product placement in movies
Slartibartfast
I went to see Men in Black II this weekend, and the product placement
was really obnoxious. <no spoilers> First, they do a pan over the alien
"in-processing" area. Very distinctly slow shot over the burger king
and the sprint store. (Burger King is doing the kids meals for MIB 2)
Then you see the head bad alien (in human form) standing in line
munching on a whopper! I half expected her to say "My one regret about
destroying Earth is that I won't be able to buy delicious flame broiled
whoppers from Burger King anymore!" It was almost like the writers
didn't really try to write Burger King into the story or anything. Just
a gratuitous shot to earn the money, and move on. Later, Zed is told to
call someone on a cell phone. The bad alien sets the phone down on the
table. Zoom in just a little too long so we can all see clearly that it
is a sprint phone.
Bleah. I'm getting really tired of this. I'm already subjected to
several commercials before the preview starts. I don't want to see them
in the middle of the movie.
Other than advertising, the movie wasn't bad. I wouldn't pay full price
for it, though.
Slartibartfast
RM Mentock
> Other than advertising, the movie wasn't bad. I wouldn't pay full price
> for it, though.
Well, I was laughing. I thought the shots of Tommy Lee Jones in his
younger years were great
--
RM Mentock
C. K. Monet, c'est moi
Lalbert1
<n...@nowhere.com> writes:
>I went to see Men in Black II this weekend, and the product placement
>was really obnoxious. <no spoilers> First, they do a pan over the alien
>"in-processing" area. Very distinctly slow shot over the burger king
>and the sprint store. (Burger King is doing the kids meals for MIB 2)
>Then you see the head bad alien (in human form) standing in line
>munching on a whopper! I half expected her to say "My one regret about
>destroying Earth is that I won't be able to buy delicious flame broiled
>whoppers from Burger King anymore!" It was almost like the writers
>didn't really try to write Burger King into the story or anything. Just
>a gratuitous shot to earn the money, and move on. Later, Zed is told to
>call someone on a cell phone. The bad alien sets the phone down on the
>table. Zoom in just a little too long so we can all see clearly that it
>is a sprint phone.
I didn't see MIB2, but there was a lot of product placement in "Minority
Report". It can bring in a lot of money to the producer. According to
Variety, product placement in "Minority Report" was worth $25 million.
Les
Slartibartfast
@aol.com says...
I didn't notice the product placement so much in "Minority Report"
because it was integrated more into the plot. The hero runs into a mall
and walks into The Gap. He needs to buy new clothes. OK, that fits.
With MIB2 it just seemed much more forced. It was like they had
negotiated with the advertiser that the camera would linger on the brand
name for at least 5 seconds. What makes it awkward is that they
*wouldn't* have done the shot if they didn't have the advertising
dollars.
It should happen in this order (for example):
1) Plot calls for the characters to go into a donut shot
2) See if Duncan donuts wants to pay us to use their store
Not:
1) Duncan donuts is a big marketing partner
2) Write a donut shop into the story
Alex
Charles A Lieberman
<MPG.17a4f0d17dae604d989763@news-server>
>Later, Zed is told to
>call someone on a cell phone. The bad alien sets the phone down on the
>table. Zoom in just a little too long so we can all see clearly that it
>is a sprint phone.
Suntori spent, I imagine, quite a bit of money for a highly visible ad
at 48th Street between 7th and Broadway[1]. In the movie _Spider-Man_,
it was covered by the digital image of an ad for Cingular. Fine, except
the amount of time it was shown as a Cingular ad was less than half the
time it was shown.
[1] Not technically Times Square, but if I say "Duffy Square" no one
will know what I'm talking about.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | Taylor, you can't love a man with no head!
Brooklyn, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
StarChaser Tyger
>
>I went to see Men in Black II this weekend, and the product placement
>was really obnoxious.
<The post-flayer hits! Your text is eaten.>
>Bleah. I'm getting really tired of this. I'm already subjected to
>several commercials before the preview starts. I don't want to see them
>in the middle of the movie.
Could be worse. "All the other restaurants were wiped out in the
Restaurant War. All that's left is Taco Bell.", and the jingles as
'music' in 'Demolition Man', or the half mile high McD's logo in
'Fifth Element'.
Sometimes it can be funny, though...In 'Kung Pow: Enter The Fist' a
little old man walks through a courtyard singing "Taco Bell, Taco
Bell, product placement for Taco Bell"...
>Other than advertising, the movie wasn't bad. I wouldn't pay full price
>for it, though.
I was afraid it'd be mostly the dog and the worms. It turned out
pretty good, although with a slightly cheesy ending...
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
RM Mentock
> It should happen in this order (for example):
>
> 1) Plot calls for the characters to go into a donut shot
Yeah right
> 2) See if Duncan donuts wants to pay us to use their store
>
> Not:
>
> 1) Duncan donuts is a big marketing partner
> 2) Write a donut shop into the story
Actually, some of the product placements in Minority Report
I remember as sorta jarring--I remember thinking (can't be
specific) whoa did the sponsor really OK that line?
Alan Hamilton
wrote:
>It should happen in this order (for example):
>
>1) Plot calls for the characters to go into a donut shot
>2) See if Duncan donuts wants to pay us to use their store
>
>Not:
>
>1) Duncan donuts is a big marketing partner
>2) Write a donut shop into the story
It's not even so bad if they're written into the story. It's the
loving closeup of logo for no reason that's really annoying.
For example, a couple of characters are walking down the street
talking. Cut to a static shot of a Dunkin' Donuts storefront, in
front of which the characters pause.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
Bob E.
>
> It's not even so bad if they're written into the story. It's the
> loving closeup of logo for no reason that's really annoying.
>
> For example, a couple of characters are walking down the street
> talking. Cut to a static shot of a Dunkin' Donuts storefront, in
> front of which the characters pause.
It's not exactly new...remember the Pan Am, Hilton and Bell Telephone
placements in "2001 - A Space Odyssey"? Two out of three of those
companies now being defunct or split up gives some unintended
poignancy (or mirth) when viewed over three decades later. --Bob
================================================================================
Bob Ellingson bo...@halted.com
Halted Specialties Co., Inc. http://www.halted.com
3500 Ryder St. (408) 732-1573
Santa Clara, Calif. 95051 USA (408) 732-6428 (FAX)
Alan Hamilton
>Alan Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> It's not even so bad if they're written into the story. It's the
>> loving closeup of logo for no reason that's really annoying.
>>
>> For example, a couple of characters are walking down the street
>> talking. Cut to a static shot of a Dunkin' Donuts storefront, in
>> front of which the characters pause.
>
>It's not exactly new...remember the Pan Am, Hilton and Bell Telephone
>placements in "2001 - A Space Odyssey"? Two out of three of those
>companies now being defunct or split up gives some unintended
>poignancy (or mirth) when viewed over three decades later. --Bob
Yeah, I was going to mention that the placements would probably date a
movie, moreso with the current mergermania (and bankruptcymania).
Patrick M Geahan
> I didn't see MIB2, but there was a lot of product placement in "Minority
> Report". It can bring in a lot of money to the producer. According to
> Variety, product placement in "Minority Report" was worth $25 million.
Personally, I prefer *some* product placement. To me, it adds to the
realism of the movie. The fact that Tom Cruise walked into a Gap and was
offered a Guinness made it more believable for me.
What's more jarring for me is when they take, say, a Pepsi can, but mock
it up so it just says 'cola'. That draws my attention more than anything
else.
For an example of both egregious product placement, and a movie mocking
it, see Ivan Reitman's "Evolution">
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@chartermi.net---ICQ:3784715------
Quote of the Week: "Usenet seems to be full of weird car-park attendants
with fantastic suntans and an extensive knowledge of water retention."
- John Hatpin on afca.
Anny Middon
news:MPG.17a4f0d17dae604d989763@news-server...
>
> Bleah. I'm getting really tired of this. I'm already subjected to
> several commercials before the preview starts. I don't want to see them
> in the middle of the movie.
>
is there to replace products in movies. A character may drink a Coke in the
theatrical release, a Pepsi in the video release and an RC Cola in the
television release.
Anny
Slartibartfast
> Alan Hamilton wrote:
>
> It's not exactly new...remember the Pan Am, Hilton and Bell Telephone
> placements in "2001 - A Space Odyssey"? Two out of three of those
> companies now being defunct or split up gives some unintended
> poignancy (or mirth) when viewed over three decades later. --Bob
>
I thought that sponsors paying for product placement was a relatively
new phenomenon (last 10 years or so). I wonder if those companies paid
the makers of 2001, or did the writers just think of three companies
that were sure to still be around by 2001?
I think it is actually *more* jarring when shows go out of their way to
not advertise for other companies. The New Yankee workshop used to tape
over the brand names of all the woodworking machines. Roseanne used to
have cmpletely generic (ie black and white) labels on everything.
Seeing brand names is just a normal part of life. It is when they are
so obviously written in to the story that it gets annoying.
Slartibartfast
Slartibartfast
says...
I think that thechnology is already here. There was a controversy
regarding Spider-man, because they digitally replaced an ad (huge
electronic billboard) in TImes Square with one of the sponsor's ads.
Slartibartfast
rob...@bestweb.net
>What's more jarring for me is when they take, say, a Pepsi can, but
>mock it up so it just says 'cola'. That draws my attention more
>than anything else.
>--
A beer company actually complained to "SCTV" about its mention there. So
for a bar scene, they put black tape over portions of the neon sign to turn
"Budweiser" into "Pucveisei" -- and even worked mention of that "brand" into
the dialog. (It wasn't Budweiser that compained initially IIRC.)
Reminds me of a story my friend Nancy told of a hotel in Detroit that used
to host & advertise an annual Monopoly tournament. Parker Bros.' lawyers
complained about the unauthorized use of their name, so the tournament still
takes place, except now they advertise it as a "Monotony" tournament. I
don't understand what Parker's complaint was; I'd've PAID for publicity like
that. Plus I don't think they had a case.
Robert
John Hatpin
>I thought that sponsors paying for product placement was a relatively
>new phenomenon (last 10 years or so). I wonder if those companies paid
>the makers of 2001, or did the writers just think of three companies
>that were sure to still be around by 2001?
An interesting take on this from a reputable-seeming source:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/
"Today with product placement dictating the mise en scene of every
Hollywood Blockbuster, Kubrick can be seen as holding the rather
dubious distinction of being the first to promote a company in this
way. 2001 (1968) featured the logos of Pam-Am, Hilton Hotels, Bell
Telephones and IBM, (although many of IBM's were later removed, when
they found out that HAL did not exactly promote the image of computers
the company had in mind!) In 1968 many critics harshly rebuked Kubrick
for what they saw only as crass commercialism, but the idea has been
subsequently much copied for artistic rather than commercial reasons
in science fiction, as a way of making future worlds more familiar and
therefore more credible - examples include: Ridley Scott's Blade
Runner(1982) and William Gibson's landmark 'Cyberpunk' novel
Neuromancer(1984)."
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
In which release does he visit the bathroom?
--
John Hatpin
The AFCA Kid
Date: 7/22/02 10:23 AM Eastern writes:
>Reminds me of a story my friend Nancy told of a hotel in Detroit that used
>to host & advertise an annual Monopoly tournament. Parker Bros.' lawyers
>complained about the unauthorized use of their name, so the tournament still
>takes place, except now they advertise it as a "Monotony" tournament. I
>don't understand what Parker's complaint was; I'd've PAID for publicity like
>that.
Yeah, well, who knows? Maybe they wanted some fee? Maybe there was something
dodgy about the way the hotel put it on? Maybe they just want PB involved in
all uses of PB property.
> Plus I don't think they had a case.
Everyone's got a case. There's a right to certain limited use of trademark; a
mechanic may advertize that he repairs Volkswagen, Ford, and Acura. I am not at
all sure this is the same thing, since a boardgame tournament is not
necessarily part of the ordinary businesses of a hotel in the way fixing a car
is of a mechanics, after all.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Patrick M Geahan
>>>
>>I think this will get worse. I read some time ago about how the technology
>>is there to replace products in movies. A character may drink a Coke in the
>>theatrical release, a Pepsi in the video release and an RC Cola in the
>>television release.
> In which release does he visit the bathroom?
20th Anniversary Director's Cut. But, instead of peeing, he'll simply be
using a walkie-talkie.
KGename
>Date: 7/22/02 10:23 AM Eastern writes:
>
>>Reminds me of a story my friend Nancy told of a hotel in Detroit that used
>>to host & advertise an annual Monopoly tournament. Parker Bros.' lawyers
>>complained about the unauthorized use of their name, so the tournament still
>>takes place, except now they advertise it as a "Monotony" tournament. I
>>don't understand what Parker's complaint was; I'd've PAID for publicity like
>>that.
>
> Yeah, well, who knows? Maybe they wanted some fee? Maybe there was something
>dodgy about the way the hotel put it on? Maybe they just want PB involved in
>all uses of PB property.
>
>> Plus I don't think they had a case.
>
>Everyone's got a case. There's a right to certain limited use of trademark; a
>mechanic may advertize that he repairs Volkswagen, Ford, and Acura.
----
Only if he gets permission from those manufacturers....and he probably won't,
because he'd be horning in on the dealer's repair business.
I know of this because in the HVAC business, a few new companys will put "We
repair...(The names of every furnace and air conditioner mfg)..." in their
advertisements, including the telephone book ad. A month later, the first
"cease and desist" orders will start rolling in to his mailbox from many of
those manufacturers. The next year, the phone book ads say only "We repair all
makes and models". The only specific brand(s) in his ad is the brand(s) that he
actually sells and has the OK to mention.
73,
Keith
*TASKMASTER EXTRAORDINAIRE*
--Revolutions halted--Tigers tamed--Computers verified--Time warped--
--Uprisings quelled--Creationism disproven--Dictators overthrown--
--'Pi' calculated completely--Female minds understood--
Lalbert1
<n...@nowhere.com> writes:
>In article <20020721210635...@mb-ml.aol.com>, lalbert1
>@aol.com says...
>> In article <MPG.17a4f0d17dae604d989763@news-server>, Slartibartfast
>> <n...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> I didn't see MIB2, but there was a lot of product placement in "Minority
>> Report". It can bring in a lot of money to the producer. According to
>> Variety, product placement in "Minority Report" was worth $25 million.
>>
>I didn't notice the product placement so much in "Minority Report"
>because it was integrated more into the plot. The hero runs into a mall
>and walks into The Gap. He needs to buy new clothes. OK, that fits.
>
>With MIB2 it just seemed much more forced. It was like they had
>negotiated with the advertiser that the camera would linger on the brand
>name for at least 5 seconds.....
You're right that the product placement seemed more integrated in "Minority
Report", but there was a lot of it. The film showed not only the Gap but
Lexus, Nokia, Aquafina, Guiness, Reebok, Pepsi, American Express, and Bulgari.
There may be others but those are the products I remember. Oddly enough, the
product that got the most screen time was Bulgari; they showed a full screen
shot of that watch at least 3 times. It's odd because that's not the kind of
product that is considered a mass-market item.
Les
StarChaser Tyger
Geahan<pmge...@chartermi.net> !
>John Hatpin <ag...@brooremovemekview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>I think this will get worse. I read some time ago about how the technology
>>>is there to replace products in movies. A character may drink a Coke in the
>>>theatrical release, a Pepsi in the video release and an RC Cola in the
>>>television release.
>
>> In which release does he visit the bathroom?
>
>
>20th Anniversary Director's Cut. But, instead of peeing, he'll simply be
>using a walkie-talkie.
...asking someone where his dick went.
StarChaser Tyger
>You're right that the product placement seemed more integrated in "Minority
>Report", but there was a lot of it. The film showed not only the Gap but
>Lexus, Nokia, Aquafina, Guiness, Reebok, Pepsi, American Express, and Bulgari.
>There may be others but those are the products I remember. Oddly enough, the
>product that got the most screen time was Bulgari; they showed a full screen
>shot of that watch at least 3 times. It's odd because that's not the kind of
>product that is considered a mass-market item.
People will pay a lot of money for something a favorite actor or
character wore. Do a search for "Neo's boots". The boots they wore at
the end of 'The Matrix' were custom made from Nike Airwalk boots that
were only in limited release in Australia, I think, and there are
'Where can I get these boots' questions all over the place.
<How do I know? I wanted the boots too...>
Jim Ellwanger
lalb...@aol.com (Lalbert1) wrote:
> You're right that the product placement seemed more integrated in "Minority
> Report", but there was a lot of it. The film showed not only the Gap but
> Lexus, Nokia, Aquafina, Guiness, Reebok, Pepsi, American Express, and
> Bulgari.
And we're supposed to believe that none of those companies will change
their logos between 2002 and 2054.
--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com> welcomes you daily.
"The days turn into nights; at night, you hear the trains."
John Hatpin
>We get signal. What you say? It's lalb...@aol.com (Lalbert1) !
>
>>You're right that the product placement seemed more integrated in "Minority
>>Report", but there was a lot of it. The film showed not only the Gap but
>>Lexus, Nokia, Aquafina, Guiness, Reebok, Pepsi, American Express, and Bulgari.
>>There may be others but those are the products I remember. Oddly enough, the
>>product that got the most screen time was Bulgari; they showed a full screen
>>shot of that watch at least 3 times. It's odd because that's not the kind of
>>product that is considered a mass-market item.
>
>People will pay a lot of money for something a favorite actor or
>character wore. Do a search for "Neo's boots". The boots they wore at
>the end of 'The Matrix' were custom made from Nike Airwalk boots that
>were only in limited release in Australia, I think, and there are
>'Where can I get these boots' questions all over the place.
>
><How do I know? I wanted the boots too...>
Those boots were made for promoting Nike's more mainstream products by
association in the minds of 18-35 filmgoers, which constitute their
target marketing audience.
And that's just what they'll do.
One of these days those boots are gonna
Promote Nike's more mainstream products all over you by association in
the minds of 18-35 filmgoers, which constitute their target marketing
audience.
It's like the 1960s never happened, isn't it?
--
John Hatpin
The AFCA Kid
>>Everyone's got a case. There's a right to certain limited use of trademark;
>a
>>mechanic may advertize that he repairs Volkswagen, Ford, and Acura.
>----
> Only if he gets permission from those manufacturers...
No, I'm afraid that isn't so, as:
"A good example of this is Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church, 411
F.2d 350 (9th Cir.1969), where we held that Volkswagen could not prevent an
automobile repair shop from using its mark. We recognized that in "advertising
[the repair of Volkswagens, it] would be difficult, if not impossible, for
[Church] to avoid altogether the use of the word 'Volkswagen' or its
abbreviation 'VW,' which are the normal terms which, to the public at large,
signify appellant's cars." Id. at 352. Church did not suggest to customers that
he was part of the Volkswagen organization or that his repair shop was
sponsored or authorized by VW; he merely used the words "Volkswagen" and "VW"
to convey information about the types of cars he repaired. Therefore, his use
of the Volkswagen trademark was not an infringing use."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/Fisher/integrity/Links/Cases/newki
ds.html
>and he probably
>won't,
>because he'd be horning in on the dealer's repair business.
>
> I know of this because in the HVAC business, a few new companys will put
>"We
>repair...(The names of every furnace and air conditioner mfg)..." in their
>advertisements, including the telephone book ad. A month later, the first
>"cease and desist" orders will start rolling in to his mailbox from many of
>those manufacturers.
Tear 'em up and throw 'em away: nominative fair use, my man.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
GrapeApe
>
>not advertise for other companies. The New Yankee workshop used to tape
>
>over the brand names of all the woodworking machines. Roseanne used to
>
>have cmpletely generic (ie black and white) labels on everything.
Archie Bunker drank some beer that didn't adopt the generic look that came in
the late seventies, but it wasn't a real brand either. What did it resemble to
you? Looked like Ballantines to me.
GrapeApe
>for what they saw only as crass commercialism,
It's a bit odd that they didn't also see that he was doing so as commentary on
society.
GrapeApe
>realism of the movie. The fact that Tom Cruise walked into a Gap and was
>
>offered a Guinness made it more believable for me.
Where is this Gap?
kay w
Les:
>> You're right that the product placement seemed more integrated in "Minority
>> Report", but there was a lot of it. The film showed not only the Gap but
>> Lexus, Nokia, Aquafina, Guiness, Reebok, Pepsi, American Express, and
>> Bulgari.
JimE:
>And we're supposed to believe that none of those companies will change
>their logos between 2002 and 2054
The Script Cola-Cola logo has been around, unchanged, since 1886, so it *could*
happen.
--
kay w
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose, evidence to the contrary not
withstanding.
John Hatpin
Film critics are rarely noted for their intellectual powers. Most
think "irony" describes the taste of broccoli.
--
John Hatpin
Estron
> Reminds me of a story my friend Nancy told of a hotel in
> Detroit that used to host & advertise an annual Monopoly
> tournament. Parker Bros.' lawyers complained about the
> unauthorized use of their name, so the tournament still
> takes place, except now they advertise it as a "Monotony"
> tournament.
Thus moving closer to truth in advertising.
--
All opinions expressed are only that.
Pax vobiscum
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Bob Ward
Kid) wrote:
>-:
>-:Everyone's got a case. There's a right to certain limited use of trademark; a
>-:mechanic may advertize that he repairs Volkswagen, Ford, and Acura. I am not at
>-:all sure this is the same thing, since a boardgame tournament is not
>-:necessarily part of the ordinary businesses of a hotel in the way fixing a car
>-:is of a mechanics, after all.
Apparently the car masnufacturers have a problem with the mechanic
calling himself "Joe's Honda Repair", though - There is, however, a
local "House of H*nda" shop down the block.
I kind of like the infomercial for the amazing dent removal system
that scrolls a long list of the makes and models the product will work
on.
--
This space left intentionally blank
GrapeApe
Back then, most of them could read, as most of them were writing their reviews.
I don't think the dummies really entered the field much until Fatty and Skinny
got their PBS show, and the form seemed viable for the tee vee, so anyone that
could flap their jaws about a flick could do so.
At least, I'd like to think useless brownosers like Jeffrey Lyons weren't that
important to the marketing of movies then.
Opus the Penguin
> Archie Bunker drank some beer that didn't adopt the generic look
> that came in the late seventies, but it wasn't a real brand
> either. What did it resemble to you? Looked like Ballantines to
> me.
And all the evil smokers on X-Files smoke Morley cigarettes. Of course
in that case, the producers could have gotten in trouble for placement
of a product that cannot be legally advertised in the television medium
in the US.
--
Opus the Penguin
"Dude, buy a vowel. You're being a stupid-head." - Huey
Lord Jubjub
Slartibartfast <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Worse, that only only done in the trailers. In the actual movie, they
used the original image of the billboard.
--
Lord Jubjub
Ruler of the Jabberwocky, Guardian of the Wabe, Prince of the Slithy Toves,
Leader of the Raths, Keeper of the Bandersnatch
groo
>
>
> Could be worse. "All the other restaurants were wiped out in the
> Restaurant War. All that's left is Taco Bell.", and the jingles as
> 'music' in 'Demolition Man', or the half mile high McD's logo in
> 'Fifth Element'.
>
Didn't they say something like "All restaurants are Taco Bell now"? I
thought it was the only redeeming feature of the entire movie.
- groo
Even including Sly's acting.
tooloud
news:20020722143552...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> Previously,
>
> Les:
> >> You're right that the product placement seemed more integrated in
"Minority
> >> Report", but there was a lot of it. The film showed not only the Gap
but
> >> Lexus, Nokia, Aquafina, Guiness, Reebok, Pepsi, American Express, and
> >> Bulgari.
>
> JimE:
> >And we're supposed to believe that none of those companies will change
> >their logos between 2002 and 2054
>
> The Script Cola-Cola logo has been around, unchanged, since 1886, so it
*could*
> happen.
Ford?
> --
> kay w
> Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose, evidence to the contrary
not
> withstanding.
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
tooloud
news:20020722141436...@mb-ck.aol.com...
Mind the Gap?
danny burstein
>> >And we're supposed to believe that none of those companies will change
>> >their logos between 2002 and 2054
>>
>> The Script Cola-Cola logo has been around, unchanged, since 1886, so it
>*could* happen.
>Ford?
let's not forget NASA's "meatball"
danny " we'll blot out that short term replacement from memory " burstein
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Lots42
>The New Yankee workshop used to tape
>over the brand names of all the woodworking machines. Roseanne used to
>have cmpletely generic (ie black and white) labels on everything.
'Friends' and 'News Radio' used to have 'Ickers' candy bards and 'Heatie'
cereal.
SoCalMike
"kay w" <scu...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20020722143552...@mb-fi.aol.com...
>
> Les:
> >> You're right that the product placement seemed more integrated in
"Minority
> >> Report", but there was a lot of it. The film showed not only the Gap
but
> >> Lexus, Nokia, Aquafina, Guiness, Reebok, Pepsi, American Express, and
> >> Bulgari.
>
> JimE:
> >And we're supposed to believe that none of those companies will change
> >their logos between 2002 and 2054
>
> The Script Cola-Cola logo has been around, unchanged, since 1886, so it
*could*
> happen.
its been around, but not used all the time. shasta has some retro-looking
cans out. i wonder if thats an original design from the past?
SoCalMike
"Bob Ward" <bob....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:quanju4aj7k07edc7...@4ax.com...
did they leave any out?
GrapeApe
>its been around, but not used all the time. shasta has some retro-looking
>cans out. i wonder if thats an original design from the past
I haven't seen a Shasta can in 20 years.
Bob Ward
<mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>-:
>-:"Bob Ward" <bob....@verizon.net> wrote in message
>-:news:quanju4aj7k07edc7...@4ax.com...
>-:> On 22 Jul 2002 15:58:10 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comseven (The AFCA
>-:> Kid) wrote:
>-:>
>-:> >-:
>-:> >-:Everyone's got a case. There's a right to certain limited use of
>-:trademark; a
>-:> >-:mechanic may advertize that he repairs Volkswagen, Ford, and Acura. I
>-:am not at
>-:> >-:all sure this is the same thing, since a boardgame tournament is not
>-:> >-:necessarily part of the ordinary businesses of a hotel in the way
>-:fixing a car
>-:> >-:is of a mechanics, after all.
>-:>
>-:> Apparently the car masnufacturers have a problem with the mechanic
>-:> calling himself "Joe's Honda Repair", though - There is, however, a
>-:> local "House of H*nda" shop down the block.
>-:>
>-:> I kind of like the infomercial for the amazing dent removal system
>-:> that scrolls a long list of the makes and models the product will work
>-:> on.
>-:
>-:did they leave any out?
>-:
I don't think that Saturn, Fiero, or Corvette should be on the list.
StarChaser Tyger
Yeah, I think that came just before the line I quoted. I was doing it
from memory, so...
Bob E.
...no Gummy Shakespeares? --Bob
================================================================================
Bob Ellingson bo...@halted.com
Halted Specialties Co., Inc. http://www.halted.com
3500 Ryder St. (408) 732-1573
Santa Clara, Calif. 95051 USA (408) 732-6428 (FAX)
Blinky the Shark
news:20020722141244...@mb-ck.aol.com:
Here's a scan from something on one of the Blinky bookshelves, that
I dragged home from some show I did. Beneath the overlabels, the
can is full of *something*, and looks like The Real Deal...
http://web.newsguy.com/dogfish/stuff/oldmik.jpg
--
Blinky
Blinky the Shark
news:ahi61d$tc8gd$1...@ID-121148.news.dfncis.de:
> "kay w" <scu...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
>> The Script Cola-Cola logo has been around, unchanged, since
>> 1886, so it *could* happen.
>
> Ford?
Here's a *claim* (mercy killings welcome) to the "oldest logo in
continuous use in the world".
http://www.twinings.com/en_gb/history_tradition/movers.html
--
Blinky
Alan Hamilton
wrote:
>I think that thechnology is already here. There was a controversy
>regarding Spider-man, because they digitally replaced an ad (huge
>electronic billboard) in TImes Square with one of the sponsor's ads.
I think there was also a case involving ABC's Y2K show. They replaced
at least one ad in the shot out of their studio.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
Mike Muth
> "GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
> news:20020722141436...@mb-ck.aol.com...
> > >Personally, I prefer *some* product placement. To me, it adds to the
> > >realism of the movie. The fact that Tom Cruise walked into a Gap and
> > Where is this Gap?
> Mind the Gap?
I just finished reading _Neverwhere_, so that was the first thing which
popped into my mind when I read "Where is this Gap?"
Mike
"Some [German wine] has such a close relation to vinegar that it takes a
lot of patriotism to drink it. Today we call it 'dry wine.'"
- Manfred Rommel
Greg Goss
>Reminds me of a story my friend Nancy told of a hotel in Detroit that used
>to host & advertise an annual Monopoly tournament. Parker Bros.' lawyers
>complained about the unauthorized use of their name, so the tournament still
>takes place, except now they advertise it as a "Monotony" tournament. I
>don't understand what Parker's complaint was; I'd've PAID for publicity like
>that. Plus I don't think they had a case.
I remember hearing a case in the mid-nineties. An elementary school
was painted with a mural of Disney characters. The evil empire
brought suit over the dilution of their trademarks and insisted that
the school had to be repainted within a week. The original news story
in some local weekly paper involved the school administration
complaining about the cost and awkwardness of lining up a new paint
job on such short notice and tight budgets.
On Monday, Warner Brothers arrived with a team of painters and
publicists, offering to do the repaint job for free, complete with
toon characters
Disney did not get come out ahead in that instance. .
--
...the oldest story in the history of hegemonic powers. The dominant
power concentrates (to its detriment) on the military; the candidate
for successor concentrates on the economy. (Immanuel Wallerstein)
Greg Goss
>Here's a *claim* (mercy killings welcome) to the "oldest logo in
>continuous use in the world".
Doesn't the "fish grafitti" take that distinction? Or the ankh?
Greg Goss
>It should happen in this order (for example):
>
>1) Plot calls for the characters to go into a donut shot
>2) See if Duncan donuts wants to pay us to use their store
>
>Not:
>
>1) Duncan donuts is a big marketing partner
>2) Write a donut shop into the story
Did you ever see "State & Main"? They need the sponsor's money,
regardless of the fact that it's really hard to work a dotcom
placement into an 1880s movie.
Greg Goss
>I thought that sponsors paying for product placement was a relatively
>new phenomenon (last 10 years or so). I wonder if those companies paid
>the makers of 2001, or did the writers just think of three companies
>that were sure to still be around by 2001?
The "mouse scene" in Star Trek IV was scripted for an Amiga, but
Macintosh outbid for the placement. 1986. That's the earliest I had
heard of it.
Greg Goss
>Slartibartfast Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:11:29 GMT
><MPG.17a4f0d17dae604d989763@news-server>
>>Later, Zed is told to
>>call someone on a cell phone. The bad alien sets the phone down on the
>>table. Zoom in just a little too long so we can all see clearly that it
>>is a sprint phone.
>
>Suntori spent, I imagine, quite a bit of money for a highly visible ad
>at 48th Street between 7th and Broadway[1]. In the movie _Spider-Man_,
>it was covered by the digital image of an ad for Cingular. Fine, except
>the amount of time it was shown as a Cingular ad was less than half the
>time it was shown.
One network composited their own feed over the jumbotron that some
other network had paid for at the Millennium celebration in Times
Square. I got quite offended at the editing and real-time
modification of "live news".
Blinky the Shark
news:rh4qju0638bt19j2m...@4ax.com:
Insert "commercial" in front of "logo" in my original.
--
Blinky
GrapeApe
>Macintosh outbid for the placement. 1986. That's the earliest I had
>heard of it.
E.T. was 1982. Surely you heard something about that most blatant product
placement even if you did not see the movie.
GrapeApe
>>to host & advertise an annual Monopoly tournament. Parker Bros.' lawyers
>>complained about the unauthorized use of their name, so the tournament
>still
>>takes place, except now they advertise it as a "Monotony" tournament.
>I
>>don't understand what Parker's complaint was; I'd've PAID for publicity
>like
>>that. Plus I don't think they had a case.
In that case, they are concerned that the public WILL think it is sanctioned
and supported by Parker Brothers, and they will spend man hours fielding
questions about the tournament, because peope will be calling THEM, not the
tournament organizers. Manhours they do not want to spend money on.
If it was PB sponsored, they would have the PR machinery in place- they don't
want to get caught short not knowing anything every time a fan sets up
something.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>I think it is actually *more* jarring when shows go out of their way to
>>not advertise for other companies. The New Yankee workshop used to tape
>>over the brand names of all the woodworking machines. Roseanne used to
>>have cmpletely generic (ie black and white) labels on everything.
> Archie Bunker drank some beer that didn't adopt the generic look that came in
> the late seventies, but it wasn't a real brand either. What did it resemble to
> you? Looked like Ballantines to me.
The bestof this was IMO _Repo Man_ where the only people to send products
for placement were the guys to make those tree shaped airfresheners. So
they figured prominently. Everything else, *everything* was in the black
and white plain lable generic, including some drugs early on.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
>>-:> I kind of like the infomercial for the amazing dent removal system
>>-:> that scrolls a long list of the makes and models the product will work
>>-:> on.
>>-:
>>-:did they leave any out?
>>-:
> I don't think that Saturn, Fiero, or Corvette should be on the list.
All of those cars have some metal panels that can get dented.
RM Mentock
Yes didn't the script call for m&ms, but they wouldn't come across?
Product placements had to have been earlier than that
--
RM Mentock
C. K. Monet, c'est moi
Estron
> I remember hearing a case in the mid-nineties. An elementary school
> was painted with a mural of Disney characters. The evil empire
> brought suit over the dilution of their trademarks and insisted that
> the school had to be repainted within a week. The original news story
> in some local weekly paper involved the school administration
> complaining about the cost and awkwardness of lining up a new paint
> job on such short notice and tight budgets.
>
> On Monday, Warner Brothers arrived with a team of painters and
> publicists, offering to do the repaint job for free, complete with
> toon characters.
This sounded like an urban legend to me, but in almost all
respects, it is true. The ever-popular Snopes site says:
"When Disney discovered in 1989 that three Hallandale, Florida,
day care centers had 5-foot-high likenesses of trademarked Disney
characters such as Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Goofy painted
on their walls, Disney threatened to go to court if the centers
did not remove the drawings. The threat of legal action did not
need to be carried out, as the centers replaced the drawings with
cartoon characters belonging to Universal Studios Florida and
Hanna-Barbera Productions, who volunteered the use of their
character art as part of a publicity ploy.
(some material omitted)
. . . Universal Studios Florida and Hanna-Barbera Productions
offered the centers the use of characters from their own
cartoons, such as Scooby-Doo, the Flintstones, the Jetsons, and
Yogi Bear. Universal and Hanna-Barbera then held a special
ceremony showcasing the newly-redecorated day care centers at the
Temple Messanique on August 8, 1989, attended by costumed
characters and executives from both organizations.
The URL for this page is
http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.htm
--
All opinions expressed are only that.
Pax vobiscum
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Lesmond
>
>The bestof this was IMO _Repo Man_ where the only people to send products
>for placement were the guys to make those tree shaped airfresheners.
"There's one in every car."
_
Half-painted pictures are all that remain.
kay w
>> I remember hearing a case in the mid-nineties. An elementary school
>> was painted with a mural of Disney characters. The evil empire
>> brought suit over the dilution of their trademarks
I remember that (or remember discussions about it) and still don't understand
why people think that was so evil of Disney to protect its property. Day care
centers are money making propositions like any other business; I can't think
people would be surprised over problems with a Men In Black Saloon, or a Dallas
Cowboy Cheerleader Motel; just because these Disney characters are cartoons
doesn't make them any less valuable or any less "property".
Besides, if Disney (or whoever) *doesn't* protect their trademarks even from
relatively innocuous use, doesn't it just make it that much harder for them to
defend against the Sleeping Beauty Whorehouse, or the Snow White Casino?
--
kay w
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose, evidence to the contrary not
withstanding.
Lalbert1
<men...@mindspring.com> writes:
Snippets from the product placement archives:
"Product placement has occurred in the film business since the 1930s..." (but
can't find any examples. Probably a lot of cigarette brand placements).
"The first product placement in a James Bond movie was the Aston Martin in the
1964 classic Goldfinger. Aston Martin was extremely dubious about the
proposal, feeling it might lower the tone of their luxurious cars. In the end
they sold - not gave - three cars to the film company, only to see the car
become an icon of the era. After that manufacturers were falling over one
another to get their products into Bond movies."
"Desk Set in 1957 - This is one of the earliest, and most blatant, examples of
product placement with the film's association with IBM. IBM had hoped that the
public would come out of the film a little less intimidated by computers."
Les
Margaret Kane
"kay w" <scu...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
> Previously, Greg said, in small part:
>
> >> I remember hearing a case in the mid-nineties. An elementary school
> >> was painted with a mural of Disney characters. The evil empire
> >> brought suit over the dilution of their trademarks
>
> I remember that (or remember discussions about it) and still don't
understand
> why people think that was so evil of Disney to protect its property. Day
care
> centers are money making propositions like any other business; I can't
think
> people would be surprised over problems with a Men In Black Saloon, or a
Dallas
> Cowboy Cheerleader Motel; just because these Disney characters are
cartoons
> doesn't make them any less valuable or any less "property".
>
> Besides, if Disney (or whoever) *doesn't* protect their trademarks even
from
> relatively innocuous use, doesn't it just make it that much harder for
them to
> defend against the Sleeping Beauty Whorehouse, or the Snow White Casino?
Well, and also, it could give the impression that Disney is somehow in
charge of or endorses the day care center. Then when it's discovered they're
actually a front for drug-money-laundering, there's Mickey in the live shot
on the news.
Margaret Kane Schoen
rob...@bestweb.net
It was an annual tournament, established for some years. I can't see how
Parker gets hurt in the least by its being publicized, and in fact they'd
seem to benefit. If people are calling them, what more could they ask? How
much more work could their name do for them, than actually (as in your
scenario) getting people to look the company up and phone them? They should
COMPLAIN about getting such calls?!
Do you believe Parker would similarly object to an advertised Ping-Pong
tournament?
I think this would come under the "exhaustion" doctrine in trademark law.
If someone has to buy the game to play it (as in a tournament), Parker is
already getting all it's entitled to. Chevrolet doesn't try to get you to
pay them for driving around with their logo.
Robert
Lots42
>I remember that (or remember discussions about it) and still don't understand
>why people think that was so evil of Disney to protect its property. Day
>care
>centers are money making propositions like any other business;
The copyright holders for the story of Helen Keller refused to allow members of
a church play (one I was in) to portray said story.
So we showed them (not really) and did a play on a dum company not allowing a
church to act out their story. We won first place in the first round. (And lost
horribly in the next).
Wheee!
Bob Ward
>-:Bob Ward <bob....@verizon.net> wrote:
>-:>>-:> I kind of like the infomercial for the amazing dent removal system
>-:>>-:> that scrolls a long list of the makes and models the product will work
>-:>>-:> on.
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:did they leave any out?
>-:>>-:
>-:
>-:> I don't think that Saturn, Fiero, or Corvette should be on the list.
>-:
>-:All of those cars have some metal panels that can get dented.
>-:
>-:
>-:John
Body panels? Cite?
StarChaser Tyger
>Slartibartfast <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>I thought that sponsors paying for product placement was a relatively
>>new phenomenon (last 10 years or so). I wonder if those companies paid
>>the makers of 2001, or did the writers just think of three companies
>>that were sure to still be around by 2001?
>
>The "mouse scene" in Star Trek IV was scripted for an Amiga, but
>Macintosh outbid for the placement. 1986. That's the earliest I had
>heard of it.
The second Christopher Reeves Superman movie, in the big fight at the
end, pretty much everything they hit said 'Marlboro' on it. That was
in 1980.
The AFCA Kid
Date: 7/23/02 12:03 PM Eastern writes:
>I think this would come under the "exhaustion" doctrine in trademark law.
Something that's being increasingly legislated away, mind you...
>If someone has to buy the game to play it (as in a tournament), Parker is
>already getting all it's entitled to.
Heh. Why not just stop talking? Remember how wrong you were about "Reverse
Passing Off?"
>Chevrolet doesn't try to get you to
>pay them for driving around with their logo.
Why don't you see what kind of cases you can find, and upon what issues they
turned, rather than your own spaceman blather? Wouldn't that be the AFCA way?
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>Besides, if Disney (or whoever) *doesn't* protect their trademarks even from
>relatively innocuous use, doesn't it just make it that much harder for them
>to
>defend against the Sleeping Beauty Whorehouse, or the Snow White Casino?
Yes, exactly. Or, say, the use of a character something like Snow White in a
Ford ad, and keep in mind some of the IP associated with Disney characters is
fairly limited; how many ways are there to make a cuddly bear or a fairy tale
princess or an evil queen/witch/stepmother?
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>
>The copyright holders for the story of Helen Keller refused to allow members
>of
>a church play (one I was in) to portray said story.
No, that's not true.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
kay w
Me(kay):
>>I remember that (or remember discussions about it) and still don't
>understand
>>why people think that was so evil of Disney to protect its property. Day
care
>>centers are money making propositions like any other business;
lots42:
>The copyright holders for the story of Helen Keller refused to allow members
of
>a church play (one I was in) to portray said story.
>So we showed them (not really) and did a play on a dum company not allowing a
>church to act out their story. We won first place in the first round. (And
lost horribly in the next).
So, what's your point? If you mean they wouldn't let you use the script to
"The Miracle Worker", well it's their property...because you were in a church
group you think you ought to be exempt from copyright law? When a high school
theater group does "Hello, Dolly", they aren't making money, but certainly have
to pay for use of the scripts.
Or are you saying that your church ought to be able to do plays about real
people without any restiction?
David Tarkowski
The Saturns have metal hoods, roofs, and trunks. The side panels are
"plastic." The source is my car. And, no, I don't know why the metal parts
are metal.
-Dave
--
"Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball" -SNL
Delicious One
> Sometimes it can be funny, though...In 'Kung Pow: Enter The Fist' a
> little old man walks through a courtyard singing "Taco Bell, Taco
> Bell, product placement for Taco Bell"...
There's also a scene where the old master has been terribly injured,
and the Chosen One is carrying him back to the dojo. As they're
walking through the old-style Chinese village, the dubbing has him
saying, "Tell me if you see a Radio Shack." Kung Pow is a great parody
of the martial arts genre and of movies in general. I was very
suprised by how funny it was, since the previews were pretty lame. I
even ordered it on DVD, and it comes out today. Can't wait to see what
the extras are like. Oedekerk's insane.
As long as it's funny, I'm cool with product placement. Otherwise, I
just make a note to myself not to buy that product. Probably be more
effective if I was writing letters to the companies sharing my
decision with them ...
Bob Ward
Tarkowski) wrote:
>-:On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:51:25 -0700, Bob Ward <bob....@verizon.net> wrote:
>-:> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:07:12 GMT, ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>-:>
>-:>>-:> I don't think that Saturn, Fiero, or Corvette should be on the list.
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:All of those cars have some metal panels that can get dented.
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:
>-:>>-:John
>-:>
>-:>
>-:> Body panels? Cite?
>-:
>-:The Saturns have metal hoods, roofs, and trunks. The side panels are
>-:"plastic." The source is my car. And, no, I don't know why the metal parts
>-:are metal.
>-:
>-:-Dave
OK - strike Saturn from the list... Any takers on Corvette?
Estron
> Chevrolet doesn't try to get you to pay them for driving around
> with their logo.
The person who originally owned my car paid Chevrolet thousands
for the privilege.
Anyway, it's a wash, since I'm not trying to get Chevy to pay me
for operating a rolling billboard for its "bowtie."
Lots42
>
>So, what's your point? If you mean they wouldn't let you use the script to
>"The Miracle Worker", well it's their property...because you were in a church
>group you think you ought to be exempt from copyright law?
Not my point. I was indicating that whether or not it made money is not a
factor in copyright law.
> Or are you saying that your church ought to be able to do plays about real
>people without any restiction?
I don't see why not. It's a silly rule, IMHO.
SoCalMike
>
> Besides, if Disney (or whoever) *doesn't* protect their trademarks even
from
> relatively innocuous use, doesn't it just make it that much harder for
them to
> defend against the Sleeping Beauty Whorehouse, or the Snow White Casino?
what about thewizard of oz? would "the yellow brick road" preschool be able
to use characters? is it in the public domain?
SoCalMike
<ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
news:Quc%8.1023$7t.12...@newshog.newsread.com...
> GrapeApe <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote:
> >>I think it is actually *more* jarring when shows go out of their way to
> >>not advertise for other companies. The New Yankee workshop used to tape
> >>over the brand names of all the woodworking machines. Roseanne used to
> >>have cmpletely generic (ie black and white) labels on everything.
>
> > Archie Bunker drank some beer that didn't adopt the generic look that
came in
> > the late seventies, but it wasn't a real brand either. What did it
resemble to
> > you? Looked like Ballantines to me.
>
> The bestof this was IMO _Repo Man_ where the only people to send products
> for placement were the guys to make those tree shaped airfresheners. So
> they figured prominently. Everything else, *everything* was in the black
> and white plain lable generic, including some drugs early on.
>
and that generic brand could be bought at ralphs.... really!
rob...@bestweb.net
But it's not just that. Even if it stopped at schools, the school was
getting something from the use of the copyrighted characters in terms of
entertainment value. In addition, there's some trademark dilution there
too, in that the school's rendering of the characters could be inferred to
mean they were licensed, that the school was a Disney brand.
Obviously the publicity is a 2-way street, in that Warner donated the
license for and labor and creative value to make their own mural. But it's
a judgement call; in this case it was probably influenced by Warner's gain
by showing up Disney.
It's quite the reverse of the Monopoly tournament case. There the hotel by
using the name was advertising the Monopoly game for exactly the use it was
sold for. The hotel wasn't calling itself "The Monopoly Hotel" or any such,
and it wasn't running off unauthorized copies of Monopoly boards or other
proprietary equipment. There the publicity value runs entirely the other
way, with Parker Bros. gaining from the hotel's advertising of the
tournament.
I could see SOME similar cases wherein a supplier might want to, and
possibly contract to, keep its name off the premises. Someone might
private-label a generic version of its otherwise branded linens, furniture,
etc. to a hotel. They might want to keep the product's identity a secret
because the product might have some snob appeal that doesn't fit the image
of that hotel. In other cases the appeal would run the other way, so that
the hotel might insist the supplier not publicize that the items used there
are really their brand without the label. However, the situation is very
different in the Monopoly tournament, where the name "Monopoly" is plastered
all over the games in use.
The only thing I can figure is that when you hire lawyers, they gotta do
SOMEthin'. Parker had lawyers. Their loss.
Robert
SoCalMike
"Lesmond" <Les...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:yrfzbaqsnfgarg....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:03:44 GMT, ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> >
> >The bestof this was IMO _Repo Man_ where the only people to send products
> >for placement were the guys to make those tree shaped airfresheners.
>
> "There's one in every car."
shrimp... plate.... shrimp plate!
SoCalMike
<ra...@westnet.poe.com> wrote in message
news:4yc%8.1025$7t.12...@newshog.newsread.com...
> Bob Ward <bob....@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>-:> I kind of like the infomercial for the amazing dent removal system
> >>-:> that scrolls a long list of the makes and models the product will
work
> >>-:> on.
> >>-:
> >>-:did they leave any out?
> >>-:
>
> > I don't think that Saturn, Fiero, or Corvette should be on the list.
>
> All of those cars have some metal panels that can get dented.
the saturn uses steel for the horizontal panels, the fiero is pretty much
all thermoresin, and the vette is all fiberglass. IIRC, of course. any metal
panels that ARE there are probably part of the structure, and would be too
strong to get a dent out using that kit. YMMV, of course.
SoCalMike
> >
> >
> > Body panels? Cite?
>
> The Saturns have metal hoods, roofs, and trunks. The side panels are
> "plastic." The source is my car. And, no, I don't know why the metal
parts
> are metal.
because metal is cheaper, and the whole selling point was "shopping cart
dings", or lack of them. unless someone drops a cart on your saturn, of
course.
GrapeApe
>to
>>"The Miracle Worker", well it's their property...because you were in a
>church
>>group you think you ought to be exempt from copyright law?
>
>Not my point. I was indicating that whether or not it made money is not
>a
>factor in copyright law.
It factors in if you want to purchase a performance rights license to
copyrighted material. You still have to pay their minimum fee, and they may
want a percentage of gross ticket sales over a certain number of heads in the
audience.
Now perhaps they were saying they were actually excercising their rights of
refusal on other grounds, such as your church being the Satanic Church of Bad
Helen Keller Jokes or whatever. But my guess is, they didn't have a package
your church could afford to produce. It may have included a certain level of
costuming and set design, and a guarantee of a certain audience size and run,
or available only to permanant commercial theatrical venues. There are a lot
of plays that are not available at all to the Community Theatre market.
StarChaser Tyger
!
>StarChaser Tyger <starc...@mindless.com> wrote in message news:<33umjuoogs2qo68nh...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Sometimes it can be funny, though...In 'Kung Pow: Enter The Fist' a
>> little old man walks through a courtyard singing "Taco Bell, Taco
>> Bell, product placement for Taco Bell"...
>
>There's also a scene where the old master has been terribly injured,
>and the Chosen One is carrying him back to the dojo. As they're
>walking through the old-style Chinese village, the dubbing has him
>saying, "Tell me if you see a Radio Shack." Kung Pow is a great parody
>of the martial arts genre and of movies in general. I was very
>suprised by how funny it was, since the previews were pretty lame. I
>even ordered it on DVD, and it comes out today. Can't wait to see what
>the extras are like. Oedekerk's insane.
Cool, I got to go get one of those when I can...I missed the 'radio
shack' thing...
>As long as it's funny, I'm cool with product placement. Otherwise, I
>just make a note to myself not to buy that product. Probably be more
>effective if I was writing letters to the companies sharing my
>decision with them ...
I don't mind product placement as long as it's done smoothly. The
Burger King and Sprint thing in MIB2 was irritating. The giant McD's
logo in Fifth Element was crazy enough to be amusing.
rob...@bestweb.net
>Kung Pow is a great
>parody of the martial arts genre and of movies in general. I was
>very suprised by how funny it was, since the previews were pretty
>lame. I even ordered it on DVD, and it comes out today. Can't wait
>to see what the extras are like. Oedekerk's insane.
Did they use schtick fu?
rob...@bestweb.net
>"Reverse Passing Off?"
I wasn't wrong about that! The law is in flux on the issue; sometimes RPO
is actionable, others not.
If "exhaustion" did not come into play at some point, then in the case
described, there'd be no litigation-proof way for someone to resell bulk
product in smaller packages. You take off the name, it's RPO; you leave on
the name, it's unauthorized use of TM on a "different" product. Clearly the
law does not intend such an impasse.
Rober
rob...@bestweb.net
>> Chevrolet doesn't try to get you to pay them for driving around
>> with their logo.
>The person who originally owned my car paid Chevrolet thousands
>for the privilege.
Exactly. That sale exhausted Chevrolet's interest.
Carl Fink
>> Or are you saying that your church ought to be able to do plays about real
>>people without any restiction?
>
> I don't see why not. It's a silly rule, IMHO.
"We're a church, the law doesn't apply to us."
That's only true of tax law.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
The AFCA Kid
Date: 7/23/02 6:38 PM Eastern writes:
>On 2002-07-23 est...@tfs.net said in part:
>
> >> Chevrolet doesn't try to get you to pay them for driving around
> >> with their logo.
>
> >The person who originally owned my car paid Chevrolet thousands
> >for the privilege.
>
>Exactly.
Mmm.
> That sale exhausted Chevrolet's interest.
Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean it applies here. Monopoly doesn't carry any
implied license for tournament play, just as a videotape you purchase or rent
doesn't carry any implied license for public exhibition, etc.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>>
>> Besides, if Disney (or whoever) *doesn't* protect their trademarks even
>from
>> relatively innocuous use, doesn't it just make it that much harder for
>them to
>> defend against the Sleeping Beauty Whorehouse, or the Snow White Casino?
>
>what about thewizard of oz?
Well, that's a little tricky
> would "the yellow brick road" preschool be able
>to use characters?
Maybe. Maybe not. The characters are in the public domain, but their MGM
representation is protected by copyright and trademark.
> is it in the public domain?
The books are, the movies aren't.
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
>>From: scu...@aol.comatose (kay w
>
>>
>>So, what's your point? If you mean they wouldn't let you use the script to
>>"The Miracle Worker", well it's their property...because you were in a
>church
>>group you think you ought to be exempt from copyright law?
>
>Not my point. I was indicating that whether or not it made money is not a
>factor in copyright law.
Well, actually, it is. It would be somewhat dispositive in any "fair use"
defense, how commercial your alleged "fair use" is.
>
>> Or are you saying that your church ought to be able to do plays about real
>>people without any restiction?
>
>I don't see why not.
Well, because a lot of 'The Miracle Worker" is copyrighted, being an original
work of art, at least in large part.
> It's a silly rule, IMHO.
No one is really stopping you from doing your own play about Helen Keller, it
just can't be substantially similar to the original parts of "The Miracle
Worker." Also, there may be rights to publicity in Helen Kellers image and
likeness; why exactly should you be able to use someone else's property without
their permission, anyway?
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
The AFCA Kid
Date: 7/23/02 6:29 PM Eastern writes:
> >Heh. Why not just stop talking? Remember how wrong you were about
> >"Reverse Passing Off?"
>
>I wasn't wrong about that!
Yes, you were quite specifically wrong about that, as was thoroughly cited.
You would not be premitted to rebottle Coca-cola as Robo-Cola
\
>The law is in flux on the issue; sometimes RPO
>is actionable, others not.
RPO is always actionable, not every instance of rebranding is RPO.
>
>If "exhaustion" did not come into play at some point, then in the case
>described, there'd be no litigation-proof way for someone to resell bulk
>product in smaller packages.
Well, they could ask whoever they got it from.
> You take off the name, it's RPO;
Which is illegal.
> you leave on
>the name, it's unauthorized use of TM on a "different" product. Clearly the
>law does not intend such an impasse.
And you know what all about it, again?
--
"Impeach duh-be-yuh"
Matthew W. Miller
<mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> what about thewizard of oz? would "the yellow brick road" preschool be
> able to use characters? is it in the public domain?
Incredibly enough, *yes*-- L. Frank Baum's original book, along with
some (but by no means all) of the sequels, is in the public domain:
The hypothetical preschool would have to make sure they were basing
their use directly on Baum's book, though, and not on, say, the likeness
of Judy Garland (or Diana Ross, or anyone else) as Dorothy, Frank Morgan
as the Wizard, and so forth. Make sure those shoes are *silver*!
--
Matthew W. Miller -- mwmi...@columbus.rr.com
SoCalMike
"Matthew W. Miller" <mwmi...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:slrnajscut....@dhcp9586174.columbus.rr.com...
what if they had copies of the movie posters for the original movie in
their lobby? after all, its just decoration. not like the teachers
themselves dress up like the characters, or anything.
Lots42
>>>people without any restiction?
>>
>> I don't see why not. It's a silly rule, IMHO.
>
>"We're a church, the law doesn't apply to us."
>
>That's only true of tax law.
>--
>Carl Fink
Yes, yes, yes, I know. There are many laws I don't agree with but they are
still laws.
Alan Hamilton
<starc...@mindless.com> wrote:
>We get signal. What you say? It's Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> !
>
>>Slartibartfast <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I thought that sponsors paying for product placement was a relatively
>>>new phenomenon (last 10 years or so). I wonder if those companies paid
>>>the makers of 2001, or did the writers just think of three companies
>>>that were sure to still be around by 2001?
>>
>>The "mouse scene" in Star Trek IV was scripted for an Amiga, but
>>Macintosh outbid for the placement. 1986. That's the earliest I had
>>heard of it.
>
>The second Christopher Reeves Superman movie, in the big fight at the
>end, pretty much everything they hit said 'Marlboro' on it. That was
>in 1980.
2010 (released 1984) prominently featured an Apple //c computer.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com