Posted on 03/03/2020 11:32:35 PM PST by Swordmaker
In an interview with Vanity Fair today, Rian Johnson, who directed the popular movie "Knives Out," shared an interesting tidbit about iPhone product placement deals for films. Apple, he says, allows iPhones to be used in movies, but bad guys aren't allowed to have iPhones on camera.
The relevant passage starts at 2:50 into the video
Also another funny thing, I don't know if I should say this or not... Not cause it's like lascivious or something, but because it's going to screw me on the next mystery movie that I write, but forget it, I'll say it. It's very interesting.
Apple... they let you use iPhones in movies but -- and this is very pivotal if you're ever watching a mystery movie - bad guys cannot have iPhones on camera.
So oh nooooooo, every single filmmaker that has a bad guy in their movie that's supposed to be a secret wants to murder me right now. Apple is known for having strict rules about how devices are used, portrayed, and photographed. As part of its guidelines for using Apple trademarks and copyrights, for example, Apple says that Apple products should only be shown "in the best light, in a manner or context that reflects favorably on the Apple products and on Apple Inc."
As noted by our forum members, people have in the past pointed out that it's the good guys that use Apple products in TV shows in movies. When "24" was on the air, Wired wrote about a fan theory that the good guys use Macs while the bad guys use PCs, which turned out to be accurate.
Given this tidbit from Johnson, who is a well-respected director, many people may be watching movies with a much keener eye on the devices that actors and actresses are using to suss out hidden details.
I’ll have to use horse and buggies in my version.
CAT yellow and John Deere green are frowned on by at least one stock photo/video agency I send content to.
I am surprised that Apple is that very strict.
Get over yourself (are you Michael Bloomberg?).
I don’t know how they can stop anyone from using their own property any way they please.
More left-wing fascism.
PLA thanks you for your contributions.....gg
Because creating commercial products for profit is no longer considered personal use.
Seems many tv dramas/documentaries etc have Of late been digitally blocking out logos on cars/trucks.
A fuzzy blue oval for ford.
FoxConn is a Taiwanese Company. Nice try, but no cigar. IPhones are also assembled in Brazil and India from parts manufactured in over 50 countries including major components made in the USA. Apple has a manufacturing plant in the USA for the Mac Pro in Austin, Texas, and in Elk Grove, California, for custom order iMacs. A $2 billion plant is being completed in Wisconsin now. Apple has over 110,000 employees in the US. . . and very few in China. . . and has created more than one million jobs through the Apple ecosystem. Try condemning those other CE makers who do ALL of their manufacturing, design, and engineering without a second thought for working conditions of the people making their products in China except to buy a membership in a New York non-profit before you ignorantly and snarkily spout off about Apple while you use products made by those other makers.
They have to be to preserve their trademarks. You protect them or you lose them. You have to show you are actively protecting your trademark from commercial exploitation or it becomes fair use in the public domain for anyone to use, even to put on a similar product.
No, not left-wing fascism. . . You don’t own the right to the logo on the product, or if the design is copyrighted, that. You own the phone, and a license to use it, but not the right to reproduce the logo or trade dress.
If you buy a book, a movie, or a copyrighted work of art, can you, because you own that copy of the book, movie, or art, reproduce it and sell those copies? Nope, you can’t. You don’t own the right to do so. In many instances it’s a felony to do so, not just a civil action. Reproducing it in a movie is the same thing as making a copy and selling it.
As for it being left-wing, no, it’s capitalism. . . Property rights. . . and the basic principle is about the only statutory item listed in the US Constitution.
It never has been under our system of constitutional law. You use someone’s intellectual property, you license it for that commercial purpose; you are not allowed to just appropriate it for your use without compensation. Once it reaches the public domain, then you can. Somethings never reach the public domain because they are recognized to have perpetual commercial value to their owners, such as company logos.
You didn’t buy the LOGO, you bought the product. It’s not your fault the company put their stamp on YOUR property. You should charge them for the advertising.
If they’re so worried about the context in which their brand is displayed, then maybe they should stop putting their brand on their products in such a prominent place.
They’re just trying to make money off products that don’t even belong to them anymore.
By the way, your book/art analogy doesn’t work.
Really? You can’t show a friggin’ phone in a movie without its manufacturer approving the context?
Deny when they blew up Sonny Crocket’s fake Ferrari 365 Daytona?
Exactly, when you change the type of use (personal to commercial - even without gain) you change how the product you're using is viewed under the law.
#13 They all are evil as they helped spread the coronavirus : )
Prominent? Apple’s logo is on the obverse? The back? Do you even own an Apple IPhone? A company is entitled to put its TradeMark on its products.That’s the purpose of a TradeMark, to differentiate one company’s product from another’s. You are entitled to not buy it if you don’t like that.
Look at all the people wearing T-shirts with advertising on them. I refuse to do that. My choice. Not even that little alligator.
Apple doesn’t, and hasn’t, put its name on the front bezel of its phones. Their licensing won’t permit the carrier to do it either. Samsung blazons its name on top of every Android phone bezel it makes. . . Big letters in your face. Apple only puts its logo on the back, and everything else is microscopic, including the model identifier, yet you complain? It’s not even on the screen bezel of its laptops, just on the back, and again, no model designation such as MacBook Air 2019, etc., that other manufacturers plaster all over their computers along with stickers from Intel, and Microsoft, AMD, etc., touting the various components installed.
They’re just trying to make money off products that don’t even belong to them anymore.
Don’t you read? Apparent you don’t. Apple doesn’t charge for the use of their products appearing in movies or TV shows, they just have to control when they do under TradeMark law. The LAW requires they control such use in commercial uses. Get that through your, apparently too thick, skull. If Apple or any other trademark holder DID NOT limit how their trademarks were used, they’d lose their legal rights to them! I know. I’ve held trademarks. My attorneys were quite explicit. You MUST enforce your trademarks or you lose them! Anyone could use them for any purpose, including putting them on their own similar products! Do you get it now?
You want a generic white box logo-less phone? They are cheaply available. Buy one.
It’s not an analogy, and therefore is apt, only trademarks have more legal teeth for enforcement. The Federal Government will help enforce trademark infringement, including the FBI, Customs, and the Federal Trade Commission.
Trademarks are different because they are more frequently renewable, and the holder has to actively protect them, unlike copyrighted material which requires no active protection. Trademarks also require a recurring fee at renewals. Copyright doesn’t and just need be asserted by the creator, while trademarks have to be, like patents, searched, approved, and registered with the government. Trademarks can be limited to specific industries, allowing similar looking trademarks be used in totally unrelated industries so long as there is agreement, arrangements of understanding between holders, and confusion cannot occur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.