Support |
At 04:24 PM 8/26/98 -0500, Dennis W. Leas wrote: > >You bring up an interesting point. If a producer 'samples' a brand name >in a major motion >picture by showing the star using the product, the brand owner typically pays for the >advertising (by prior arrangement, of course) instead of sueing for payment. See any >inconsistency here? > Good example, actually. The film maker does not have to get permission of a product manufacturer to show that product in the film, nor do they have to pay to do so. (Fair Use again....) The only transaction that ever occurs is when the product manufacturer pays the film maker for the privelege of having their product displayed in the film, as a form of advertising. See? the money is going the opposite direction there.... kim ________________________________________________________ Kim Flint, MTS 408-752-9284 Chromatic Research kflint@chromatic.com http://www.chromatic.com