|
You're going to have to try much harder to find a "frivolous" lawsuit (hint: try personal injury, not advertising injury). How is this frivolous? NBC could have easily picked another brand, CGI'd over the brand name or obstructed the brand name with piece of garbage (as suggested by the second article). Instead, they chose to show the brand, and given the large amount of product placement in NBC shows these days, that seems like a very deliberate decision. Emerson could easily have been done harm by this. Do I think they deserve a $1M judgement? No, not at all, but NBC is clearly doing the prudent thing by editing future showings, so they clearly feel that there might be some merit here.
What if the show had a scene where a character drove up to an Exxon/Mobil station, doused themselves in gas and then lit up? Exxon/Mobil would have every right to be very pissed since it's their brand being depicted. Showing the brand makes a very specific statement about that particular item and can be very damaging. That's why brand names didn't make a real appearance in entertainment until very recently, and the advertisers get specific approval of how their products are depicted.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|