Hot answers tagged

65

According to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, 1998, tobacco companies cannot pay for tobacco brand placement in movies. Additionally, there is a history of litigation for “negligent advertising”: Negligent advertising - the tobacco companies failed to warn consumers of the risks of smoking cigarettes By my non-lawyer reasoning, there appears to ...


34

My guess: people like me often visit domains in movies/TV shows/books just for fun. If I see the domain is unregistered, I can register it myself and draw traffic from nerds like myself. Basically, I'm letting Sony advertise for me. I can even imply movie affiliation and do terrible things: "Welcome to Sony's secret site! You have cleverly spotted the ...


27

According to this article I found (written in 2010) - individual movie titles can not be copyrighted. However, there can be a trademark granted if there is a certain level of recognition of the title to the specific movie. The author of the article cites "Star Wars" or "Citizen Kane". Per the linked article, the MPAA has a Title Registration Bureau which ...


21

Just a theory, but being able to buy a domain this way is a pretty clear indication that a legitimate company cannot come after the film company to sue for being libelled or defamed for a less than perfect company portrayal. If currently unused, it is an indication there is not a naming conflict to a company that is not well known. The fact that you noticed ...


14

It was not unlawful. First of all, child pornography is illegal, but child nudity is not. A nudist family may have images of their children, nude, and it is not considered pornography nor is in in violation of laws in the U.S., at least. This is part and parcel of the issue surrounding the definition of pornography and the "I know it when I see it" ...


13

The answer is, they don't. And I quote: Literary titles – such as book or movie titles – fall in a gray area in U.S. law. For instance, although a book or movie is protected by copyright, its title isn’t. Copyright simply doesn’t cover titles. And even if the title is distinctive, such as The 40-Year-Old Virgin, courts and the Trademark ...


12

That disclaimer -- at least the real version you usually see at the end of movies -- is called the all persons fictitious disclaimer. (The one that South Park uses is slightly different, see below.) The purpose of such a disclaimer is to attempt to minimize the possibility of a libel suit, if someone believed that the show was using their name, likeness, or ...


11

Two reasons: So that the film company doesn't lose out on a potential profit if someone buys a domain name associated with a movie/TV show and sells it. Apparently there's a small culture out there to purchase domain names related to a recently-announced movie/TV show, as when the movie company finds out its already registered most of the time they'll pay ...


10

Yes, essentially all produced art is copyrighted simply by being created. Is it fair use? IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but in the US "fair use" covers typically low fidelity reproduction for the purposes of parody, criticism, news or education. However, on one hand publishers want trailers to be distributed as widely as possible because people being ...


10

From Warner Bros' website, it appears to be their policy not to do so. For what it's worth, Universal have a similar policy. As for why they place the notice at the end of movies? A cynical view might be that this is just a PR stunt - they might just not want to be associated with negative effects of cigarette smoking.


8

Piracy started before internet sharing, in the vhs underground market, stolen film etc. William Friedkin in his autobiography talk about some cinema that had "The exorcist" without buying it by distribotur. After that someone made vhs of the movie and started to sell them. All this in 1973. So it's normal that MPAA put the warning.


8

General crowd releases can be used, particularly when you don't need to control the crowd. These are common in general exterior shots and when shooting reality TV. But, in your example, this is very unlikely because you don't want the people recognizing your talent and messing up the shot. If the principal talent is in the scene, you can pretty much bet it'...


7

Ultimately your question is a legal one--and as many of us are not practicing lawyers (or representing ourselves as one), I cannot attest to whether there is any legal protection. However, I believe the gag they are aiming for is less "you can't sue whom you can't identify" and more trying to introduce humor in the irony of juxtaposing "I'm not scared of ...


7

Maybe. We don't know the details but according to a press release: Singer-songwriter Don McLean, whose song "American Pie" is among the most popular in pop music history, issued a statement today through his attorney regarding the motion picture of the same title. Said Bert Deixler, of the Los Angeles law firm of McCambridge, Deixler & Marmaro: "I ...


6

I found this... Question: 1) In a publication, what is the difference between saying “based on a true story” versus “inspired by a true story” and are there legal implications that could arise from either choice of words? (For our purposes, the “true story” language is going to be used in a Children’s Picture book about an animal. The book is about a ...


6

There exist no rules because movies are made for entertainment, and don't have any problem if they show a disease the way it is not. The main problem would be a complete rejection to the movie from the audience because it is showing something incorrectly. After some google research, I haven't found any case of movies being sued for this kind of thing.


6

Although you have provided an excellent definition of the term "Reality Television," you need to bear in mind that there is no agreed-upon legal definition in any legislation; it is a marketing term which can be used to mean just about anything without risk of penalty, since it can never be wrong.


6

You might be interested in the case of the film The Butler which just came out recently. The film's title was up for a possible rename due to a Motion Picture Association of America claim from Warner Bros., which had inherited from the defunct Lubin Company a now-lost 1916 silent short film with the same name.[9][31] The case was subsequently resolved ...


6

This is specifically for German legal reasons detailed here at the wiki There is not an English language version of the article, and my translating skills aren't the best, However the main reason(s) is that specific letters are allowed up until specific years and specific combinations again up until specific years of fictive plates and in fact even real ...


5

Caligula is pure trash. It was intended to be an arthouse movie, and Bob Guccione wanted to make it a Penthouse movie. His disagreements with writer Gore Vidal were so preposterous that Vidal eventually disassociated himself with the movie. The only positive of that whole movie was an early appearance by Helen Mirren. She's smoking hot in that movie, and ...


5

Theory 1: Trade mark ownership for future profits. Maybe they are owners of the trade mark and wish to have the option to use it for something in the future? Trade marks need to be established, one way is to use them in the marketplace so maybe buying it and owning it is marketplace activity? I am not a lawyer, but look at this case to see that trade mark ...


4

The problem here is that you've seem to confused Reality TV with an advertisement... Reality TV isn't an advertisement. Advertising is a form of commercial selling: Advertising (or advertizing) is a form of marketing communication used to persuade an audience to take or continue some action, usually with respect to a commercial offering, or political or ...


4

Yes, they are copyrighted. The precedent-setting case was filed by the Walt Disney company, so you should definitely get their permission first. http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2003/august/trailers-are-not-fair-use-of-movie-copyrights/ On the other hand, I have heard that very old trailers, say earlier than the 1970s, were never issued with a copyright ...


4

It's not a non-fiction film. From the IMDb page: A very realistic interpretation of one of the bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War. It is a fictionalization of the actual events. Nearly all - if not all - narrative films carry this disclaimer, even if the people depicted in the film are real people... the reality is, some stuff will be fictionalized ...


4

The case is still going on. The latest order was on July 7, 2016. The order granted "Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer" by the defendants (Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.) Here is the summary of that order: MINUTE ORDER: Granting25 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. must answer ...


4

Update related to first question, from Wikipedia's "defamation" entry: For McDonalds to have a claim, McDonalds would have to be able to prove it was damaged by the statements. And to the extent the statements are matters of opinion, they are also protected "because opinions are inherently not falsifiable." In other words, McDonalds would have to prove ...


3

As far as I know, there were no legal consequences for the Jokers destroying that money. It's unlikely they even did anything illegal, and even if they did, nothing worth the federal government getting involved to punish them. Technically, the bill wasn't destroyed. By US law, it's illegal to mutilate US paper currency "with intent to render such bank bill, ...


3

Nudity is not, in itself, pornography. If only one person is present in a scene (a photo, a film set, whatever) you ordinarily do not have pornography, as it generally requires the presence of two or more participants. This was a rule of thumb in 1970s British cinema, which normally didn't object to female nudity on screen, so long as there was no man ...


3

It seems to me there are often movies of the same title in the same year. IMDb keeps track of them with Roman numerals. Like this: Action Figures (2011/I) Action Figures (2011/II)


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible