5 ms·
You wouldn’t need a license, is the bottom line. It’s CLEARLY fair use to passively display arcade games in a fictional arcade setting, without infringing on th
by supermatt 4y ago
You wouldn’t need a license, is the bottom line. It’s CLEARLY fair use to passively display arcade games in a fictional arcade setting, without infringing on the intent of the IP.
Unfortunately, in this litigation-happy world we are becoming increasingly risk-averse.
There was an article recently on how music is now “co-written” by the influences for that piece, as well as the influences for those influence pieces, etc - just to preempt these kind of legal challenges.
It’s fucked up, and it needs to change.
- actionfromafar 4y agoWasn't it like this forever? Why otherwise all fake brands for cereal, beer and whatnot in movies?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- supermatt 4y agoSomeone else responded to you - but they seem to have now deleted it. Those fake brands are either as placeholders for product placement, or the art directors just wanted to have some more fun/control :) Some products - like beer, cigarettes, etc - likely need to be changed due to advertising restrictions on alcohol/tobacco/etc
- joezydeco 4y agoThere's a myriad of shows where company trademarks are blanked out or modified to something else. Seinfeld is full of this. And I've seen countless shows where actors are using MacBooks or iMacs and the Apple logo on the case is taped over or modified with a different shape. It's not a placeholder for product advertising. Either Apple said no, or wanted some other control over the show's content and oversight on the Mac and the producers refused.
- supermatt 4y ago> Either Apple said no, or wanted some other control over the show's content and oversight on the Mac and the producers refused. No. Apple have absolutely no right to dictate that. It would be fair use to use a commercially available laptop to denote a laptop in a TV show. They could ONLY contest if it was to dilute their mark through misuse. A product being displayed and used in its intended way is - by definition - not misuse. It is possible that they greeked the product to appease a competitor. e.g. masking out apple logos if they are sponsored by samsung, etc. But as I already mentioned in a previous comment: we live it a litigation-happy world, and the threat of a court case can be enough to scare some producers - even if it would be unjustified.
- auveair 4y agoReal brands can be distracting visually, even real no-name brands.