Brand logos being blurred on documentaries

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
59,244
Is it just me or does anyone else find this really irritating?

Just watching 'Don't blame facebook' on C4 - a few logos had been blurred out then it got to the point where some girl had had her pics stolen and put on a porn site - she was demonstrating google's image searching tool

"so you go to google..."

And they show her computer screen with the google logo blurred... I mean what is the point? She's just mentioned the site explicitly by name, everyone knows what google is, she's actually demonstrating a particular feature of google yet someone felt the need to blur the logo? Why exactly? Just seems utterly pointless.

I'm well aware that TV shows can now charge for product placement etc.. but I'm failing to see how blurring things in documentaries (where product placement doesn't occur) is going to protect any revenue - especially in that google example where the site was mentioned by name but logo blurred. I can understand brand names being blurred in big brother on the products they purchase.
 
See that all the time in shows (not just reality), the real retarded thing is sometimes its the shows website name they're blurring out, Pawn stars has a logo on the side of the building saying " as seen on tv" and that's also blurred out. Something like wheeler dealers where they use wd40 but refer to it as "penetrating fluid" and have a big piece of tape over the logo yet its obvious from the can what it is. You'd expect to see wd40 in a garage, hardly "product placement".

Just seems stupid and unnecessary for the most part.
 
I had this last night with a Japanese... documentary I was watching, the copyright protection was really ruining it, it seems you can copyright quite a wide spectrum of things over there.
 
Sometimes it's easier to just remove any blatant brand reference altogether than find out if it's okay to show, even if it's free advertisement for said brand. Some will be okay with it, others not so bit of a grey area really. I've had to remove brand referencing from things just to play it safe. Also depends on the context and whether whats being shown may be damaging to the brand.
 
It's a bit of a minefield. What if as an example, a documentary programming block sponsored by Coca Cola, per se, involved interview with an artist who against better advice from film crew but according with his contract performed all of his press appearance in Pepsi apparel? Or more complicated yet, what if a talent show recorded in US with localised product placements from Boston Pizza and Mountain Dew was to be "brought to you by Chicago Pizza and Sprite" in UK? Pixelation in post prod is a must.

Believe it or not there are actually companies out there working on sprite (as in 3d model skinning, not a drink) replacement technologies for videos, to replace those Cheerio and pizza boxes in TV shows with alternative brands for other markets. BBC story linkie. There are some showreels around as well...
 
I once worked at a production studio for a short while and they were paid to take out logos from uk tv broadcasts because product placement is illegal in the uk. They had to blur out coca cola from the cups on one of those singing reality shows.
 
v0n said:
It's a bit of a minefield. What if as an example, a documentary programming block sponsored by Coca Cola, per se, involved interview with an artist who against better advice from film crew but according with his contract performed all of his press appearance in Pepsi apparel? Or more complicated yet, what if a talent show recorded in US with localised product placements from Boston Pizza and Mountain Dew was to be "brought to you by Chicago Pizza and Sprite" in UK? Pixelation in post prod is a must.
Click to expand...

I can see it perhaps in those examples... but a UK documentary shown on UK TV not specifically sponsored by anyone. It just seems really silly especially when 'google' is mentioned by name. I mean yeah yahoo or microsoft might buy a block of adverts round the show - but its a documentary - its supposed to show real life... blocking a logo in this context is futile...

I'm not sure about the copyright implications mentioned by other posters but these are products logos shown or worn by 3rd parties not placed in the show deliberately - the documentary is supposed to reflect real life. I don't see how film containing someone say wearing a logo breaches copyright anymore than me taking a picture of my local McDonalds (complete with big M symbol) and uploading it to a blog.
 
Its far better than somewhere like North America with its blatant product placement and tie-ins.

I was watching Bear Grylls new Get Out Alive show and the amount of product placement in that is just ridiculous. The series is basically Bear leading various groups of people through survival challenges in a competition and each week the best team get a treat where they have a feast and nice tent. They also get a mystery box by P&G which contains something like deodorant or toothpaste, they then have to do a piece to camera about how good having P&Gs Gillette deodorant is in a survival situation.

There is also a part each week where Bear gives a survival tip, "as brought to you by Walmart". Its all very cringeworthy for a show that is about surviving out in the elements.

I realise product placement is allowed in the UK now, provided there are warnings. I think its only X-Factor that has really done it so far though.

The other thing that can happen is that film/tv shows will be shot with products in them, they then go to the company and ask for money for featuring it in the show. If they say no, they might just edit it out.

As an example, a pretty big film I worked on recently had a shot of the hero drinking a can of Pepsi. Pepsico decided they didn't want to pay for it, so instead they just used another take which featured an unbranded can of drink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom