Don't stick your hands down a waste disposer! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KnifeMissile · 10-24-2006, 12:17 AM

I know how much people here love their frivolous lawsuit stories so here's another!

Quote:

"Heroes" Lawsuit Down the Drain

Hopefully you got a good glimpse last week of the teenage girl's hand being mangled by a garbage disposal, because you might not get to see it again.

Disposal maker Emerson filed a federal lawsuit Monday against NBC to prevent the network from re-airing the pilot episode of the new drama Heroes, which featured one of the title characters demonstrating her superhuman healing prowess by sticking her hand down the drain.

Emerson, obviously concerned that the series' 14.1 million viewers last week were busy looking at the disposal brand instead of Claire the cheerleader's bloody hand, claimed in its petition that NBC Universal Television Studios didn't have the right to show the St. Louis-area company's In-Sink-Erator product and is looking to prohibit any further use by the network of the Emerson trademark.

And the minds behind Heroes are going to get about 20 more chances to integrate daily household appliances into their storyline. NBC has ordered up a full season of the show for the 2006-07 season, rewarding its strong performance out of the gate.

The lawsuit further stated that the scene "casts the disposer in an unsavory light, irreparably tarnishing the product" by suggesting that the appliance "will cause debilitating and severe injuries, including the loss of fingers, in the event consumers were to accidentally insert their hand into one."

Not that Emerson is saying you should try this at home or anything. And neither is Heroes, for that matter...

What's not said here but mentioned in another, more verbose, article is that Emerson is also seeking pecuniary damages because NBC "casts the disposer in an unsavory light..."

Can companies sue you for depicting their products, at least, vaguely accurately? I mean, can baseball bat companies sue movies that depict people getting beat up with their bats?

NBC does plan to edit the scene in further broadcasts of the episode, including the DVDs, but I wonder how they will do it. I would recommend just digitally editing out the name of the company but I have a feeling this won't be good enough for Emerson...

The_Jazz · 10-24-2006, 05:34 AM

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.

Charlatan · 10-29-2006, 02:08 AM

To me the interesting part of this is the ability to remove name brands from a previously aired program.

This represents a potential revenue stream in the post Tivo world.

For example, let's say it is 2004 and you are watching an episode of Friends and Ross is drinking a Coke. NBC Universal, the production company and broadcaster, can offer Coke that product placement for x amount of money (rather than just running an ad for Coke in the traditional sense).

Now it is 2006 and Friends is in syndication. NBC Universal approaches Coke and says, we would like you to pay once more for your product placement. Coke says no. NBC Universal then approaches Pepsi and makes the same offer. Pepsi says yes and with a little digital tomfoolery, removes the Coke can and replaces it with a Pepsi can.

Not only are they maximizing their product placement revenue in being able to offer the placement to more than one advertiser (this is a term called repurposing) they have also embedded the ad into the program. The feisty Tivo viewers who love to skip the ads, are now served up ads in the program itself.

USMC6531 · 10-29-2006, 05:02 AM

I have to say, the bloody hand won over the disposal name =). But they should have known better than to show a company brand in a light that could possibly hurt business.

cyrnel · 10-29-2006, 05:15 AM

I'm surprised the networks don't run their work through some kind of OCR to find names/logos and thereby find more opportunities for placement revenue. Or in this case, areas for caution. It's not like the fear of bad product placement is anything new.

Charlatan, absolutely makes sense, and i think video games are already doing what you suggest. It distracts from the product but then how many marketeers really care about that?

Charlatan · 10-29-2006, 05:44 AM

You are right cyrnel... video games are doing and they are doing with even more flexibility. For Xbox games, the ads can be updated live on any game that is being played via Xbox live. What was a Coke ad yesterday can be an ad for Halo 3 today.

KnifeMissile · 10-29-2006, 01:51 PM

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...

Yakk · 11-01-2006, 08:58 AM

It more damages the image of all garbage disposals than the particular brand.

"I don't want a garbage disposal, they are dangerous, you can get your hand chopped up in them" -- if garbage disposals are signficantly safer than shown in Heros...

On the other hand, cars don't explode like they do in action movies. Bullets, when you get shot, tend to cause more damage. Lots of bits of "reality" are bent during movies.

Does and should trademark owners be able to refuse a show the right to show their trademark'd goods on a movie or show? Cars drive, garbage disposals exist in houses -- filming a trademark in an area where the trademark would exist in a typical life does not seem like something the trademark owner should have the right of refusal over.

I say that if you have a movie in which your hero drives up to an Exxon station, then uses the gas pump and a lighter to blow it up, Exxon should have no say in the matter.

Gilda · 11-01-2006, 11:09 AM

In the most recent episode, Claire burns herself by picking up a pan from the oven. In the one before that, she drives a car into a wall. At any point did anyone think that these injuries were the products' fault? Claire is getting injured because she's has superhuman healing and doesn't have to follow basic safety precautions.

All that scene said was that if you stick your hand into a running disposer, you can get injured. I'm pretty sure all disposers carry that same warning. This lawsuit is, if I were to guess, probably more about gaining publicity. Notice how many times the brand name was mentioned in the article? Free advertising through the news media.

I wonder if the manufacturers of the pan, oven, and car and going to sue?

10-24-2006, 05:34 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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

10-29-2006, 02:08 AM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	To me the interesting part of this is the ability to remove name brands from a previously aired program. This represents a potential revenue stream in the post Tivo world. For example, let's say it is 2004 and you are watching an episode of Friends and Ross is drinking a Coke. NBC Universal, the production company and broadcaster, can offer Coke that product placement for x amount of money (rather than just running an ad for Coke in the traditional sense). Now it is 2006 and Friends is in syndication. NBC Universal approaches Coke and says, we would like you to pay once more for your product placement. Coke says no. NBC Universal then approaches Pepsi and makes the same offer. Pepsi says yes and with a little digital tomfoolery, removes the Coke can and replaces it with a Pepsi can. Not only are they maximizing their product placement revenue in being able to offer the placement to more than one advertiser (this is a term called repurposing) they have also embedded the ad into the program. The feisty Tivo viewers who love to skip the ads, are now served up ads in the program itself. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-29-2006, 05:02 AM	#4 (permalink)
USMC6531 Upright Location: Florida	I have to say, the bloody hand won over the disposal name =). But they should have known better than to show a company brand in a light that could possibly hurt business. __________________ "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. "

10-29-2006, 05:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	I'm surprised the networks don't run their work through some kind of OCR to find names/logos and thereby find more opportunities for placement revenue. Or in this case, areas for caution. It's not like the fear of bad product placement is anything new. Charlatan, absolutely makes sense, and i think video games are already doing what you suggest. It distracts from the product but then how many marketeers really care about that? __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

10-29-2006, 05:44 AM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	You are right cyrnel... video games are doing and they are doing with even more flexibility. For Xbox games, the ads can be updated live on any game that is being played via Xbox live. What was a Coke ad yesterday can be an ad for Halo 3 today. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-01-2006, 08:58 AM	#8 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	It more damages the image of all garbage disposals than the particular brand. "I don't want a garbage disposal, they are dangerous, you can get your hand chopped up in them" -- if garbage disposals are signficantly safer than shown in Heros... On the other hand, cars don't explode like they do in action movies. Bullets, when you get shot, tend to cause more damage. Lots of bits of "reality" are bent during movies. Does and should trademark owners be able to refuse a show the right to show their trademark'd goods on a movie or show? Cars drive, garbage disposals exist in houses -- filming a trademark in an area where the trademark would exist in a typical life does not seem like something the trademark owner should have the right of refusal over. I say that if you have a movie in which your hero drives up to an Exxon station, then uses the gas pump and a lighter to blow it up, Exxon should have no say in the matter. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

11-01-2006, 11:09 AM	#9 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	In the most recent episode, Claire burns herself by picking up a pan from the oven. In the one before that, she drives a car into a wall. At any point did anyone think that these injuries were the products' fault? Claire is getting injured because she's has superhuman healing and doesn't have to follow basic safety precautions. All that scene said was that if you stick your hand into a running disposer, you can get injured. I'm pretty sure all disposers carry that same warning. This lawsuit is, if I were to guess, probably more about gaining publicity. Notice how many times the brand name was mentioned in the article? Free advertising through the news media. I wonder if the manufacturers of the pan, oven, and car and going to sue? __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert