Hollywood Rights: Recent Legal Cases in the Film Industry

Creating a brand is a long and arduous process that involves calculated maneuvers and strategic actions. Film has long been a financial gold mine for product developers and advertisers as it is a medium that can spark ideas for new and moneymaking product endeavors in front of an audience of millions. Recent legal controversies concerning the landscape of branding in film raises concerns about how the two can coexist in a mutually beneficial manner and avoid legal dilemmas.

There has been an emergence of court cases involving brands suing studios over unlawful portrayal of their products in films. Eriq Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter discusses this spectacle in his article "Hollywood’s IP Wars: Inside the Fight Over Trademarks". He discusses Anheuser-Busch suing Paramount Studios over the amount of their iconic beer, Budweiser, Denzel Washington consumes in the recent film Flight while the estate of famed author William Faulkner is pursuing legal ramifications over two lines said in Sony Pictures Classics Midnight in Paris. Gardner discusses the basic definitions of Trademark and the appropriate and lawful methods for including brands in film as well as the many ways producers get away with not paying for the use of a product. In short, it is free advertising and in many cases, it is the brand itself that pays to have their items on the big screen. The tides turn however when a negative image comes with the publicity, as in the case of Flight. Recent press concerning airline pilots drinking in abundance before a flight coupled with the iconic brand left Anheuser-Busch concerned with the image their consumers might conjure. I agree with Gardner’s perspective on the over-saturation of trademarks on everything from names (i.e. Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s daughter, Blue Ivy) to the sole of a shoe (i.e. Christian Louboutin). While producers need to be wary and ethical about using brands in their projects, a slippery suing slope is being created and freedom of expression is being tested.

Film phenomenon The Lord of the Rings is also in the news and not due to the anticipated release of The Hobbit. The estate of the author of the novels, J.R.R. Tolkien, is suing the producers of the series due to what they believe is unauthorized use of the iconic name. Matthew Belloni discusses this in his article "Tolkien Estate Sues Warner Bros. Over 'Lord of the Rings' Slot Machines". The estate is arguing that the initial contract forged over a decade ago was for “tangible merchandise” and did not extend to any digital or electronic mediums. An online slot machine game is, according to them, a direct violation of this agreement in addition to allowing Tolkien’s name to be associated with gambling, which his loyal fan base would see as derogatory. This case is a stellar example of why careful consideration and focus on not only the present but also the future is so important. Online games were around 10 years ago and the original contract negotiators should have forecasted to the future and included technology provisions. This oversight could potentially allow them to miss out on millions of dollars as well as an additional $80 million in damages the estate is seeking.

Cult favorite comic creator Stan Lee produced some of the most well recognized characters of all time but who owns them is still undecided. In the article "Stan Lee Media sues Disney: Claims copyrights to Marvel characters", Ted Johnson explains how when Stan Lee transferred the rights to his company along with his beloved characters, a verbal contract with Stan Lee Media may have superseded a written contract with Marvel and therefore left them out of the approximate $2 billion that has since come Marvel’s way. Stan Lee Media believes they have the legal rights over these characters and the profits they procured due to the verbal contract with Lee. This case is a great example of making sure to get everything in writing and entering all deals with a sense of hesitancy and the need to protect ones-self. Stan Lee Media trusted their namesake and a verbal agreement without thinking realistically about protecting themselves, the power of money in negotiation, and the nature of the business. Stan Lee was persuaded by a better deal and his former company was left with no contract, no money and no Spider Man.

There is an increasingly popular trend of needing to put an owner’s stamp on everything and the landscape of cinema is being affected.  We live in a world of brands and labels and film is often times a reflection of our lives, but accuracy is tarnished with blurred out soda cans, fake labels and generic everything. The two facets, brands and movies, need more accuracy, stronger methods, and concrete laws in order to protect themselves without destroying the art of film.

Where is the Limit? : Celebrities peddling the wares of every product in sight

Once upon a time in a Hollywood long, long ago, advertising was a thing of class and strategy. When a movie star or singer attached their name and identity to a product or advertising campaign, it was done articulately with intense consideration. If you wanted to know what product Marilyn Monroe wore in bed, it was expressed with thought and creativity; “well Chanel No. 5, of course”. In today’s society with the rapid emergence and market saturation of reality television and gossip magazines, it seems that celebrities are hawking anything and everything they can get their hands on. The growing popularity of social media forums such as Facebook and Twitter have now made these celebrity endorsed product campaigns increasingly popular. The question that lingers is why is THIS celebrity endorsing THIS product and why should it matter to me? Does Peyton Manning really drive a Buick? And if so, what makes him an expert in luxury automobiles to the point that we should spend thousands of dollars upon his recommendation? In the 1950’s, it was not a far stretch to believe that Ms. Monroe, a sexy and fashionable icon would sleep with nothing more on than a few drops of the equally fashionable and iconic perfume. Well-placed ads in magazines and billboards displayed a rhyme and reason to the product and celebrity pairing. Today however, every time I log onto my Twitter account, I have celebrities posting about how they “Just ate the best (insert awesome product here)! Everyone go buy a (fill in the blank with awesome product)! #ad”. It is sneaky and manipulative and frankly, makes very little sense.

The most current trend is taking these tricky tactics one-step further with celebrities tweeting and posting pictures of themselves in front of well-placed products in order to incite purchasing purely on assumption that they endorse it. No Twitter characters are spent promoting the product. Rebecca Leffler of The Hollywood Reporter explains that this new tactic is designed to bypass long-term contracts and messy connections between products and unpredictable and media fodder celebs. This short-term relationship allows a product line to escape any potential backlash from an artist scandal while still creating a brand linked to a star personality. The stars (no matter their placement on the “ Hot List” hierarchy) are being paid overtly large amounts to link themselves and their 140 characters or Instagram accounts to a product. Christina Rexrode of The Huffington Post reports that Khloe Kardashian collects upwards of $8000 per promoted Tweet, no matter the product, its affiliation, or potential competition to her own brand.

http://www.eurweb.com/2012/05/kim-kardashian-does-she-endorse-any-products-that-arent-dubious/ 

While celebrities have always garnered attention and amazement from the general public allowing companies to sell products and gain instant credibility when linked, there is an apparent lack of cohesion present in today’s celebrity endorsements. There is not enough thought going into why certain products should be promoted by specific celebrities. Furthermore, there is a serious lack of responsibility on the part of stars on which products to endorse. When lawsuits for the Kardashian credit card, Kardashian endorsed Sketchers and Kardashian endorsed Quick Trim all appear, the consumer needs to be aware of the possibility that money, and not quality or even personal usage, is what drew the celebrity to the product.