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.