logo on clothing permissions

[Mark Raudonis]

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

[Tyler Smith]

Here is the “video” in question. https://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

[Richard Herd]

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.

[Tyler Smith]

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?

[Mark Suszko]

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.