Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
|
Perhaps I can try harder but I still don't see what the big deal is. The show didn't make it a point that it was an Emerson disposer, it was in the background and it just happened to have been visible if you weren't paying attention to the foreground. Now, it just so happens that, in our current legal system, Emerson has a right to restrict the usage of their brand name and have exercised that right and NBC is complying. I disagree with some of the current "protections" that trademark offers but, as the law goes, this is fine. The part that gets me is that they are still looking for punitive damages for the depiction of their product.
Quote:
|
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.
|
What does it say about a waste disposer when you put your hand in one and you get injured. It says that you shouldn't put your hand in one. How is this supposed to damage your image? When you depict a hit-and-run automobile accident in a Ford car, what does that say about Ford cars? My contention is that these actions with these brand names say nothing abou the brand names. It is common sense that household names can be used by consumers to do whatever the consumers do with them and to think otherwise is simply alarmist.
Does my attitude over this issue surprise you? I ask because your attitude surprises me. These are not depictions of these products, these are depictions of these (fictional) characters using products that are available in everyday life. To read anything more than that seems ludicrous to me...
How about all the shows and movies that were commited using automobiles. While the make and model weren't specified in the show, cars are not something you can hide. If you know anything about cars, you can clearly see the make and model of the car being used. Should all film productions produce fictional cars to be used in entertainment?
It just seems to me that common sense has been thrown out in favour of insanely intense self-interest and litigation...