|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 23rd, 2007, 02:10 AM | #1 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 505
|
Using "Coca Cola" logo in documentary...
I'm currently producing a documentary about an event in the 70''s and have some contemporaneous photos, including one in which someone is drinking coke from a can and the Coca Cola logo is clearly visible.
Firstly, do I need to get permission from Coca Cola to show this photo Secondly, on a practical basis, is it even worth me bothering trying to get permission from a behemoth of a company like this given likely issues about finding the correct person to deal with and licensing fees for what is a very low-budget production. Thanks Greg |
July 23rd, 2007, 09:19 AM | #2 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 164
|
I know I have seen the coke logo being used all the time, even in Pepsi commercials where they make fun of Coke, and I'm almost positive Coke didn't hand out permission for those ones. I've seen the documentary 'The Corporation' where they show hundreds of different logos in a bad light explaining how much they had to pay for corruption charges.
Still I don't know the legal implications on this, but my guess would be that they would not bother to sue you over something so small, especially if the way you display their logo is not in a bad way. |
July 23rd, 2007, 09:40 AM | #3 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
|
Greg
Untill and unless Paul Tauger, the IP attorney who frequents our forum weighs in, I'll ask these questions. What is the nature and subject matter of your documentary? Is Coca Cola relevant to the material? And finally to answer your last question, "NO". It's probably not worth the effort. Coke and Disney are probably to two biggest and most aggressive defenders of trademark issues. Is there some reason you can't 'greek out' the logo by blurring it? "So you gotta ask yourself punk, do ya feel lucky? Well... DO YA?" - with apologies to Dirty Harry. |
July 23rd, 2007, 05:16 PM | #4 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 505
|
Thanks Richard, Justin. This relates to still photos from the movie set of an old film. One of the crew is holding a coke with the logo and name clearly in view. I might just press ahead and use it, with a note in the credits that "All trademarks displayed in my movie belong to their respective owners". It just seems looney to me to have to blur out a coke logo, given that it's so ubiquitous - next thing you know we'll need to start blurring out the hood logo on Fords.
|
July 23rd, 2007, 05:17 PM | #5 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
|
Sounds like it's pretty incidental, as long as your comfortable with your level of exposure, go for it.
|
July 23rd, 2007, 06:50 PM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 426
|
If you get sued would you mind updating your post? I'm thinking of doing something similar.
|
July 23rd, 2007, 08:33 PM | #7 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 505
|
|
July 23rd, 2007, 08:58 PM | #8 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nevada City, California
Posts: 499
|
Maybe if you portay them in a favorable, nostalgic light you could ask for a placement fee.
|
July 24th, 2007, 01:27 PM | #9 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco)
Posts: 954
|
Quote:
|
|
July 24th, 2007, 01:29 PM | #10 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco)
Posts: 954
|
A trademark owner doesn't have to send a C&D and there are many instances in which it wouldn't. For example, if the mark owner thinks that your use tarnishes the mark, the mark owner will simply proceed to litigation and obtain a Temporary Restraining Order.
|
July 24th, 2007, 01:30 PM | #11 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco)
Posts: 954
|
First, this is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. There is no "incidental reproduction" doctrine for trademark. Second, the doctrine as applied to copyright is not, in the least, settled law and shouldn't be relied upon.
|
July 24th, 2007, 01:35 PM | #12 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
|
You're right Paul, my explanaition should have had a 'snark' attached.
|
July 24th, 2007, 01:50 PM | #13 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco)
Posts: 954
|
|
July 25th, 2007, 01:31 AM | #14 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 505
|
Paul, thanks for your comments.
Greg |
July 30th, 2007, 03:40 PM | #15 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 423
|
Forgive the ignorance....
Snark? it won't bite me when I goto the beach will it? |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|