Fake commercials

[j.kivekas]

Dear Sir,

 

I would like to know whether it is in line with the site policy to

submit fake-commercials? These are photographs that market an

imaginary product brand. In practise this means combining a photo with

some text and graphics. A fake commercial may be completely original

or mimic an existing commercial.<p>

As a semipro, I would like to post some fake-commercials to represent

my skills and get some critique in that area. However, I feel it in

place to get an ok for such shots.

[stefanovandelli]

Juha, this is just my opinion and I am not replying on behalf of Photo.net

 

If you use an unrecognisable product with a fake product name and logo then this would be acceptable as it would be your creation in its entirety. If you are planning to use recognisable existing products, names and logos then you should ask for permission to whoever owns the copyright for the brand. In a way I don't see how this would have anything to do with PN, which should be solely concerned with whether you have copyright on the photo or not.

I hope this helps somehow.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>...then you should ask for permission to whoever owns the copyright for the

brand...</I><P>It isn't the copyright you have to worry about, it is the trademark. some

companies are more worried about this then others. <P>In general my advice is to not

include an existing company's logo. if you are just tryingto show off your photographic

skills, leaving the logo or slogan off shouldn't affect the critique. And you don't want to

misrepresent yourself as actually having done work for IBM or Coca-Cola or Gerber; if

your goal is to actually do commercial work, that is an excellent way to sabotage yourself

from the beginning.

[davidmccracken]

I am very interested in this subject. I am no expert on this but I think there is a something that must be understood here. Companies put their logos on products they sell to us in the hope that others see them.

 

Mr Coke would love for his Coke bottle to be seen strategically placed in a photograph with a bunch of happy smiling faces. However, I am sure Mr Coke would not be so pleased if the photo was showing someone being hit over the head with that bottle.

 

Where there may be a problem is when someone is paid to put a brand in a bad light.

 

Do we stop showing pictures of people who have logos on their clothes? I think not!

[rayfraser]

Borderline? Not Fake not a commercial but what is it?

 

Late one night after finally achieving a successful download from my drugstore digital, I leaned back and took a picture that included a Coke can. It seemed appropriate to caption it as "Coke to stay awake all night".

[kelly_flanigan1]

One old line computer company I worked for 30 years ago gfot medieval with their trademarks. We had this huge engineering project that lasted for months; with us salary grunts working 50 to 60 hours; with no overtime.<BR><BR> The carrot was a big bonus. We got each a "comapny logo" coffee cup as a bonus; after a 3 month push. The cups were nice; maybe worth 5 to 10 bucks; with our project on one side; the company logo on another. <BR><BR>A visting Corporate chap saw one of the cups a week later; and promptly went from office to office; to collect the "illegal usage of trademark items". He got about 1/2 the cups in one night as his sneaky take.<BR><BR> We had about 156 engineers and techs on this project; the top manager had the "bonus" cups custom made; without "the corporate logo chaps approval of usage forms done"..<BR><BR> The next day the the "corporate logo chap" sent out a terse memo; DEMANDING the remaining cups be returned; to be distroyed; to protect the logo. Here the cups were just inhouse gifts/bonuses; and were condemed by the "the corporate logo chaps"; all Pasadena Artsy design college trained.<BR><BR> The manager actually sent in the "logo approval form" in August; but went thru several iterations of memos asking for more sketches; color matching stuff; usage; etc. The IRS is vastly easier to deal with. <BR><BR>The Engineering team manager ordered the cups in October; we got or "bonus" after NewYears. The company was so concerned they flew two chaps from the East Coast to California; for the coffee cup witch hunt and trial of us guilty chaps who didnt give back our cups. Logos and trademarks are serious stuff; even when used for petty bonuses; for inhouse usage.

[digitmstr]

>>to protect the logo<<

 

the logo should have been protected already both under copyright and trademark statutes. The exec. also lacked the legal acumen to make him aware that he can't demand (legally) restitutions of coffee cups (and actually expect to get them) with or without logos.

 

He could have the logo back (if he could take it off the cup) but, not the cup :)

 

In other words, if people refused to give them back there would be nothing he could do about it.

 

The story is very funny! And to think that's the head of the company!

[j.kivekas]

Krhmmmm.... I was not planning to use any existing brand, logo or anything like that. All those would be imaginary. The point is to learn about making an efficient, stylish commercial. Imagine the perfumerie commercials in Vogue or Elle. It would be all about learning proportions, which details are important, how to combine the photographic style to the font and graphics styles etc. I am sure there is a great deal many of us who find this kind of work very challenging.<p>

Ok, I did shoot tonight different bottles and boxes to which I am going to use some erasing and new branding. I don't think there will be left any assosiation with the origianl product. You have to be an expert to see that a bottle of unknown eau de cologne is originally a much bigger rhum bottle.<p>

Let's put this back to the right path. I'd sure appreciate if someone from PN would answer this, but I am also interested if there are any others who would like to take the challenge with me.<p>

Reg. Juha K.

[fred_sickler]

In the advertising industry there is a tradition of producing advertisements "on spec." That is, producing advertisements for products that the agency was not in a contractual relationship with for as a means of generating new business. The web site www.adcritic.com, before it became a subscription only service, was a repository of many "on spec" commercials for real products. While this is not the answer from PN you were looking for it should indicate to you that the advertising industry has a history of doing exactly what you're trying to do.

[wilsontsoi]

the company that I work for imports merchandise from the Orient on a regular basis, and often time, they are packaged with glossy images of product in use, which means with props, and sometimes models. If our packaging has picture of say, a magazine rack with magazines in it, we make darn sure that the magazines, "logos" are not entirely legible in order to avoid infringing with copyrights law. In fact, we make up fake magazine covers to use as props so that we're totally bypassing that issue. Had we have, "Life," "Newsweek," "Entertainment," etc. magazines clearly visible on our packaging, we're bound to either 1.) had our merchandise seized by U.S. Customs, 2.) copyrights infringement lawsuit filed against us, or 3.) both.

 

Back in the 80's, the company imported containers and containers of chilidren table and chair set. In the front of each carton, there was a 14"x20" photo of a child doing craft on the table. The little boy had a yellow shirt, blue jeans, and red hi-top shoes on. He was a hired child model. All containers (40-foot ocean going,) were held at the port. Reason? The US Customs cited that there was a copyrights infringement violation with the boy's red hi-top having, "Converse" brand (the one with the star and the word Converse around the circle,) even though it was barely visible! We had to removed all cartons, cover the logo on the boy's shoes with plain white self-adhesive labels, all 10,000 sets of kids tables and chairs! Lesson learned.

 

As for the original question, I personally would suggest to no use the very exact logos, unless you have written permission. I'm sure you can create something, "similar" and bypass the potential problem. I'm not discouraging, but don't want someone out there to make the same mistake.

 

Hope this helps somewhat. Ironically come to think of it, we just got our daughter a pair of red hi-top Converse canvas this Christmas! ^_^

[j.kivekas]

Wilson, that was good story. I have a bit similar experience. Two years ago I was working as a marketing consultant (although I am an engineer) for a university laboratory. I drafted this brochure, shot a lot of photos for it. Of course there was time shortage and one particular shot could not be done in time. I had made a drawing of the shot so we decided to use that. Good so far. Out to the print and to posting. Suddenly we got an order from the uni administration to ice the brochure. In that particular drawing some old womens liberator saw a female nude body (which there was) not in it, but anyway. We made 5000 small stickers saying something about sales prices this season and this sticker was put one by one to each of the brochures. <p>

Anyway, I was not planning to use any existing logos nor brands. It sure would be nice to get an answer from the PN admins.

[wilsontsoi]

Based on your description of how you'll proceed, I don't think there'll be a problem since the association is practically non-existing. FWIW, here's something along that line. A total mock up, based on fictitious name, for use as prop, and I guess for exercising a page layout skill, too. ^_^<div></div>

[j.kivekas]

Wilson, your lay out is exactly along my idea. It is really about combining a good shot with page layout without any assosiation to any real product nor service. To train tha skills and get response and critique.<P>

(It is actually a bit frustrating that this is supposed to be the site feedback forum and yet it seems that it does not reach the admins.)

[rayfraser]

Since no policy answer, I suggest using common sense - as long as there is an artistic flavor and no derogatory implication anything is probably acceptable. Clearly explain purpose and intent (caption or critique) and hope no moderator deletes. Is anyone aware of valid law suites against artists depicting real products in a negative way?

[wilsontsoi]

Juha, Ray, if indeed it's about combining a good shot with page layout, "without any assosiation to any real product nor service," then you don't need any permission whatsoever (probably why admin hasn't even chimed in.) I think you can find some examples and get more ideas in this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=364085">Thomas Dunkerley folder.</a> I hope this will give you a good idea of what's already on PN along your line of thoughts.

[rayfraser]

I'd like to give that folder a 7/7 (sorry Brian - but I know your swamped with alligators and probably do not appreciate another).

[j.kivekas]

Great! Dunkerley's folder proves it is ok. He's got even real products. I know that Absolut vodka does exist. Great, great, great.

[j.kivekas]

Ok, the first one is out. Three more is underway.