by Bruce David
Editorial Director Hustler Magazine
If you noticed it while watching TV you must have wondered why it was happening. I’m talking about shows such as Inside Edition, Survivor and The Hills (to name a few) where a poster on a wall or an image on some one’s T shirt is blurred out so you can’t see it. The reason this happens is because of concerns about copyright infringement. About 10 or 15 years ago, the big corporations and their lawyers began to complain that a TV show, or even a magazine, was guilty of exploiting copyrighted material if they showed someone wearing, say a Nike logo on their T shirt. The image, they argued, was proprietary, belonging to the corporation and therefore could not be featured without the corporation’s permission. Lawyers actually get paid to think up this kind of crap.
Consider the following: A person is in public, walking down the street wearing a Nike T-shirt where everyone can see them. Since it's in public you might think it's fair game, no? But if you photograph them for your magazine or you video tape them for a TV show, you’re supposedly exploiting the corporation’s copyright or diminishing the value of their brand. How are you diminishing it? Well, one way you are diminishing it is simply by showing it, the lawyers would argue. “If we let everyone feature our logo,” they might say, “where will it end?” Of course, the counter and more reasonable argument would be that as long as you are not trying to expropriate the logo, no harm is done.
Here’s another scenario that might concern them: Maybe it’s Brittany Spears wearing the T-shirt and she’s just dropped her baby on its head. Lawyers would argue that your statement in publishing the pix is that Nike customers are poor parents, a dubious argument. However, one can imagine a more extreme scenario where their argument might be strengthened; Say a guy wears the T-shirt while robbing a liquor store.
But wait! Now we’re talking about a real news story! Something that qualifies for a spot on the six o’ clock news. Do you blur that logo out too? It would certainly help identify the culprit. And if you don’t censor it for a hard news story why blur it out for a soft (gossip) style news story? In fact, why censor at all as long as you aren’t staging a scenario where the logo appears.
It’s time that TV executives and magazine publisher’s stood up to this corporate tyranny. They should join forces in a legal battle, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court, if they have to. If something happens in public — anything at all — it should be fair game for the media, T shirts and all. Otherwise -- to turn the lawyers argument around -- where will it end?
PS: Fuck Albert Reinoso
2 comments:
Wow, Leonard...very insightful! You'd better log off in case Mensa is trying to call you.
Very well stated, Bruce. When a company pays millions to have the main character use their product in a movie or TV show it's called "product placement". When Someone is wearing something with their logo on it and they didn't pay them to do it, it's "exploitation"....? Hello?
Interesting. Makes you wonder when you are watching the news and they run a story about a bank robbery why they don't just give you the make/model of the get-a-way car.
You usually hear the get-a-way car described as simply a white sedan, or white SUV. Rarely do you hear the make and model given.
Hell, the last time I saw the make/model used to describe a suspect on the run was back in the 90's when OJ "The Juice" Simpson was on the run.....I guess Ford felt like they got really f'ked on that deal, huh?
Stupid bastards. When are they going to learn....there's no such thing as bad publicity!
Anyway, fuck 'em, fight fire w/ fire....just run a tiny disclaimer at the end of the broadcast or somewhere in the publication that says any display of material under copyright is unintentional and was done so as a result of circumstances beyond your control.
After all, it's not the media's responsibility to enforce society's dress code....is it?
Post a Comment