Transformers Recent GM Debate in the news

[ragdus]

PS - a beret is a clothing item. you can make a beret and just say it's a beret without having to address the fake manufacturer.

now, if Kangol wanted to, they could sue and say that the beret depicted is a direct ripoff of a product they manufacture. They would have to prove in court that it was specifically their beret that was being targeted for use, and that the company was intentionally hiding that fact to avoid having to pay them any fees for the use of the item. Obviously a very difficult task.

as i'm sure you're by now aware, it'd be a far less difficult task for Volkswagen to prove their Beetle was the inspiration for the unbranded knockoff being sold by Hasbro.

 

[WalkingDead]

Hasbro has to pay the car companies to get the official licenses to produce toys of the said cars. Supposedly, the GM deal was to have GM cars, trucks, and vans that could be used to make the toys as well as predominately showcase GM vehicles through out the movie as the Autobots.

Hasbro has a good relationship with Ford already through the Mustang and Ford GT Alternators. So renew/altering the Ford Mustang license probably barely costed Hasbro anything.

 

[CFlash]

and that the company was intentionally hiding that fact to avoid having to pay them any fees for the use of the item. Obviously a very difficult task.

You're a bit off. The moviemakers don't pay "a fee"... though they can choose to "license" NAMES and LOGOS. For THIS movie, it is GM that is paying fees to Bay and Dreamworks (for product placement advertisement) not the other way around.

 

[ragdus]

edit: see dead's post

edit edit: I never said the movie company paid the fee. I said >>> Hasbro <<<.

 

[CFlash]

edit: see dead's post

Ahh. Now there's the rub. Since toys are marketed consumer products and not considered a form of artistic expression they're held to a different standard.

The artistic standard is pretty much set in stone (Andy Worhol's coke painting, the Mattel Barbie song case, etc).... But, I don't think the toy (and model replicas) thing has ever made it to the Supreme Court.

In any case they could stick in a rear spoiler, a couple of angled side spoilers and totally use a VW if they saw fit. But, it's worth a lot more to use the words
"Volkswagen Beetle TDI 2005" in marketing materials and toy boxes.

For this movie, I would have wished Michael Bay kept is artistic integrity and used whatever cars he saw fit to use.

 

[WalkingDead]

For this movie, I would have wished Michael Bay kept is artistic integrity and used whatever cars he saw fit to use.

Only problem is that Micheal Bay didn't have any say so on the licensing and toy manufacturing side of Transformers. Bay is/was/and forever will be stuck using whatever vehicles Hasbro can get licenses for. Because Transformers is first and foremost a toy product before anything else.

So even if Bay said, "I want Jazz to be a Porsche." Hasbro would shoot it down and say you have to make Jazz be one of these cars.

 

[ragdus]

For this movie, I would have wished Michael Bay kept is artistic integrity and used whatever cars he saw fit to use.

So in other words you're no longer going to ***** that he saw fit to use a Camaro? Sweeeeeet...

 

[CFlash]

So in other words you're no longer going to ***** that he saw fit to use a Camaro? Sweeeeeet...

I'm not the only ****ing... join some of the other forums and you'd see.

And, I thought we were going to stop the retarted argumentative posts like this one. Oh wait. You're mad because Walking Dead made the intelligent points you were trying to make about the toy-tie in but couldn't quite put into words. Instead you said VW could keep a movie- any movie- from using a beetle. Which AFAIK is completely wrong.

Screw off, idiot. Learn to write and make a point.

 

[Boiiinng]

Hasbro has to pay the car companies to get the official licenses to produce toys of the said cars. Supposedly, the GM deal was to have GM cars, trucks, and vans that could be used to make the toys as well as predominately showcase GM vehicles through out the movie as the Autobots.

Hasbro has a good relationship with Ford already through the Mustang and Ford GT Alternators. So renew/altering the Ford Mustang license probably barely costed Hasbro anything.

They also made a Corvette Alternator so they already have a relationship with GM, too.

 

[ragdus]

I'm not the only ****ing... join some of the other forums and you'd see.

And, I thought we were going to stop the retarted argumentative posts like this one. Oh wait. You're mad because Walking Dead made the intelligent points you were trying to make about the toy-tie in but couldn't quite put into words. Instead you said VW could keep a movie- any movie- from using a beetle. Which AFAIK is completely wrong.

Screw off, idiot. Learn to write and make a point.

You're right. I'm ticked because I got you to contradict yourself and demonstrate you're wrong, and then someone agreed with me and voiced it in a way you finally got.

My bad.

 

[CFlash]

You're right. I'm ticked because I got you to contradict yourself and demonstrate you're wrong, and then someone agreed with me and voiced it in a way you finally got.

My bad.

Dude, learn how to read... and write.
You made an INCORRECT point about MOVIES only to "clarify" later that you were talking about TOYS. Maybe you should be a little clearer in what the f* you're talking about. It's a basic skill.

"It is illegal if VW said they want no likeness of their vehicle portrayed whatsoever, sans logo or not."
(In response to my post... which is CLEARLY about the MOVIE).

Everything I said still stands. And the statement quoted above is wrong. WRONG!

 

[ragdus]

Actually, as far as movies go, if VW says they don't want their car being a featured character in the film, then it can't be. It can pass in the background and be a peripheral element, but it can't be featured if they say it can't be used.

So you lose again.

 

[CFlash]

Actually, as far as movies go, if VW says they don't want their car being a featured character in the film, then it can't be. It can pass in the background and be a peripheral element, but it can't be featured if they say it can't be used.

So you lose again.

Again, statute or precedent?

 

[CFlash]

And if they slap on a couple of spoilers on Beetle-esque (not Beetle) car, but still highly reminiscent of the Beetle, would VW's gripes still hold up in court.

Like not. There is no clear-cut answer. You're wrong in your blanket statement. VW would have to sue. And they would have to prove that the vehicle used in the movie contributed to Trademark "dilution" and whether their car's "dress" (look and feel) is unique enough to be considered a trademark (something probably easy to do with the Beetle... but not any of their others cars... and impossible if the actual car used in the movie does not look EXACTLY like a Beetle).

 

[ragdus]

I'm not going to look up case law for you. Go ahead and do it yourself.

But if you think that a company isn't allowed to say how their product is represented on screen, then why is it that you often see computers on television with their logos covered up with a sticker? I know you've seen it. Now ask yourself why that is, and get back with me.

If you need quoted case law, you're going to have to find it on your own. I'm not your crack research team.

 

[ragdus]

And if they slap on a couple of spoilers on Beetle-esque (not Beetle) car, but still highly reminiscent of the Beetle, would VW's gripes still hold up in court.

Like not. There is no clear-cut answer. You're wrong in your blanket statement. VW would have to sue. And they would have to prove that the vehicle used in the movie contributed to Trademark "dilution" and whether their car's "dress" (look and feel) is unique enough to be considered a trademark (something probably easy to do with the Beetle... but not any of their others cars... and impossible if the actual car used in the movie does not look EXACTLY like a Beetle).

Okay, well you seem to think you pretty much nailed it. I mean, you're wrong, but as long as you feel as right as you do, you go with that. Cheers!

 

[CFlash]

I'm not going to look up case law for you. Go ahead and do it yourself.

But if you think that a company isn't allowed to say how their product is represented on screen, then why is it that you often see computers on television with their logos covered up with a sticker? I know you've seen it. Now ask yourself why that is, and get back with me.

If you need quoted case law, you're going to have to find it on your own. I'm not your crack research team.

YES!!! I said the LOGOS had to be covered up. I've been saying that all along. READ!!!

 

[ragdus]

it's not the same thing when the vehicle is a character though, Flash. I know you are having trouble understanding that, but your inability to understand does not change things.

the producers of this movie don't have permission to make a Beetle a focal point of the movie. they can cover up the VW logo, they can throw a spoiler on it and they can add ground effects. they'll get sued if they do. a main character is not the same thing as a prop. the sooner you see the difference, the sooner your blood pressure will come down.

 

[CFlash]

it's not the same thing when the vehicle is a character though, Flash. I know you are having trouble understanding that, but your inability to understand does not change things.

the producers of this movie don't have permission to make a Beetle a focal point of the movie. they can cover up the VW logo, they can throw a spoiler on it and they can add ground effects. they'll get sued if they do. a main character is not the same thing as a prop. the sooner you see the difference, the sooner your blood pressure will come down.

Well, they could take it to court, but they would likely loose.
For instance, Chrysler wanted no part of a Confederate Flag Branded General Lee in the last movie. They used it anyway. But Chrysler refused to take part in marketing tie-ins.

Gen Lee is the star of that movie... as far as car "characters" go it doesn't get better than that.... except....

It might also interest you to know that VW declined to be a part of Herbie Fully Loaded as well. Although they did provide a vehicle I think, but they refused to do tie-ins or lend their name to it. It is the pretty much the only company not mentioned (by name... nor logo I don't think) in an otherwise product-placement filled movie.

The first Herbie movie back in the 70's also didn't have VW's permission and thus contained no VW reference or logos anywhere.

Dude if what you said is true, movies couldn't be made.

If you need quoted case law, you're going to have to find it on your own. I'm not your crack research team.

No, but you do need to back up what you say. Which thus far you have not.

 

[Boiiinng]

Damn Nazis.

 

[CFlash]

And if you don't believe my last post, ragdus... here's another take on it from a lawyer:
http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/05/01/wsj_on_computers_in_the_movies_and_trademark_missteps.html

And lookup the case she cites here:
"Trademark law does not give companies veto power over the depiction of real products, either in documentary or in fiction. That's why when Disney's George of the Jungle 2 showed Caterpillar bulldozers battling George's jungle creatures, to unflattering effect, an Illinois district court denied Caterpillar Inc.'s bid to stop it."

So, you're wrong. Be an adult and admit it.

 

[ragdus]

You make a valid point with the General Lee, and I will delve into that.