Brands can be mentioned and monetized in movies and TV shows, and they are all the time. “Product placement” is a major source of ancillary revenue for movies, for instance. You think it was an accident that Ironman drove an Audi R8? The reason you might see a movie or TV show NOT want to mention a brand or show a logo is 1) they don’t want to give away exposure for free, 2) they may have received payments from a competing brand, or 3) they worry about a lawsuit if the brand feels their IP was presented in an inappropriate way.
It’s not so much that networks and studios CAN’T mention brands by name*, it’s typically more that they don’t want to unless they’re being paid for a lucrative product placement deal. So prop houses either keep stock of various chip bags, soda cans, etc that have names that are close enough but are legally distinct, or they “Greek” the product: a quick and dirty solution where the prop master tries to cover up the logo in a way that isn’t too distracting, usually with gaffer’s tape.
*Though there is the possibility that if they, for example, depicted the Coca-Cola company as an evil monopoly bent on destroying the world, they would be opening up the grounds for a potential lawsuit, it’s really just that they don’t want to give free advertising. So if you DO see a product with its actual brand name being used, you can put money down that the brand paid the studio. The most famous example of this is Reese’s Pieces in ET
The only thing preventing movie producers from mentioning brand names is them not wanting to give them free advertising. There’s nothing illegal about using real products, but there’s money to be made in terms of product placement so they chose not to give it away for free
Trademarks and corporations are in a different category.
Anyone is allowed to mention the mere existence of a thing that exists by virtue of the thing existing. There are no rules about that.
However, you can’t libel or slander a corporation by knowingly lying about them in an attempt to harm their business. Same rules that apply to people, you can’t just defame them by lying.
TV shows and movies aren’t restricted from showing logos by law… it’s the studios funding the production that make those rules.
The studios are in business with advertisers and the corporation by selling product placement. If you have a deal with Coke, you can’t show a bunch of Pepsi logos. And if you give one brand free placement, it might make other brands also want free placement as well. By refraining from showing logos, they are avoiding favoritism while also keeping their product placement rates as high as possible.
They can, and quite often do, including for free just because that’s what the writers wanted to do.
There is no right to keep people from talking about your brand. Trademark protects use of a mark in trade. You can’t make a game console and call it a PlayStation because Sony owns “PlayStation” in the context of game consoles for sale. You can, however, talk about PlayStation. That’s a free speech matter. And you can even talk about it in a purely commercial context. You’re not selling a game console; you’re selling a song or movie that talks about stuff that exists in the real world. It’s completely and unambiguously fine. You can even have a TV show episode that’s entirely about someone trying to buy a PlayStation, where they eventually get one and you show it. You’re not violating Sony’s rights by showing Sony’s own product.
Related sidenote that speaks to that legality: the song “AKA Driver” by They Might Be Giants is named that because using the phrase “Nyquil Driver” could be used IN the song, but using it as the title was a different legal matter altogether.
Comments
Brands can be mentioned and monetized in movies and TV shows, and they are all the time. “Product placement” is a major source of ancillary revenue for movies, for instance. You think it was an accident that Ironman drove an Audi R8? The reason you might see a movie or TV show NOT want to mention a brand or show a logo is 1) they don’t want to give away exposure for free, 2) they may have received payments from a competing brand, or 3) they worry about a lawsuit if the brand feels their IP was presented in an inappropriate way.
It’s not so much that networks and studios CAN’T mention brands by name*, it’s typically more that they don’t want to unless they’re being paid for a lucrative product placement deal. So prop houses either keep stock of various chip bags, soda cans, etc that have names that are close enough but are legally distinct, or they “Greek” the product: a quick and dirty solution where the prop master tries to cover up the logo in a way that isn’t too distracting, usually with gaffer’s tape.
*Though there is the possibility that if they, for example, depicted the Coca-Cola company as an evil monopoly bent on destroying the world, they would be opening up the grounds for a potential lawsuit, it’s really just that they don’t want to give free advertising. So if you DO see a product with its actual brand name being used, you can put money down that the brand paid the studio. The most famous example of this is Reese’s Pieces in ET
The only thing preventing movie producers from mentioning brand names is them not wanting to give them free advertising. There’s nothing illegal about using real products, but there’s money to be made in terms of product placement so they chose not to give it away for free
Fair Use applies to copyrighted material.
Trademarks and corporations are in a different category.
Anyone is allowed to mention the mere existence of a thing that exists by virtue of the thing existing. There are no rules about that.
However, you can’t libel or slander a corporation by knowingly lying about them in an attempt to harm their business. Same rules that apply to people, you can’t just defame them by lying.
TV shows and movies aren’t restricted from showing logos by law… it’s the studios funding the production that make those rules.
The studios are in business with advertisers and the corporation by selling product placement. If you have a deal with Coke, you can’t show a bunch of Pepsi logos. And if you give one brand free placement, it might make other brands also want free placement as well. By refraining from showing logos, they are avoiding favoritism while also keeping their product placement rates as high as possible.
They can, and quite often do, including for free just because that’s what the writers wanted to do.
There is no right to keep people from talking about your brand. Trademark protects use of a mark in trade. You can’t make a game console and call it a PlayStation because Sony owns “PlayStation” in the context of game consoles for sale. You can, however, talk about PlayStation. That’s a free speech matter. And you can even talk about it in a purely commercial context. You’re not selling a game console; you’re selling a song or movie that talks about stuff that exists in the real world. It’s completely and unambiguously fine. You can even have a TV show episode that’s entirely about someone trying to buy a PlayStation, where they eventually get one and you show it. You’re not violating Sony’s rights by showing Sony’s own product.
Related sidenote that speaks to that legality: the song “AKA Driver” by They Might Be Giants is named that because using the phrase “Nyquil Driver” could be used IN the song, but using it as the title was a different legal matter altogether.