OT: Use of Trademarks, Logos, People in Documentaries

p@mast3rs wrote on 12/1/2004, 12:09 PM

I have finally decided to do a documentary for next year's Sundance festival. Hopefully my idea and the story I am covering with create a lot of buzz. I plan to shoot various people and places. My question is do I need a release from every single person that will appear in this documentary and for every place that appears in the doc as well?

The thing I am unclear on is if I film something shot in public, do I need to get a release for someone who may be passing by or if a recognizable building happens to get in the shot? My concern is that this will sort of be an expose and I am not sure if it will cause me problems down the road.

I am assuming that if anything is in public then it is fair game for filming. The people that will be interviewed and those that have a direct part in the doc will naturally asked to sign releases but I am just trying to avoid your ordinary Joe Schmo who passes by and gets in the shot and then wants to get paid if it the doc is successful.

Same thing that for example, if a shit of Mcdonalds gets in the shot while driving down the road, I want to aovid a possible lawsuit though that might prove to cause more excitement and free pub (j.k)

Any advice?

Edit: thanks. keyboard sucks today... :)

Comments

Jsnkc wrote on 12/1/2004, 12:19 PM

Might want to check that last sentence and edit it ;)

Edit.....ummmm you still missed it :)

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/1/2004, 12:27 PM

If you get shots of people in public, no, you don't need a release form.

Trademarks? Not a problem, you shoot what you need. If you get a trademark in the shot, blur it out in post in Vegas.

Jay

p@mast3rs wrote on 12/1/2004, 12:35 PM

Excellent. Thats what I thought. One last question, what if I get a shot of a person in public wearing brand name clothing (i.e. Nike, Abercrombie etc...) Do I try and blur them out as well or can I get away with it?

Jay Gladwell wrote on 12/1/2004, 12:47 PM

Many do, so would I, yes.

Jay

farss wrote on 12/1/2004, 1:04 PM

Don't take this as a legal opinion.
If it's just something that isn't a vital part of the story then in general you should be OK, in other words if you didn't really have any control over it being in the shot and isn't a feature of it then you're probably pretty safe. However if you have a story that involves someone walking into / eating in a Macdonalds then you'd need permission etc. People walking past in shot are just that, if you interview them different matter. Mostly just use common sense.
Given that you're talkin doco and not drama things may be a bit different too. You really need the advice of someone who specialises in such leagl matters in the country where you are.
Bob.

MUTTLEY wrote on 12/1/2004, 1:47 PM

I, as well, am no legal expert but its my impression that the whole idea of blurring logo's and trademarks has gotten distorted over the years. I believe that the practice was started by MTV, and it was not because they couldn't show them but it was implemented as a means of deterring artist from getting kickbacks from advertisers for product placement. Its not that MTV could get in trouble if Jay Z was wearing a Coke shirt, its that they didn't want Jay Z getting money from Coke to wear the shirt in his vid. I've seen many videos on other stations in which logos that were blurred on MTV were not blurred at all. And I would think that some of the folks that were making the music videos would be savvy enough to not incorporate logos in there videos if they could get in trouble. Next time you're flipping channels keep that in mind, there are several stations/shows that have jumped on the blur bandwagon but there are countless examples of those who have not.

I could be proven wrong, but its been my philosophy that so long as I try to keep those type of things out of the advertising for my project, which could imply an affiliation or interpreted as using their logo or trademark for marketing purposes, I don't forsee any problems.

One example is the doc I did on dancers. During one take of one of the girls stage performance she was wearing a " Hustler " shirt. Several clips from that one take did make it in the final movie however; I would not use that clip in an ad or trailer as this could be seen as an attempt to capitalize on their name.

Again, this is the conclusion that I have come to through reading and discussions with lawyers and various people in the biz but I offer no guarantees. I only know that I'd be unwilling without a threat of legal action to cut scenes from my work or degrade it with needless and annoying blurs that are most likely unnecessary.

P.S. I would be stunned if " Super Size Me " got permission from McDonalds.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

p@mast3rs wrote on 12/1/2004, 1:53 PM

Super Size Me was the first thing that came to mind hence thats why I asked the question about trademarks etc... :) Ill never eat fast food ever again after watching that. :)

nickle wrote on 12/1/2004, 2:01 PM

Looking at logos from another standpoint......
What about on "Americas Most Wanted" and "Cops" and the local news where criminals are wearing logos?

I'm sure the trademark holders didn't give permission and would have blocked it if they could have.

Spot|DSE wrote on 12/1/2004, 2:59 PM

"Supersize Me" isn't a relevant study to cite. "Supersize Me" is a political and social commentary and therefore very much in the realm of Fair Use laws. Big difference between doing a documentary ABOUT McDonalds and a shot of McDonalds appearing in your movie or docco about something else.
Context would be the determining factor, and I'd chat with an IP attorney before starting any shooting that might involve disputable content.

Simon Page wrote on 12/2/2004, 7:01 PM

I had a chat with my marketting company who deal witht the BBC and so on over here in the UK. They were quite clear and, I believe, the laws are similar in the US.

If it's public and in a public place, you can film it. Trademarks and logos are the same as faces! However, if the logo is used in a derogatory way that may bring disrepute to the owner, permission should be saught before broadcasting the image.

The earlier comment about MTV is also a very valid point. Many program makers will blur out trademarks etc. because of advertising. The BBC would not be able to show it here if it was too prominant. Also, if a program is sponsored by say "Carlsberg" then they will not be happy if Fosters get more advertising time on screen because someone is wearing a t-shirt with it on. Therefore they'll blank it out so that the programme can be sold to as many people as possible.

Simon.

Spot|DSE wrote on 12/2/2004, 7:20 PM

I don't believe so.
For example, if you watch Soprano's, you'll not see a McDonalds anywhere in sight. Now, if you've been to that part of Jersey, there are Mickey D's everywhere.
McDonalds DIDN'T want their trademark filmed, and was able to stop HBO from shooting it.
The test, based on what little I know on trademarks, is what the focus of the shot is, what the intent and direction of the information contained in the media is, and how it's framed. Shooting a subject near a set of the golden arches where the arches when you could shoot the same subject with the arches in the distance is quite a different story. If you in any way imply through editing or shooting that the company whose image is seen in your project is endorsing or even aware that you've shot their image, you could be in trouble.
But, trademarks are not like copyrights. However, faces aren't "free game" either in a public space. You MUST have a release if it's for commercial release. At least in the US.

reidc wrote on 12/2/2004, 8:48 PM

Let's talk about faces for a minute. If I'm shooting somewhere and someone walks through my frame, do I need to have them sign a release? What if they're very far away, let's say I'm zoomed way in on something from a distance. Do I need to chase them down? And are there limits to this, such as whether the person is recognizable in frame or not, or how long they're in frame and recognizeable, etc? And surely the same rules can't apply, say, for a news crew out on the street (though this is off topic a bit, I know)? And in the case of international material, which country's laws apply, the laws of the country you're shooting in or those in the country of broadcast? To wit, there's a "reality"/documentary series on Bravo called "The Long Way Round, wherein 2 people (one of them "famous") travel around the world on motorcycles, being followed by a camera crew. Surely when they stopped in a village in Mongolia and 60 locals gathered around, releases weren't required? And if this is the case, is it because Mongolia has no such rights provisions or that we wouldn't care even if they did (maybe the show won't air in Mongolia, or it has been ascertained that 60 Mongolian goatherders don't care a whit about such issues)? In other words, are there standard guidelines to govern the rights issues of non-principles who, while they are are not the focus of the shot, may well be IN focus of the shot?

farss wrote on 12/2/2004, 11:34 PM

I cannot answer all of that, I'd agree the international angle of the thing could become a nightmare. All I can say is I think common sense applies to the people in Mongolia to say nothing of good manners. If the people in Mongolia didn't want to be filmed they'd be pretty likely to make their wishes quite clear and in my opinion no matter what your rights are then you don't even think about pointing the camera at them. From my experience in very foreign lands people fall into one of two categories, those that want to be filmed and those that don't and you've only got to look at the body language to know how they feel. Wherever possible remarkeably I make the effort to send those people back footage of themselves even though I'll most likely never see them again.

But egtting back to the core issue, I went through this exercise myself regarding my wife's dance troupe. Now the dances that they perform are copyright. They were performing in a public space and I was told I couldn't shoot video of the performing which seemed odd to me, if it's a public performance how are they going to stop anyone with a camera from shooting video? So I did ask those in the industry who shoot this kind of stuff everyday.
The answer is they cannot stop you shooting the video, same with incidental people who just happen to walk by in the background, if they could then if nothing else security cameras which now cover most cities of the world would be illegal. What counts is what you do with that video.
For fairly obvious reasons I can;t take the footage of the dance and start selling "How to do dance xyz" videos, duh! I also can't make a video solely of their performances and sell that either, both the talent and the dance designer and musicians do have rights to their hard work.
However I can make a doco about the park that shows various dance groups performing in the park, what's different? Pretty obvious to me, most of the work done is me filming and editing, I'm not gaining any benefit from any of the dances, it's just part of the tapestry of the story, it isn't THE story.
Same goes for people walking down the street, make a film that "stars' Joe Average by following him around all day with a camera and his existance becomes a crucial part of the work, one that he has ever right to control. This is vastly different to 10 seconds of him walking down a crowded street, whether it's him or anyone of a billion other people makes no difference to the story.At the same time though if he did come up to me and say he didn't want his image in the movie I'd pull it out, just to keep goodwill with the public.

I'd expect much the same would go for trademarks, if your script centres around someone who works in McDonalds I think you're going to need their co-operation and permission, after all it could just as easily be a Hamburger Chain with a ficticious name. But if your script has a scene where someone drives down 51st Street and there just happens to be a McDonalds on that street I can't see how they can stop you, they put the thing there on public display, if they don't want images taken of it as part of the landscape they shouldn't put it on display in public, I mean where would it stop, are they going to ask Landsat to black out the McDonalds that appears in any shots from space?

Bob.