BUSINESS AND MARKETING: Business and Marketing Forum Business and Marketing Articles

logo on clothing permissions

COW Forums : Business & Marketing

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
tyler smithlogo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 29, 2011 at 9:25:13 pm

I shot a video a few months ago, told the artist not to wear anything with logos on it, but his co artist pretty much rocked logo'd clothing for the entire shoot. they want to submit the vid for broadcast and is it going to be an issue or should i just blur the logos out?


Return to posts index

Mark SuszkoRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 29, 2011 at 9:40:18 pm

A lot of times people just assume that nothing is ever permitted, and they self-censor needlessly. What are the logos? Can you geta ruling from the festival organizers?


Return to posts index

tyler smithRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 29, 2011 at 9:42:04 pm

well, it's a music video and they want to send it off to mtv canada to broadcast. The artist is wearing an Ed Hardy shirt, there is also a coca cola machine in the immediate bg in one shot as well.


Return to posts index


Mark SuszkoRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 29, 2011 at 10:15:41 pm

It's a crazy world we work in, where these companies used to fight and pay for the right to have their logos seen on TV, to where we're all hiding in bunkers for fear of a lawsuit over what people are wearing and what's on the wall in the background. I don't have your answer.I wouldn't go to the work of roting blurs all over thoguh, until MTV Canada tells you what to do. They must have a producer's bible of some sort online or available by email, that details their policy. I would start there.


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 29, 2011 at 11:05:25 pm

It's generally acceptable, providing the logo's rights-holders are not shown in a bad or defamatory light, somehow.

People are going crazy these days blurring logos and branding, when most of the time you don't have to worry about it too much. Watch any feature film or television show, and you'll see countless logos that were not intentional product placements... everything from drinks to logos on clothing to computers and cell phones to the cars that people are driving. Usually, it's a needless worry.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

tyler smithRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 29, 2011 at 11:32:56 pm

hopefully, i just don't want to see the artist drop 400 bucks for a beta transfer only to be rejected due to some logo issues.


Return to posts index


Mick HaenslerRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 30, 2011 at 12:23:12 pm

What's a beta transfer??

Mick Haensler
Higher Ground Media
Tech Now


Return to posts index

Jonathan ZieglerRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 30, 2011 at 4:24:18 pm

Wow, now I know I'm getting older... Beta transfers from the distant magical age of tape-based workflows... ;)

Jonathan Ziegler
http://www.electrictiger.com/
520-360-8293


Return to posts index

Mark SuszkoRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 30, 2011 at 4:49:43 pm

BetacamSP, to be more perceise. YES, some stations and networks still ask for this format.


Return to posts index


Jason JenkinsRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 30, 2011 at 6:32:21 pm

[Mark Suszko] "BetacamSP, to be more perceise. YES, some stations and networks still ask for this format."

For $400, this must be a gold-plated BetaSP tape. Perhaps the rappers hang it on a chain around their neck for some extra bling.

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!


Return to posts index

tyler smithRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Nov 30, 2011 at 11:17:57 pm

digi beta transfer and close captioning is what it is.


Return to posts index

Mark RaudonisRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Dec 1, 2011 at 11:52:33 pm

Regarding the logo blurs::::

99% of all the blurs we do have NOTHING to do with permissions, and EVERYTHING to do with marketing.

Example: Pepsi could care less if you display their logo, but Coke will be pissed if they're sponsoring the show. End result, pepsi gets blurred.

My advice, submit it as is, unblurred and wait for someone to complain. If they don't you've saved some time and money. If they do... you've learned why most "fictional" stories take place in a logo free world. And if there are recognizable logos in that world, you can bet that someone paid for it.

Good luck.

Mark



Return to posts index


tyler smithRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Dec 2, 2011 at 12:22:02 am

Here is the "video" in question. http://vimeo.com/32529226 password: wayz

I could understand if the logos were in the bg, but one of these dudes is in an MCU with his "logos" all up in the camera.


Here's what another fella gave me for advice:

"If they purchased the rights to display those logos in the video prior to the shoot, it isn't a problem.
If they didn't, it's time to pony up some dough.

They'll have to pay to secure the rights for the logos after the fact, or they'll have to pay YOU for the work in post; a potentially tricky blurring job, possibly involving motion tracking and perhaps even some rotoscoping.

It falls under the realm of copyright: just as they would not want another band recording their song and selling it for profit without payment to them, they can't expect free use of someone else's logos.

They could also completely sidestep the issue and re-shoot with NO logos. In the long run, this may be the most economical option.

Whether it's blurred or not, they pay."

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA


Return to posts index

Richard HerdRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:21:26 pm

Well...

[tyler smith] "It falls under the realm of copyright: just as they would not want another band recording their song and selling it for profit without payment to them, they can't expect free use of someone else's logos."

Not exactly because a brand logo is a trademark which is a different thing than a copyright. Not being a lawyer, this is not a bona fide legal opinion, however, the issue is whether and to what extent you are affiliating the work with the trademark. Are you presenting the work as if it was produced by Ed Hardy?

I can't make my own line of clothes and put the Ed Hardy logo on it. But I can photograph someone wearing the Ed Hardy logo on their clothes. I remember when all this blurring got famous...when Snoop Dogg et al started wearing pot leaves on their t-shirts. At some point, the blur technique became "cool/hipster," hence its ubiquity.


Return to posts index

tyler smithRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:39:48 pm

Thanks for the advice, and no we're not presenting the work like Ed Hardy produced it. One of the artists just wears the brand in most of his shots, and he's very close to the camera so it's obvious which brand he is wearing etc.

If I go ahead with this, could the broadcaster reject the video because we don't have permission for the trademark? & could any legal situations arise from not covering up the logo/not having permission?

Basically, what's the worst case scenario that can come out of this?


Return to posts index


Mark SuszkoRe: logo on clothing permissions
by on Dec 3, 2011 at 12:40:24 am

That your artist encourages more sales of some pretty ugly shirts?

:-)

Worst case you'll have to roto/blur the shirts later, once there is actual money on the table. Don't mess with it until it becomes an overt issue.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]