Unveiling the Mysteries of Blurred or Removed Branded Products in TV Ads and TV Shows
Why do some TV advertisements or TV shows choose to blur or remove the branding of certain products, while others do not? This topic has garnered a lot of attention recently, and while there is no definitive answer, this article explores various possibilities and legal considerations behind such decisions.
The Legal Battlefield: Why Brands Obscure Their Presence
The argument often presented that brands cannot appear in movies or TV shows because it implies endorsement can be broadly considered a BS argument that serves more as legal protection and work for lawyers. However, it's essential to understand the legal implications and the reasons behind avoiding blurry or removed branding.
One common reason is to avoid lawsuits. Brands might fear legal action from companies whose logos or products are displayed, leading studios to blur or remove branding to sidestep potential disputes. But is this fear grounded in reality? Furthermore, if the brand could truly control all aspects of its representation, could they legally tell companies how to use their products? This argument is far-fetched, as evidenced by public endorsements from individuals like Charlie Manson, who verbally praised brands without issue. The ability to put a disclaimer at the end of the film or movie could also mitigate these legal concerns.
Three Reasons for Blurring or Removing Branding
1. **Independent Filmmaker Stance**: Some filmmakers might take a brave and independent approach, believing that no company would waste their time with a lawsuit. This stance is subjective and relies on the perception of the risk involved.
2. **Permission and Collaboration**: It's possible that filmmakers obtain permission from brands. For example, a movie about a fanatical Mustang car enthusiast might negotiate with Ford to use the brand or possibly pay for the placement. Similarly, they could approach other car manufacturers if the deal isn't favorable.
3. **Paid Product Placement**: The most straightforward reason is paid product placement. Companies like Coke, whose products are prominently featured in movies such as "Leonard Part Six," often pay for the placement to advertise their brand. This does not necessarily mean the brand endorses the content, but it certainly suggests that the company sees value in the exposure.
Is There a Difference Between Brand Names and Logos?
The distinction between the text of a brand name and its logo becomes clearer when considering legal protections. While both are protected under trademarks, logos can also be subject to copyright. This means that even if a brand's name is mentioned, the logo might still require permission, especially if it is prominently displayed.
For instance, in the film "Rocketman," the presence of a painting in the background would require permission due to the copyright of the artwork. Similarly, the wing shoes created by Elton John are copyrighted, and the film needed permission to use them in the movie. The pinball machine in a famous movie also faced a copyright issue, highlighting the complexity of such legal considerations.
The Business of Brand Placements
Interestingly, Hollywood has monetized the use of product placements, turning it into a lucrative business. The financial success of such placements suggests that brands believe they are gaining positive exposure. In essence, the absence or blurring of branding might be a strategic decision to avoid legal disputes rather than a reflection of a brand's desire to maintain a neutral stance.
Ultimately, the decision to blur or remove branding depends on a multitude of factors, including legal risks, business decisions, and the creative vision of the filmmakers. Understanding these factors can provide insight into the multifaceted nature of product placement and brand visibility in today's media landscape.