information in their head and start spreading it around.

You have so much knowledge.

What Louis Vuitton don't know is that it's spelled Lewis Vuitton in the script and it's written to be a knockoff.

@sailorbychoice1

5 жыл бұрын

I didn't see the movie, but from the clip it should be covered under 1st amendment, because the impression being given is that a.) he's being a douche, b.) they're showing his douchiness with the bag, and c.) I assumed from the way he said it that it was supposed to be a knock-off, so, d.) he's even douchier yet, because of that...

@StefanoPapaleo-TS

4 жыл бұрын

The fact that such a brand wastes time and money to even bother about such a trivial scene which - if you think about it - is just free advertising, says A LOT about the outrageous margins they make, and the attitude of lawyers. As if the audience gave a crap about that bag being authentic or not... Moneygrabbers detached from reality.

@kimberlee4195

3 жыл бұрын

@@StefanoPapaleo-TS Well said

Thanks for providing this information, very helpful.

Another helpful and illuminating video!

If you happen to visit a sitcom kitchen set in Paramount, the prop people photograph everything before their off-days. Except for the fridge, which is kept as is. Every item in the fridge is faced a certain way depending on what is endorsed, what is not, and what is generic. To count as endorsement, the item must be visible for a certain amount of time. So the cut to Chandler as the fridge door is closing doesn't count as a drink endorsement.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Great point - it's that line that defines something as "explicit" misleading as the source of the content. Short brief glimpse of something doesn't mean explicit.

You make sacrifices to make these videos that help others. Thank you.

fantastic video. job well done sir!

Thanks for the video!

Thumbs up to a very interesting and informative vid.

Great info man, thanks a lot💓👌

I've often though how hard this is to avoid....Any street scene will have cars. Is it "product placement" or potential "trademark infringement" to have Fords, Buicks and Hyundias in a scene? Even if the logo is covered up, you still have Design Patents. Again, with cars, How about songs like "Hot Rod Lincoln"? - On a lighter, more personal note, I was enjoying "Reese's Pieces" for several years BEFORE the movie "E.T." made them famous, A benefit of being from Pennsylvania! (bought some for this video, as I knew THAT brand would be mentioned!).

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly - and avoiding real brands all together makes movies feel distant. You get Holly Golightly's character because she has breakfast at Tiffany's. Harold and Kumar go the Steak-n-Shake doesn't have the same meaning... What would Blue Velvet be with out this scene? kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZYehmqyGXa6XlMY.html

Superb and informative......cheers.

Interesting that you mentioned "ET: The Extraterrestrial", in their use of Reese's Pieces over m&m's. The novelization that came out during the movie's release still had m&m's and Mars bar in its story.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Didn't know that!

@TonyP9279

5 жыл бұрын

After all of these years, I never knew for sure which it was. I've heard both referenced when people talk about E.T.

I remember that Highway Patrol TV show they never mentioned the brand of car that the Patrol car was interested in. It was only a "sedan " or "truck "

Always great info !

Thanks for the information

A nice tweak that we like to use is to show a product which is no longer available. It would be a lot harder for someone to argue that we screwed up their product marketing when it's for a product they don't sell anymore. Think things like old cars. Ford can't say we screwed up their ability to market the Pinto. Now, in context, it is important to note that we don't say/show/demonstrate anything bad about Ford though we do about the Pinto. Ford still exists and the Ford Pinto does not. If we disparaged Ford it would be a different argument entirely. Probably still fine but we would rather play it safe. --- Something to keep in mind for those who want to push things ... Companies are finally catching on that sometimes it's best not to draw attention to something that makes them look bad. A short film watched by a few thousand people is unlikely to impact anything. Making that short film newsworthy via a lawsuit brings attention from millions. Not to mention that, generally speaking, the populous hates when big companies are mean to the little guys. Putting the company in a further bad light. Do at your own risk.

This is brilliant. Thank you. :)

Great and very informative video.

very helpful

Great video. I learned a lot.

Transformers 4 wins the award for most products used in product placement, I think.

Great video.

Fantastic video!

Coolest background ever! Great info on copyrights

John Hess, I know I mentioned about "Movie's Magic" before but I'd be remiss if I didn't say that because of Filmmaker IQ, currently, this is the modern day version/continuation or in-depth equivalency... 🤔... I'd believe that that mention would not fall under a litigious issue, but somewhere there may be someone who took that out of context, and may claim some odd citation. About anything "movie's" or "magic," but I don't believe so... But in reality, all I did was state a great comparison & how it takes me back to a time where some of us got our film inspirations from & excercising my right to free speech via nostalgia & overall a great experience... Because let's face it.. Great experiences inspire always. Thanks for all that you do! 🍻

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

High Praise because that was a really great show

In a Christmas nostalgia video I made for my KZread channel, I had a segment of family snapshots from the 1950s . I wanted to call the segment "Those Kodak Moments" but I wasn't sure if it was OK so I called it "Christmas Snapshots." Would "Those Kodak Moments" have gotten me in trouble?

@FilmmakerIQ

4 жыл бұрын

On KZread probably not. I'm not sure if Kodak moments is now a generic term like Xerox or Kleenex... as long as you're not trying to do business under it I don't think it's an issue.

There should also probably be a discussion of how this applies to documentaries and historical re-enactment works.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Not much difference - documentaries have advantages with commentary and criticism.

Lmao I love that “if you don’t like us buy 100 tee shirts and burn them in a bon fire” 😂 I always find it funny when ppl want to lash out but end up supporting the very thing they hate lol

Great John!

There's at least one other kind of IP, Trade Secrets. It came up in a big way fairly recently in the US with Google suing Uber over some driverless car tech. By their nature they are a bit weirder than the other three categories, but it's still something you can defend as IP in the US.

@TheDuckofDoom.

5 жыл бұрын

By definition you can not patent a trade secret, You must choose between IP protection of a patent and publication of the items detail or to keep it a secret and hope nobody else can figure it out. Which means that others are free to use the technology if they manage to develop it, even if it went to court the trade secret status would be lost by the need to present the item as evidence in a public court, no item no evidence.

i was thinking of making Filmmaker IQ2 Tshirt DON'T SUE ME LOL, OJ, your videos are great.

Also been obsessed and hooked on this subject for 20yrs! EVERYTHING IS COPYLEFT🤘 For any aspiring pedantic IP nerds it’s worth mentioning there are actually 4 types of intellectual property, not 3.. the 4th being “trade secrets”. That one is often forgotten but imo the only other reasonably defendable type of intellectual property next to Trademark.. but certainly the least relevant, especially to this video

Always weird when one KZread channel you're subscribed to talks about another one you're subscribed to and they aren't part of a group or one of the big guys. Fun.

I'm surprised Louis Vuitton's lawyers didn't tell corporate that a movie is protected free speech. The character might have known it's not really a "Lewis Vuitton" and said it anyway, or really thought it was one but didn't know any better, or the movie just "pretended" it was one. Odd lawsuit. Still, lawyers got paid. They're good at wasting everyone's time and don't do it for free.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Probably more like some owner at Louis Vuitton got mad seeing a knockoff bag and pushed the lawyers to go after them.

@DylanPank71

5 жыл бұрын

​@@FilmmakerIQ Plus in such a situation, the lawyers still get paid even if they lose the case. I doubt they were doing it on a no-win no-fee basis for _Louis Vuitton_.

I'm now wondering how long until more cases between different KZreadrs come about where one KZreadr is pulling a "mockbuster" to ride the coattails of a trending video or a popular channel and fails both parts of the Rogers test. Of course, not many creators have implemented trademarks on their work.

@12:09 Alan not Teddy. Other than that another very informative and interesting video as always. Keep up the excellent work.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

You're the first to catch that goof! Wondered how long it would take ;)

Here's another example, Nassour Studios had a logo that was almost identical to that of 20th Century Fox, except it face the other direction.

Good overview of trademark law. The only thing I'd add is that a trademark holder has a legal obligation to diligently protect its mark. Failure to make such an effort can result in loss of protection. This can lead to lawsuits even where the holder has a limited belief in the suit's viability, and as you note, such actions can be quite expensive to defend. As an aside, I'll note that there is a fourth kind of IP, which is seldom talked about: trade secrets. As a process photographer, I have to consider this regularly. The issue here is that I have to comply with the company's "reasonable steps" to keep such information secret. Most commonly, this involves careful attention to backgrounds in otherwise unexceptional shots.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Good points especially in the need to protect. This explains why Disney (which I think is unfairly treated) HAS to go after a preschool that puts their characters on a mural. They have no choice. If they don't then every preschool can because the value of Disney for children is so high.

@Regolith86

5 жыл бұрын

Seems to me that if it can be accidentally revealed by being in the background of a photograph, they haven't taken "reasonable steps". Still won't stop a lawsuit, of course.

@dougsundseth2303

5 жыл бұрын

@@Regolith86 "Reasonable steps" in that case include limiting who is allowed to take the photos and reviewing the photos before publication. (We have badges for each of our cameras so that the area supervisors can know that we're authorized, for instance.) The background things (proprietary manufacturing machines) are not in public view, so could only be seen by authorized people who have signed non-disclosure agreements.

His a harder question you make a film about a rockstar in the script he has a favorite guitar. The guitar company say fender dislikes that you chose a Stratocaster so they have any legal options?

That was really fascinating! But I have a question: since you used Lindsay's name and video essay's name in the beginning of this video as a reference, under which statement does it fall? Is that fair use?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Copyright fair use. I'm getting a lot of these questions. You have to remember why fair use exists. We can't have a society where we can't mention any brand or talk about any creative works. That is not the point of these IP protections.

I think they make it very complicated so lawyers will have something to do. That is why we still have patent trolls.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately life is complicated. You make a law with good intentions put it out into society and then millions of people figure out ways to find loopholes and use it to their advantage. So then case law develops to try to have some consistency in the application of the law. The scariest part really is the lawyer and his bill

This remind me AVGN movie, because it used fake ET cartridge and game screens. I think he was trying to avoid possible problems.

@wariolandgoldpiramid

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, they tried, but weren't able to get the rights.

Thanks for this video! It certainly is a highly disputed topic (& not fully understood topic). This video clears up a lot. More: What about showing a mural in a film or web series that contributes to the story? (real world example; could not find the artist/ it was ultimately cut). And what about fan films in general? Or a fan film that does not use names of characters, but is similar in theme and style (and used in a non-parodic manner)?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Murals and fan films are the realm of copyright. Fan films are explicit infringement of copyright. They're only allowed to exist in so far as their existence of that threaten the original copyright holders at which point they will come suing

@Photographicelements

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ Thanks! And murals? If someone walks in front of the Jim Morrison mural, it's obvious the character is in Venice Beach, but if no credit was given to the artist, on screen or in the credits, is that grounds for lawsuit? And what is the "7 second Rule?" Is that made up? ("it's OK to show copyrighted material; eg, clips from movies, tv, artwork, as long as it is not longer than 7 seconds.")

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

@@Photographicelements I'm not a lawyer but there is no 7 second rule. Every IP case is a matter of specifics. That mural's copyright belongs to the artist. I think if you show it in context of its location you're fine. You just can't go making copies of the mural and selling them as prints.

@larryfitzgerald9384

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ Re: use of murals: this is not true. A producer may not legally reproduce a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright holder. Context/location is irrelevant. For instance, the "Hollywood" sign in Los Angeles is a copyrighted "work of art", and the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce will have its lawyers send you a nasty-gram if they find out you've used an image of it in your TV show or movie -- if you haven't paid them a license fee, that is. It would not matter if your shot of the sign was in the context of its location in the hills and viewed from a public street. They own it, and they can decide how its likeness may be used (known as "right of exploitation"). I'm not a lawyer either, but I've spent a LOT of time dealing with rights and clearances for broadcast television and production.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

@@larryfitzgerald9384 it's not that cut and dried. If the mural is not transformed in any way than yes infringement... but if the mural is in the far background and just happens to be in a shot we're in a gray area..

I recently watched Baby Driver and have been wanting to make a film that heavily incorporates pop music into it like it did, but I'm not sure if it would be protected. You mention brands and stuff, but not artistic works in this, so I don't know if it would apply in the same way.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

You would have to get permissionfrom the owners of the songs that's all. Or if it is just for your own enjoyment then do whatever you want, just don't put out out online.

@jmorales09

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ So would that just be the company distributing it or would it also be the writers, producers, performers, etc?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

@@jmorales09 The distributing company will handle it - generally there is one agent that handles media use. Start by contacting the Harry Fox Agency.

Red Cross symbol used in video games over seas tends to be removed from US releases. (in relation to Health Kits and Nurses)

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

interesting... but no cases have gone to court. I'd be curious to see what a judge would have to say about that

Terrific video. Missed an opportunity to explain Greeking.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

had to look that up.... good thing safe search was on.

@TheHazelip

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ Sorry. I'm unfamiliar with a vulgar term. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeking

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheHazelip I'll let you keep it that way ;)

i always thought that if someone litigates against you and you win, they are responsible to cover your defense and court costs? if they arent, it should be a law. it MIGHT cut down on a lot of baseless/frivolous lawsuits.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Not all cases. But in copyright there is ways to ask for attorney fees. You have to be careful with a system where the loser pays all court costs because it might discourage individuals with legitimate cases from suing a large corporate entity.

Excellent

I don't watch much TV anymore, but I remember 80's sitcoms would always cover the label of household items with tape. It drove me crazy.

Am I allowed to set my story in a real town using existing street names and landmarks (certain church, museum, unviversity)? Thanks ...

@FilmmakerIQ

4 жыл бұрын

Yes

Mad love for John Hess!

Dope snapback.

Re: Louis Vuitton. That's interesting. I know nothing about Louis Vuitton bags but, I assumed that because of the character that was making the statement that the bag was not Louis Vuitton, and in fact that the character was either mistaken or a flat-out liar.

Would it be at all possible for you to describe the lighting setup used for the thumbnail of this video? For some reason it looks a lot like it's from a film from the 80s or 90s, and I really like that look. I'm trying to discern what actually creates it.

@FilmmakerIQ

4 жыл бұрын

It's from Wayne's World

@polymetric2614

4 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ Ha, funny. Thought that was your logo on the can.

@FilmmakerIQ

4 жыл бұрын

It is. Context :) kzread.info/dash/bejne/aqCbrruAcsWqftY.html

So if you have a youtube channel that reviews products (vacuum cleaners, makeup, Spaghetti Sauce, whatever) can you show images of the product and the logo of the product (i.e., the package that it came in or the product itself if it has trade-marked logos on it)?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. How could you review a product if you're not even allowed to show it?

@makepaladinsmehagain8493

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for the reply. So would it be ok because it would pass the Rogers Test? Would it be ok because it meets the "artistic merit" qualification?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

You don't even need to get to Rogers Test - a review would at very least fall under Nominitive Fair Use.

@makepaladinsmehagain8493

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

I remember the commercials from when E.T. came out, and distinctly remember the candy that aliens requested by name was "Eefa Garamoofabets."

With product placement becoming so pervasive, I’ve often wondered at what point does a film’s or tv show’s artistic merits become secondary to its commercial agenda? TV commercials have long been lauded for their own artistic merits yet it’s well understood that these are ultimately secondary to the goal of the work. Film and shows even when relying on product placement are thought to be different and still ultimately higher art. Surely a continuum exists; we have all seen films where the product placement is utterly pervasive or starts to break the forth wall. Can art be so diminished by advertising it’s nothing more than commercial speech in film clothing?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Make sure you distinguish between product placement and *paid* product placement. Just because it's on screen doesn't mean someone paid for it to be there. This is a very hard determined on many movies because the budgets are not public

If I send the movie to short film competitions should my video reflects the following words:®/© next to my name throughout the video at bottom Conner there or is it not bad to do so?

@FilmmakerIQ

2 жыл бұрын

No, don't do that

@Met9171

2 жыл бұрын

How then do I make my movie to be exclusive?

@FilmmakerIQ

2 жыл бұрын

Don't give it out to anyone

@Met9171

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean?Is it not a good idea to enter for short film competitions?

@FilmmakerIQ

2 жыл бұрын

You can't have an exclusive AND enter short film competitions

What if my character is an artist and uses paints in the film that has the company's logo on them ? I really can't think so much about this 😅

@FilmmakerIQ

3 жыл бұрын

Legitimately fair use.

I didn't know your glasses liked to talk about movie making

I’d like to know about Cast Away. Zemeckis claims FedEx did not pay to be a part of the movie, but their trademark is used VERY explicitly throughout.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Watch the video and see how the Rogers Test would apply.

I always thought it was funny when cars in movies would have duct tape covering car logos

@jamesoblivion

5 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of the famous 'black rectangle' brand chainsaw wielded by Leatherface in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

Shoud've talked about icarly's pear phone

What about Pepsi VS Coke commercial(made by Pepsi,not sure what year)with delivery drivers in the diner. A fight is implied to happen at the end(a window gets broken out). How could Pepsi make that?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Nominative Fair Use. Also the "Cola War" is something that ultimately helps both sides out.

18:58 Makes me wonder If KZread creators should carry O&E insurance and how much.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

For most people probably not worth it.

Alright ... so I agree IN PRINCIPLE with your argument that it depends on the specifics of the CASE but like you say at the 14 minute mark ... the problem for most of us is that we can;t afford for it to become a case in the first place. Even if we were to win a court case in a trademark claim, the cost in time, stress, actual costs ... makes the use of real trademarked brands a no starter. Could a I use a can of coke as a prop in my bank heist short? Probably. If the company takes umbrage, how much time and money will I spend on defending my right to use their trademarked product? How does that compare to the time and cost of making a fictitious soda brand prop? So is B The corporations don't have to be legally correct to win, they just have to bury me in cost and effort, something they can do easily. The legal system, while on the surface equalatarian(sp?) is actually heavily rigged for the rich. Might makes right and in this modern world, money is might.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

I agree practically... But also at the same time don't go nuts covering every possible instance of a logo just because you're afraid of a suit. At least that's the advice I would give out. But also I don't think using a trademark should paralyze a filmmaker. If a bank robber likes to have a Coke before the bank robbery and that's a key part of his character - that's the artists' prerogative and covered under Free Speech.

You’re good!

What about city skyline shots with logos on the top of buildings?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

The skyline is artist merit because you're depicting a skyline.

@JakeRanney

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ I was at a chain breakfast restaurant the other day and there was a huge photograph of my city's downtown, but every single logo was photoshopped out. Was this just a preventative measure or do you think that they were specifically told not to include any logos by their owners?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

@@JakeRanney if it came from a stock company it was probably a requirement of the stock company. Otherwise either over jealous protectionism or they didn't want to have other logos in their restaurant.

what about things like coke? where i live, /most/ carbonated soda beverages are called a coke (as a generic), despite possibly being pepsi, RC, Double Cola. Dr pepper/Snapple, etc.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

I'm sure Coke has no problem with you calling a Pepsi a Coke

@MinorLG

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ yeah, but Pepsi might

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

How would they know?

@MinorLG

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ considering, a. People are jerks b. People are communal If a film/video/movie/etc gets seen by any of the public, someone will blab to someone else, and next thing you know, certified letters and people in suits.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Depicting a dark brown bubbly liquid in a glass how is anyone supposed to know the difference between a Pepsi and a Coke? And people can say anything they want so that's not grounds for a lawsuit. Besides showing a Pepsi but calling it a Coke - is not a use of Pepsi's trademark - it's a use of Coke's trademark! Pepsi has zero grounds to be involved in all. Coke would have the problem - but since you're not serving the drink - merely photographing it, they probably won't have an issue. In fact the whole "is Pepsi okay?' thing is because Coke doesn't want other brands being sold under their trademark. Go back to the definition of Trademark: "any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination thereof, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods." A product is not a trademark. Pepsi is a trademark. But you didn't call it a Pepsi or show it's logo. You called it a Coke. That's the trademark you're dealing with - but you just gave Coke free product placement.

I would say another advantage to making up generic brands for your movie, It also means you can treat the company however you like. I can imagine that using actual brands directly, You probably have to go over how it will be used with their legal department. Something you make up they can always end up being some evil megacorporation. But I can see the benefits of real brands, Like the PanAm Spaceliner in 2001. At the time it added an air of realism to an audience in an era when they were THE Airline(in the USA).

I would say it also has a lot to do with the specific usage/reference/etc. For example: If I do a video and the two lead characters go into a restaurant, and the waitress says, "Can I bring you something to drink?" and one of the lead characters says, "I only drink Pepsi!" I'm sure that nobody is going to take issue. However, if Lead character A comes to Lead Character B's home, and LCA says, "Want a beer?" and LCB says, "Hell yeah!" and LCA brings him a [Brand}] beer, and LCB says, "What the &#U! is this? This stuff tastes like warm goat urine on a hot summer day in Kabul!" there is more of a chance that the maker might take issue.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Even that would still be fair use: kzread.info/dash/bejne/paKcy9GffJW4mJc.html

19:35 *in the United States

I'd never heard of the sort of pseudo fake you mentioned at the end of the clip. Do you have any examples of that?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Talking about the brands that make fake brands? I never could find an example but I was told by a marketing professor in college and remember seeing examples on sitcoms of cups that didn't say "Pepsi" but were obviously Pepsi. The practice might have died out or ruled unfair practice.

I wonder if it would be viable to just ASK the company if they're ok with you using their logo. Might be the safest way. Like basically... you're not big enough to get paid for it and aren't asking money, just making sure they won't try to sue you for doing it... and I imagine a lot of companies would be fine with this because it's free advertising for them. As long as you don't make their product look bad in some way or otherwise misrepresent it.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

It definitely is viable. It's just not always practical. And not required in the legal sense.

Wait. Did Burstyn explicitly say film *was not commercial* speech?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Yes films are not commercial speech. They are considered Free Speech protected by the First Amendment

What about genericized trademarks like Band-Aid, Frisbee, Kleenex, etc? Adobe also complains about people using "Photoshop" as a verb. When the NES was all the rage, Nintendo complained about people saying "play Nintendo." When Nintendo re-released StarTropics on the Wii Virtual Console, they changed "yo-yo" to "Island Star" because it's apparently still trademarked in Canada.

@FilmmakerIQ

Жыл бұрын

What about them?

@therealhardrock

Жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ Well, it would be rather annoying if people in movies and TV are forced to say "flying disc" when people in the normal world say "frisbee" because the makers are afraid of a lawsuit from Wham-o. It's like how no one on TV or movies can sing "Happy Birthday" because of that Warner Chappel copyright, despite how ubiquitous it is in the real world.

@FilmmakerIQ

Жыл бұрын

Didn't you watch the video? Of course you can use the trademark products so long as they are used as the actual product. Your earlier comment about the Red Cross in video games was not actually using the trademark to refer to the actual organization. If you had War Game that has an actual Red Cross as part of the story, it would be a better case (though it's may not fly because of special considerations by the Geneva Conventions which go beyond trademark law)

@therealhardrock

Жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ The issue with genericized trademarks is that people use them to refer to all similar products, not just the trademarked product. But it sounds to me like a TV show could only say "Band-Aid" if they were actually using Johnson & Johnson bandages. Likewise, they can only say "Frisbee" if they're using a toy made by Wham-o. There's also a question of the level of accuracy. I mentioned how Adobe objects to people saying "Photoshopping" or "Photoshopped." They demand that people say "edited with Adobe Photoshop" even though the verb implies such. Can they legally enforce that? Also, look up "There's no such thing as a Nintendo."

@FilmmakerIQ

Жыл бұрын

Well why couldn't a TV show use the actual J&J bandaids or Wham-O frisbee (btw I did some work for the founders of Wham-O) So long as they are using the products as intended, there won't be a problem. If you use a "Frisbee" to beat someone to death, that could be an issue. But if your movie characters toss the frisbee around on the beach for fun, that's fine. Adobe doesn't have much legal claim on Photoshopping. First amendment still exists in the U.S. at least.

Thanks so much for this you make great content. A question if you don't mind and feel free to refer me to another video If you covered it there but, I am making a feature film and I have a few pieces of art that I got from canvas.com meaning they are canvas exact replicas of the artwork. They are for example a painting by Botticelli and some other lesser-known paintings but from over 300 years ago. I want them to play a significant enough role that They are meaningful to the story and even captured and looked at by the main character in detail. I am going under the assumption that I can use them because they are hundreds of years old and they are exact replicas. Can you weigh in on this even though I'm sure you'll say ultimately I should check with a lawyer, beyond that, what do you think? Really appreciate your response.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Yes check with a lawyer but my gut says a 300 year old painting should be public domain and free to use

@zuzkarory

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ thanks for the reply.

@MiztaBones

5 жыл бұрын

Well the paintings themselves are in public domain but here's where it gets tricky. If you use a photograph of a painting someone else took, the guy who took the picture has copyright over the picture itself. So I'm thinking if it's like that the person who recreated the painting replica holds the copyright if that makes sense.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

@@MiztaBones Interesting caveat - but I think it comes down to did the photographer transform the painting in by taking a photo of it. If I take a photo of the Mona Lisa by itself, I don't think it could be protected by copyright. If I took a self of me and the Mona Lisa - that WOULD be copyright protected. In fact, I found a lawsuit on just that matter: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

@MiztaBones

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ hrm interesting. I did some more reading into it and I found this article that said "Despite this court decision, museums, other institutions, and even individual photographers still claim or imply that their "slavish" mere reproductions of photographic images of public domain artworks are copyrighted and that therefore they can demand fees for licensing and use." I guess I must have read something a misinformed photographer said.

I think this misses the true question of our age... Can Fortnite dances be Copywritten?

he says "Lewis Vitton"

My professor told me that it's probably fine to see a bottle of Jack Daniels in a bar scene, but that it's not ok to see someone drinking that bottle of Jack Daniels right before they go on a shooting spree

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

It's still okay to use the bottle of Jack in the second example. It does invite a lawsuit on defamatory grounds and the specifics would have be weighed in court but it's still protected free speech.

@VideoBakery

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ unfortunately, free speech doesn't our wallets ha.

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

Well in terms of Infringement lawsuits there is a way to settle for attorney fees. Fact of the matter is if it matters, stand up for it. If it doesnt matter, no need to invite a lawsuit.

@VideoBakery

5 жыл бұрын

@@FilmmakerIQ very true

How will article 13 effect this?

@FilmmakerIQ

5 жыл бұрын

That's a copyright issue, not a trademark issue.

This just reminds me of the Alienware laptops in The Big Bang Theory.

Interesting, so is your Logo protected?

@FilmmakerIQ

Жыл бұрын

Using a logo is protection.

Speaking of fake brands, have you thought about doing a video on movies that use recognizable fake brands such as those in Tarantino movies?

Fourth kind of IP - Trade Secrets

@Regolith86

5 жыл бұрын

Trade secrets probably don't come up all that often when you're doing a film, though, unless you've broken into someplace in order to film...

@MesaperProductions

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but that's also true of patents.

@TheDuckofDoom.

5 жыл бұрын

Trade secrets are explicitly not protected IP. By keeping it a secret you have chosen to forgo the IP protections of a patent.

@MesaperProductions

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, you forgo having the patent by keeping it secret, but it is absolutely protected under IP law.