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.

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.
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.

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."

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."
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.


Reader Comments (rss)

 
"Dilution or false endorsement would be the claims."

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....
—Dark Helmet

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Kirion (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:36pm

    Brands pay millions for product placement, yet Budwesier don't want a free advertising? How crazy is that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:42pm

    Re:

    Budweiser doesn't want people to see a guy drinking their product and getting into massive legal trouble because of it, even though it happens every day in the real world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:42pm

    Studios, such as Paramount, have no right to fair use, as they themselves don't allow it when others use fair use of their products.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:43pm

    Yeah, I could see how McDonalds/BurgerKing/FastFood could say "You can't make a documentary that shows my product because I don't like how it makes me look", so I don't see how it is any different for any other company. If you don't like what alcohol does to people, remove it from your drinks. Don't blame anyone else for what happens to your product sales though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:44pm

    The movie industry is partly to blame for this because of the way the try to controe all use of their film, down to short clips.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    sehlat (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:44pm

    Actually, the corporate attitude is very very simple.

    "We own our customers. Period."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Coogan (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:54pm

    Maybe Anheuser-Busch should show the Paramount logo in one of their Super Bowl commercials this year. Something tells me that Paramount would do some complaining as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:57pm

    So...

    Do as we say, not as we do?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 1:58pm

    so, it's ok for the movie people to exploit another's product and be backed by the courts, but no one can use products of the movie people. sounds about right!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymouse, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 2:06pm

    Whoa there Tim, what gives you the right to bring the NFL into this article, and without appropriate recognition of (tm)(c)? Who do you think you are, the AP?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 2:11pm

    Re:

    I honestly cannot believe you were the first person to pick up on the subtle joke of my throwing the NFL in there associated with drinking....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 2:23pm

    Thick Irony

    An industry that, as you stated, “…think they can control...and control...and control” is using the law, rightfully but paradoxically, to use what they deem as “fair use” for their benefit.

    Typical douche bag maneuver.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Zos (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 2:29pm

    Huh....every time i'm able to see a label or brand name, i actually assume the company paid for product placement.

    interesting to find out it's even more screwed up than that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 2:34pm

    I think you missed the "while behind the wheel" part. It's not about censorship or copyright, it's about the image of the company; and drinking while driving is illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 2:55pm

    Re:

    ...and?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Michael, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 2:56pm

    Re:

    Nobody complains about their logo ending up in a super bowl commercial.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Michael, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 2:58pm

    Re:

    Feel free to email that complaint to the Oakland police chief.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    cosmicrat (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 3:06pm

    This was intentional

    Most movies/TV shows etc. assiduously get "clearance" on any recognizable brand name before including it in the film, but this isn't because they strictly speaking have to -it's just cheaper than fighting potential civil suits later. The pressure to pre-clear absolutely everything comes down strong from the corporate offices onto the director and crew, such that it is practically impossible for us to use uncleared brands in the production. The fact they included these brands in this movie without clearance shows they cared about authenticity and resonating with viewers. It is certainly a calculated decision on their part. And I applaud them for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Stereomike, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 3:09pm

    Bus should change their Image for me while at it.

    Give me a break. I associate Budweiser with all things Southern and Hick oriented. Perhaps to change their "image" for me. They should not be allowed at county fairs, tractor pulls, demolition derbies and NASCAR races.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 3:09pm

    Re:

    If this was my movie, I'd do some extra shooting to film a scene where someone offers him a Budweiser and he refuses to drink it and asks for another brand. The cost would be borne by auctioning off the rights to be that other brand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 3:15pm

    Re:

    So Colt should get to say every time one of their firearms is used in a movie to kill someone.

    I see.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Jake, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 3:32pm

    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.
    He wasn't drinking beer. He was drinking Budweiser.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 4:07pm

    Re: Re:

    > Budweiser doesn't want people to see
    > 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Re:

    > Nobody complains about their logo
    > ending up in a super bowl commercial.

    Especially not for free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    RD, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 4:10pm

    Re: You Reap What You Sow

    "Studios, such as Paramount, have no right to fair use, as they themselves don't allow it when others use fair use of their products."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 4:10pm

    Re:

    > so, it's ok for the movie people to
    > 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    RD, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 4:12pm

    Re:

    "Ithink you missed the "while behind the wheel" part. It's not about censorship or copyright, it's about the image of the company; and drinking while driving is illegal."

    Yeah, so what? Neither is a viloation of copyright OR trademark law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 4:13pm

    Re:

    > It's not about censorship or copyright,
    > 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Number70a, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 4:33pm

    Buttwiper

    Because
    U
    Deserve
    What
    Every
    Individual
    Should
    Enjoy
    Regularly

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    fb39ca4, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 5:57pm

    Why wouldn't Budweiser want this? It's free advertising of the effectiveness of their product at getting people drunk!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 6:22pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Who exactly would get into massive legal trouble from the depiction of beer in a movie?

    He's talking about the guy in the movie getting in trouble. You sure you're a lawyer? You don't seem too bright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 6:30pm

    Re:

    I think you missed the "while behind the wheel" part. It's not about censorship or copyright, it's about the image of the company; and drinking while driving is illegal.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Coogan (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 7:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well, that depends. Observe:

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Kurata, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 7:24pm

    Meanwhile in France, every episodes of the simpsons are censored because you're not allowed to show a brand of alcohol on TV. Yes, I'm talking about Duff beer here which is blurred out in every episode.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 8:46pm

    Re: Re: You Reap What You Sow

    Except this isn't even Fair use.... The term "fair use" alludes that you have some sort of defense for something that might be deems unlawful/illegal due to some other right that someone else with conrrolling interest has. In this case Budweiser think they can control usage of their product in any way at all.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 8:50pm

    Re:

    How can you exploit a product if you use it, or show it being used, for its intended legal purpose?

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 8:53pm

    Re:

    So is murder, terrorism, rape, etc etc... But strangely movies show that happening all the time..

    your point?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 9:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    he's a lawyer alright, purposeful obfuscation

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 9:29pm

    Re: Re:

    you forgot to log in ootb

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 9:31pm

    Re:

    wow, just wow, not even a real brand name

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Sacredjunk, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 9:58pm

    Re:

    Killing someone is illegal too. Removing that from all movies would be very interesting

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Keii (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 9:58pm

    What's good for the goose...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2012 @ 10:05pm

    Re: So...

    Sounds like my religious parents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Nov 8th, 2012 @ 11:47pm

    Re: Re:

    Well, consdiering it's a pretty effectiove painkiller when drunk in large amounts, I'm surprised that they can even form a straight line.

    ...What, you thought the MAgic Sponge had something else in it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    10tacula, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 1:04am

    ?

    So why do we always see blurred logos in all those rap videos?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 3:21am

    Re: Re:

    Dilution, my a**. They depict a possible and likely outcome of people dring their brand. That's reality for ya.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 3:23am

    Re:

    Makes as much sense as people having to wrap their liquor in brown paper bags when drinking in the streets.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 4:26am

    Re: Re:

    Tell that to the **AAs'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 4:27am

    Re:

    Especially when for years they took pains to hide labels/brands unless paid for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 6:16am

    Re: Re: Re: You Reap What You Sow

    I don't think trademark even has a 'fair use' clause anywhere in it. Far as I am aware that is unique to copyright, so... yeah, decrying 'fair use' in this case seems a bit absurd.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 6:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You Reap What You Sow

    I don't think trademark even has a 'fair use' clause anywhere in it.


    Lanham Act. 15 USC § 1125(c)(3) Exclusions:
    The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection
    (A) Any fair use...

    (Emphasis added.)

    You thought wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 6:48am

    Re: Re:

    "Dilution or false endorsement would be the claims."

    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....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    LMAO. Good job running us through the analysis. Not. The fact is that each case is different, and just because there was no infringement in "George of the Jungle" does not mean there's not infringement here.

    But you and I both know that no matter what the facts are, you will always think there is no infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Seriously, just cite someone for this case, since they're all different (and apparently caselaw has disappeared from the annals of history), that agrees w/you and I'll retract everything I said above and we can have a wonderful discussion about the case. Just....one....3rd party expert....on this case....as the article I linked to does....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 8:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why not do your own thinking? Go read the "George of the Jungle" case. The procedural posture was a motion for a temporary restraining order--which means there's a balancing done where potential success on the merits is but one factor. That's at the other end of the spectrum from a final decision on the merits, which is what you seem to think it is. The standard in that situation is quite different. The court doesn't have a record, developed through discovery (documents, interrogatories, surveys, depositions, etc.), to base the decision off of. And even on that incomplete record, the court said the likelihood of success prong FAVORED CATERPILLAR (but just barely):
    There does not appear to be anything in the limited record before the Court to show that the Defendants somehow took advantage of the fame of Caterpillar's trademark to drive awareness or sales of George 2.7 However, the Court is reluctant at this early stage of the proceedings to rule that Caterpillar has no likelihood of proving its claim of unfair competition, despite the substantial misgivings it has. However, the slightly more than negligible likelihood of success on this claim will commensurately increase Caterpillar's burden of proving that the balance of harms is in its favor.
    Caterpillar Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 287 F.Supp. 2d 913, 920 (C.D. Ill. 2003).

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 8:25am

    Re: Re:

    Actually the initial act of drinking 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.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 8:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ah but the Caterpillar case has a difference in that Caterpillar based on probability showed that Disney were using there actual branding to promote the film. In this instance there is NO likelihood of promotion seeing as that the ubiquitousness of Budweiser (in the USA anyway) is so embedded into the American consciousness that any depiction of Budweiser or any other beer, foodstuff, whatever with the same 'generic generalness' would be entirely different.

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Actually the initial act of drinking 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.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 8:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you don't have a problem with the conclusion, you just don't like the specific words I used or that I left some of the heavy-lifting to the article I linked to.

    Got it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I dunno. I think there's a good argument that licensing for product placements in movies has become such the norm that the assumption is that it's an endorsement. Plus, on the dilution claim, the mark wasn't being used in a way that tarnished it (simply a tractor that said Caterpillar on it). Whereas, from what I understand (and I'd have to see the movie to see how it's actually portrayed), in "Flight" the mark is being used in a way that could tarnish it, i.e., he's an alcoholic pilot whose drink of choice is Budweiser. My point is, I don't think you can just point to "George in the Jungle" and say there's no claim here. The cases are different, and the differences could matter greatly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 8:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you don't have a problem with the conclusion, you just don't like the specific words I used or that I left some of the heavy-lifting to the article I linked to.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 9:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In that case, that's completely fair. You certainly don't have to like how I got to the same place you did. Critique away, soldier!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re:

    > Dilution or false endorsement would be
    > 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Michael, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re:

    I thought that was just to ensure people had a vomit bag when they needed it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 10:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > He's talking about the guy in the movie
    > 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Michael, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 10:36am

    Re:

    Will be interesting to see the next time there is ANYTHING that could be brand specific in a Budweiser commercial.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Michael, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 10:38am

    Re: ?

    poor photography

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 10:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Actually the initial act of drinking
    > 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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 1:43pm

    Re: This was intentional

    it's just cheaper than fighting potential civil suits later.
    No, it's not... in the same way that paying protection money is not cheaper and for much the same reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 9th, 2012 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re:

    Actually, you'd have to blur out all of the brand names on the guns/knives/tanks/sharks with friggin' lasers that were used to actually perform the killing in the movie. A tricky prospect at best.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, I meant the character in the story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Nov 9th, 2012 @ 7:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My point there was pedantic to the extreme yes.

    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 :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Nov 11th, 2012 @ 12:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think there's a good argument that licensing for product placements in movies has become such the norm that the assumption is that it's an endorsement.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    hopponit (profile), Nov 11th, 2012 @ 11:38pm

    flight

    They wouldn't need to make up a fake beer. Back while I was stationed at Hunter Army Air Field in Savannah, Ga. I purchased a case of beer from the NCO club. It actually was labeled "Beer" as the brand. I was a bit dubious but it was on sale, and i was short of funds. Strange thing, it was pretty good beer!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Bunn, May 7th, 2013 @ 6:52pm

    Its Okey To USe By The Movie People

    Blaming someone else is not right..
    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??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 3rd, 2013 @ 7:51am

    English

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Beer Drinker Extreme, Oct 9th, 2013 @ 9:36am

    Do they need to Advertise this hard?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This