Blur Brand T-Shirts

November 1, 2005 10:26 AM

What's the deal with blurring out logos?

If I produced a movie or TV show and did not blur out the logos, what legal recourse do the logo owners really have?

I'm not selling a competing product, so I don't see how it's trademark violation. Is it copyright on the package design? Or is it more like how some cartoons have to do the "celebrity voices are impersonated" spiel? (The companies don't want to look like they've endorsed my rap video?)

posted by RobotHero to law & government (19 comments total)

I think it's more that the producers don't want to give out free advertising.
posted by bac at 10:28 AM on November 1, 2005

It's about people not wanting their logos associated with potentially reputation-damaging scenarios, such as some gang guy appearing on C.O.P.S. wearing Jnko jeans or something.. the Jnko brand might become associated with gangs, inadvertently.
posted by vanoakenfold at 10:34 AM on November 1, 2005

Package design can also be covered by trademark.

Trademarks owners have cause for legal action if consumers would reasonably think that there is a connection between the trademark owners and the TV show / movie, and somehow see connection is derrogatory.

/not-a-lawyer
posted by falconred at 10:39 AM on November 1, 2005

Also, I believe MTV has rules about what can be displayed in videos, specifically, they don't want product placement in videos that compete with their paying advertisers. (As well as non-brand logos that promote drugs, violence, etc.)
posted by sexymofo at 10:41 AM on November 1, 2005

For me, seeing an obscured logo pretty much destroys the suspension of disbelief. I'm not sure if that's been quantified in any way, but I think it might form the flip side of the argument.
posted by rolypolyman at 10:46 AM on November 1, 2005

Reality shows often strike sponsorship deals with certain brands. In that case, they wouldn't want to display the brand of a competitor, even inadvertently.
posted by samh23 at 11:00 AM on November 1, 2005

What I find stranger is the fact that musicians continue to wear shirts and whatnot with huge logos on them in music videos, despite the fact that they (or at least the directors) know they will be blurred out before they get seen. Why doesn't someone make a line of authentically-street-cred looking but fake-logoed shirts?
posted by Plutor at 11:03 AM on November 1, 2005

...Because the fake logos would catch on and eventually be real logos, for the fake-logo-shirt company, and then would need to be retroactively blurred out. Famous person wears it, it becomes an advertisement.

Could perhaps get away with real logos for non-profit companies and organizations though?
posted by caution live frogs at 11:13 AM on November 1, 2005

vanoakenfold : It's about people not wanting their logos associated with potentially reputation-damaging scenarios
I can picture a lot of scenarios where that would motivate them, but the question I'm more interested in is, "How does this become my problem?" If I want to make a show about Hitler drinking Coke, what can Coke do to stop me?
posted by RobotHero at 11:52 AM on November 1, 2005

As one example, in a Freaks and Geeks episode, the band logos on some guy's jacket were blurred out. Nobody explained on the commentary. So why is it okay to spend half the episode talking about these bands, but not okay to show a character wearing their logos?
posted by RobotHero at 12:01 PM on November 1, 2005

Oh, and I saw a K's Choice poster (or album sleeve) on a wall on an American TV show once (was it Buffy?) - I was chuffed because they're a Belgian band and not too huge in the US, but it wasn't blurred but *mirrored*! Odd, that was.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:21 PM on November 1, 2005

If I can threadjack for a minute, I recently watched The Interpreter and noticed in the extras (background on shooting a movie in the UN, etc.) a big mural on the wall was blurred out. Same kind of deal? OK, you can shoot in the UN but you can't show that artwork?
posted by emelenjr at 12:30 PM on November 1, 2005

They do this on trailer park boys, even with car logos which I find immensely amusing. As if blurring the Ford oval on a F-150 will make it unrecognizable.
posted by Mitheral at 1:01 PM on November 1, 2005

It would depend on your motivations. Coke could successfully bring a libel suit against you if they could prove you intended to harm Coke's reputation. Intent to harm (malice) is harder to prove than merely negligence (accidentally), but the latter is still convictable. If it is done in parody (and is provable, such as how editorial cartoons are legal), you can get out of it. I would suggest emailing a professor of a university's mass communication law course for free advice.

In Freaks and Geeks (from what you describe, I have not seen it), the blurred might indicate that the band in no way represents/supports/sponsors the conversation about which they speak. I'm surprised they didn't consider asking the band ahead of time whether even wearing the shirt was cool with them, eliminating a middle man who had to go blur them out.
posted by vanoakenfold at 1:12 PM on November 1, 2005

elemenjr: A number of artworks, such as an infamous city-sponsored sculpture in Chicago (different city perhaps), are illegal to photograph or otherwise duplicate image-wise. There was a big fuss citizens over not being able to take a picture of a sculpture that taxpayers funded, citing that the image rights remained with the artist.
posted by vanoakenfold at 1:15 PM on November 1, 2005

Why doesn't someone make a line of authentically-street-cred looking but fake-logoed shirts?
posted by Plutor at 11:03 AM PST on November 1

Better, make a line of clothing with what look to be existing, authentic logos, but that appear blurred, as if on TV.
posted by attercoppe at 5:32 PM on November 1, 2005

Why doesn't someone make a line of authentically-street-cred looking but fake-logoed shirts?
posted by Plutor at 11:03 AM PST on November 1

Better, make a line of clothing with what look to be existing, authentic logos, but that appear blurred, as if on TV.
posted by attercoppe at 5:32 PM PST on November 1 [!]

Better still, make a line of clothing that doesn't have any logos. Why the hell should you pay to wear an advertisement for a company.
posted by oddman at 7:20 PM on November 1, 2005

As for the videos, most videos aren't watched on TV, just like most albums break on mixtape first. Those logos are visible everywhere but TV, which tends to blur them out because people PAY to advertise. Even if you've got a Rollie on your arm and are wearing Sean John.
For the Hitler Loves Coke quesiton, it's because Coca Cola will sue your ass for trademark infringement, and whether or not they win, they're going to beat you with the legal stick.
posted by klangklangston at 8:13 PM on November 1, 2005

But Hitler did love Coke!

I would totally by some blurred shirts. Like a blurred Nike symbol or something semi-readable but not really. Would those be legal?
posted by graventy at 11:55 AM on November 4, 2005