brands showing in videos and pics

[basschick]

do you ever worry about putting up pics that show a clearly readable and recognizable brand name? i see a lot of underwear with brands that couldn't be easier to recognize, but i also frequently see brands of beer and soda and cigarettes, pants, cars and so on.

so do you not use content with that sort of thing, blur the brands out so they're not readable or figure that the companies who own those brands won't care?

[Adam Mason]

I think they love the exposure! We did a deal with one underwear brand - they supply us with lots of different items to feature in our films ;-)

[milivanili]

do you ever worry about putting up pics that show a clearly readable and recognizable brand name? i see a lot of underwear with brands that couldn't be easier to recognize, but i also frequently see brands of beer and soda and cigarettes, pants, cars and so on.

so do you not use content with that sort of thing, blur the brands out so they're not readable or figure that the companies who own those brands won't care?


I sincerly doubt that Coca Cola would sue a porn company because of one photo of a nude guy with Coke in his hands.

Plus... isn't that something that site owners should be worried about and not affiliates?

I already do lots of retouching, resizing and what not of affiliate photos, let alone worry about brand recognized in it...

[GoldBarsxxx]

Funny you mention that. I always try my best to avoid brand names in our studios or hotel rooms for that matter. Even when I go shopping for costumes/clothes I make sure they are generic with no names. You can never be too sure!

[dzinerbear]

I hate the current trend in TV to blur out any brand who hasn't paid for advertising. Whether it's a money grab for more ad dollars or to avoid a lawsuit, I think it's stupid.

I would never avoid using content with branding unless I thought the content was really crossing some big line, and then, I likely wouldn't be using it for other reasons.

Michael

Cheers
Michael

[tigermom]

I try to avoid brand names in content showing up on my sites. What the sponsors do on the paysites doesn't bother me - it's lawsuits against my sites on my hosting and domain names that I don't want to risk.

[Tube4Gay]

I hate the current trend in TV to blur out any brand who hasn't paid for advertising. Whether it's a money grab for more ad dollars or to avoid a lawsuit, I think it's stupid.

Cheers
Michael

Where do they do that - is that in the UK?
I agree its stupid if they do.

[Seth]

We ask people to not show up wearing clothing or hats with over-sized logos. However, I'm not overly concerned about it. I think if something is caught on camera, it's more incidental. In today's over commercialized homogenized world, we're surrounded by the Nike swoosh, Ralf Lauren Polo, Levi's Red Tab, Old Navy crap, etc.

Now if you were to make a brand brand the subject of the scene, you might have a problem.

What does shock me is that I still see sites putting up new videos using popular/very recognizable music in the background or even as part of the video itself.

[Titanmen]

It always makes good business sense NOT to show major brands or logos in your films. I know of at least one case were a major adult studio ended up having to pay almost $100,000 to settle a logo trademark infringement claim. It’s just not worth the risk.

[abostonboy]

From my understand clothes are ok, but anything else is a no-no.

I could be wrong, but I believe that to be the case that clothes are ok showing brands.

[abostonboy]

What does shock me is that I still see sites putting up new videos using popular/very recognizable music in the background or even as part of the video itself.

I have noticed a lot of that lately and that is REAL scary to do that.

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

no no no - bad bad bad - and not at all a good idea

however, if you have the written authorization from a company, their endorsement and you can use their branded products in exchange for on screen product endorsements... that's a completely different story...

we have had such agreements with manufacturers who have paid us to feature their products in a video or two including a resort, leather wear, etc... and that can add up to extra revenue for us producer types who are into cash - and for the suppliers who like to reach into the community

but you've got to walk a delicate balance here or too much in your face branding vs. just the right amount to make it look "natural"

a product endorsement at the end of the film in the credits is also necessary - such as "so and so's" leather was custom made by ROB of Amsterdam or something - cock ring by... etc...

[BentleyRace]

When I started I had music on during some of the videos. I stopped doing that some time back. I don't worry too much about brands showing up in the videos... makes the shoots more "real". I'll often get the guys holding a beer out toward the camera.

Someone actually contacted me recently because the plate numbers on the cars used in the shoots were appearing in the photos and videos. Again I left them in to give the scenes a real feel. And they are all rentals :)

[wowmediacash]

From my understand clothes are ok, but anything else is a no-no.

I could be wrong, but I believe that to be the case that clothes are ok showing brands.

Thats what weve always followed when we shoot and also expect from anything we purchase, and music is a BIG no no but so many do it. Last week watched a new scene from a very well known site which had two dudes fucking and Madonna music playing in background, so open to probs I reckon.

[Adam Mason]

Yes, music is a no-no, as (I guess) are many "mainstream" products. But really, are Coke-a-Cola or Pepsi really going to sue if there can is seen on film? They are as much a part of life as water and air - I'd love to see them try and sue and alieniate the gay market!

Just the same as Calvain Klien, Hugo Boss or Armani - if they even so much as complained that fit gay men were wearing their underwear during porn shoots they'd soon know what a recession was all about ;-)

[q1sites]

We feature underwear and sports kit a lot. All items of clothing and for that matter furniture, bedding covers and even condoms will have been designed by someone and will be recogniseable to someone whether there's a logo or not. When I buy the underwear there's nothing on it to say I can't use it for this purpose. Underwear manufacturers advertise and sell their underwear thruogh errotic / sexy images. I doubt they could complain that their brand is being harmed by being shown in errotic / sexy photographs. I steer clear of showing a close up of just the logo or using brand names in the text. Been doing this for 5 years, and not had a problem. But have no idea of the legal position.

[milivanili]

Ok, to make this topic short; has it ever happened in last 40 years that a corporation sued adult company because one of their product was seen/used/featured in a porn video/photo?

If this never happened I don't see why all this speculation and such precociousness?

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

actually yes Mil..., a porn company was sued when the owner of the gas station was informed that his station was prominently featured in the background of a video's establishing shot... I'm not going to tell you who, but the entire video needed to be recalled, remastered and re-released and... there was a lot more to it - happened a while back to one of the other directors who worked with my former (deceased) lover

and disney has a very large department that does nothing but go around suing people for copyright infringement - they even made a big deal and brought much attention to an instance in LA's south bay where a nursery school had painted "unlicensed representations" of disney figures including Mr. Mouse himself and a couple of others - people were horrified at maussescwitz but... the characters were "unlicensed" and the school had not received permission to paint them on the school yard wall - 20 lashes and a week of cleaning dumbo's cage

beverly hills will sue the crap out of you if the famous beverly hills sign appears anywhere in anything without the proper licensing fees to the city (sign was designed by warner bros) and I saw it on somebody's cover... bad bad bad - I'm not telling but that kind of blatant disregard is troubling and stupid - just plain stupid in my opinion -

the thing that always gets me about these threads is the blatant willingness to rip others' work off because "others do it so why shouldn't I?"

but now we have new generations of people that have no clue about licensing fees much less copyright law or © infringement - they should go to school and learn this stuff like I did - or, learn from the masters like we did

personally, I can't afford to risk loosing everything I've worked my entire life for so... we lean toward listening to our attorneys and doing the correct and ethical thing with respect to showing logos that don't belong to us -- just don't unless like I said before, we have the written authorization to do so...

[milivanili]

I thought we were talking here about brands that appear in porn; like guy that has Jockey underwear and that logo on his undies is seen on one of the pictures, a girl that shows her pussy while behind her is a small glimpse of Fanta bottle, or a shot on the beach where near the towel you can see Coppertone...

I was more referring to unwilling and unwanted capturing of brands/logos that just happens spontaneously...

[rawTOP]

Tony - The cases you mention where there were actual lawsuits were either places (the gas station), or people creating a likeness without paying for it (the school). If someone buys a running shoe with a Nike swoop on it, or a shirt that says Abercrombie or has the ADIDAS logo on it, haven't they basically paid a licensing fee to use the logo in their daily lives (including going to work)? In other words, the lawsuits are in cases where the copyright holder never received any payment. I'd be curious to hear if there have been lawsuits where the copyright holder did receive payment, but didn't like the context of the use. Short of signing a contract when you buy clothing, or condoms, or lube, or can of beer (etc.) I'd think paying for an item with a brand name or logo on it would entitle you to use it in your daily life. Now, if a company bought it for commercial use (as props for their models) - then I can see where that might be different.

Bottom line, I don't think anyone here is trying to infringe on anyone's copyright. It's more a matter of living in an age where it's hard to buy a product that doesn't have a logo on it.

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

I was more referring to unwilling and unwanted capturing of brands/logos that just happens spontaneously...

We have no unwanted or spontaneous brand appearances of any kind - every frame is planned

[milivanili]

I'm really not sure if we understood eachother...

[camcruise]

I think the bottom line with all this is that you must take into account the brand image that is being used.
Your right that most clothing would be OK. But if its a line that is branded for teens then maybe not a good idea.
For instance, I would avoid any Johnson and Johnson products. Since they tout them self's as a "family" company.
And so on.

[BBD]

A company I used to work for was sued by a beverage maker about 5 years ago. Cost 5 figures to clean it all up. I would blur to be safe

[AnthonyDeAngelo]

A company I used to work for was sued by a beverage maker about 5 years ago. Cost 5 figures to clean it all up. I would blur to be safe

and now that you've all read my mind...

excellent solution!

you can get a sneak peak of how we've dealt with the in-store shots we did of Cam wheeling his basket around our local SexMart for our new release DISCOUNT BAREBACK...

maybe I should rename it GENERIC BAREBACK

[milivanili]

Wasn't the initial post a quation from affiliates perspective and not from producers?

[Gaystoryman]

do you ever worry about putting up pics that show a clearly readable and recognizable brand name? i see a lot of underwear with brands that couldn't be easier to recognize, but i also frequently see brands of beer and soda and cigarettes, pants, cars and so on.

so do you not use content with that sort of thing, blur the brands out so they're not readable or figure that the companies who own those brands won't care?


Wasn't the initial post a quation from affiliates perspective and not from producers?

Doesn't sound like a question tailored for one or the other. And does it matter? Given most affiliates use sponsor material, might be worth knowing why they do what they do, or don't do.

Plus your question about has there been any porn sites having legal issues from using brands, has also been answered in the affirmative from Tony (here (http://www.gaydemon.biz/showpost.php?p=44439&postcount=18))

[milivanili]

Doesn't sound like a question tailored for one or the other. And does it matter? Given most affiliates use sponsor material, might be worth knowing why they do what they do, or don't do.

Plus your question about has there been any porn sites having legal issues from using brands, has also been answered in the affirmative from Tony (here (http://www.gaydemon.biz/showpost.php?p=44439&postcount=18))

Yes it does matter, because the question was: do you ever worry about putting up pics that show a clearly readable and recognizable brand name?

If it was directed to site owners then I should have stayed out of this topic.

But I am talking from affiliates perspective: I don't find it disturbing if sponsor has an image of guy in Jockey straps in his photo. I am surely not going to blur that picture out and watch what else could be wrong in the background. I don't feel responsible for that.

[rawTOP]

This article on AVN today is on point...

http://business.avn.com/articles/35695.html

Basically Lego sued a few sites for using their brand name in their domain names (FreeLegoPorn.com and LegoPornXXX). In other words, people purchased the Lego product and Lego isn't happy with how the customers are using the product. It's pretty similar to models wearing branded clothing in that a product was purchased and just not used in the way the manufacturer intended. The difference is the site revolved around the trademarked brand, and the brand was children's toys. The article also alludes that Lego can't stop much more than the brand name being used in the domain name itself.

It is a case where the company received money (in the form of proceeds of a sale of a product) and the question is what license the purchaser has to use the product. They can probably go after the domain name use because that particular use of the Lego name wasn't licensed. I'm curious what the line is between what's allowed and what can be prosecuted. For instance a site just went live with a photoshoot where the model's Dolce & Gabbana's underwear are pretty prominently featured (http://www.wilywilly.com/2009-06/hairy-stud-in-white-dolce-gabbana-briefs). Given that it's probably the model's personal underwear I'm wondering whether that type of usage is stepping over the line...

[Michael B]

From my understand clothes are ok, but anything else is a no-no.

I could be wrong, but I believe that to be the case that clothes are ok showing brands.

Absolutely on target BOSTON !

[Michael B]

my own two cents from working on films and on stage in legit stuff.
Branding was always an issue not from just the standpoint of did the company pay for advertising but from the standpoint that the brand did not want their product associated with such a production. This is not just for legit but for all. So blur away is what i say unless youve got written permission.

[Michael B]

We have no unwanted or spontaneous brand appearances of any kind - every frame is planned

That is the main point that you make here Tony.
PLAN your shots not just point and shoot without worry.
This $$ business and everyone and their brother wants a piece of it.