Shooting models with name brand clothing

[IntenseCash.com]

I heard this isn't a good idea. For example if you shoot a model with an abercrombie shirt on they could possible sue you especially if it is in a porno. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Mark

[GPallan]

i try and refrain from doing this. Unless it's a very small logo or something. I'd never shoot a guy wearing a shirt with a HUGE recognizable logo on it. To avoid law suites, but also because the shoot will look like an ad campaign for that company.

I don't know about the specifics of the law in this respect, but do what you can to avoid future law suites. Try and avoid brand-name logos.

[Bec]

I don't know how you can avoid some clothing brands showing up - I mean look at the waistband edge of nearly every pair of briefs on any of your boys and you'll see what brand of underwear they bought.

[Xstr8guy]

I mean look at the waistband edge of nearly every pair of briefs on any of your boys and you'll see what brand of underwear they bought.

Haha, good point Bec!

[curiousbunny]

I hope its not illegal ! I love seeing guys in tight white CK undies LOL.Got any Mark ? LOL :jasun: I am not an A&F Fan. Well I Love the models but not their clothing.

[longboardjim]

this is probably a question for "chadknowslaw" , i don't photograph designer clothing including underwear , alot of what my models wear is specially made for the particular shoot or it is pretty "general" ( denium jeans , white boxers , white tees , etc )
i do see "designer" underwear in some of the porn's i watch so i'm not sure what the stipulation is , sorry couldn't be more helpful

sincerely ~ ..."dress you up in my love" - madonna

[xenigo]

I don't think it's an issue. The reason you see brands censored on televison networks such as MTV is because those brands aren't advertisers on their network, and they try to avoid giving unnecessary plugs for brands with no financial affiliation with with station.

Nothing to do with lawsuits, as far as I know. They'd be hard pressed to prove 'damage' to their brand by having it shown in porn.

[basschick]

it can't hurt to be careful. we avoid tshirts with big trademarked brands on them, and any logos you can avoid - do. any company may decide they do not feel an affiliation with porn does their brand any good.

and we keep things out of the shoot like the front of a bottle of beer or soda that shows the label.

[gaybucks_chip]

It absolutely IS an issue. It is definitely not a good idea to photograph clothing with an obvious logo.

Chad can speak more accurately and eloquently than I, but the basic issue as I understand it is this:

A trademark or logo of a company represents their good name and reputation. Any use of that mark or logo in a way that could be interpreted to weaken, damage, or defame the company and/or the owner of the mark opens up the person using the mark to a claim for damaging the company's reputation.

I am not certain, but I believe also that any use of a trademark or logo in any commercial setting is also something that requires specific permission of the mark or copyright holder. Normally, it's not an issue, as a movie or news interview or Real World or whatever isn't using the mark in a way that is derogatory to the company. However, in our industry, the company could arguably claim, in addition to the damage to their reputation, that the mark is used without permission, and that could, I think, be considered an infringement of the rights granted to the trademark holder.

We have a couple of videos out there where this is an issue, but on all of our newer content, we avoid any obvious visibility of logos.

I would be interested in Chad's take on, for example, whether one has to be as careful with avoiding "JOCKEY" on an underwear band as one does with, say "ABERCROMBIE" on someone's chest.

A related issue is the presence of artwork or photographs in a room where the photographer or production company does not possess the rights to use or reproduce the artwork. My understanding is that purchasing a piece of art or a photographic print does not convey any rights of use other than to display the art or print, and if it shows up in a video, there is another potential infringement issue there... though that one does seem a little more farfetched.

Additionally, until you've been sued, you can't really have an understanding of how meaningless the "they can't prove it" argument is. In California, just filing the initial answer to a relatively simple non-small claims lawsuit can cost $2000-3000 in court costs and legal fees. If you have to deal with motions, discovery, interrogatories, and so forth, your legal fees can quickly reach $25K, 50K, 100K. So it doesn't matter whether they are "'right" or not about their mark being damaged; by the time you prove you haven't damaged them (IF you do...), you've probably paid $75,000 in legal fees to "win".

[Dzinerbear]

I can tell you for sure that if I were the president of Coke and you photographed a model fucking a dog (okay, extreme example) I would be all over. Now I might not be so upset over a guy just standing there naked and wearing my t-shirt because it's free advertising. But why take the chance. You never know who is going to freak and who isn't.

Shit, Ellen has jacuzzi as the word of the day. And because Cynthia Nixon said whirlpool and roman bath beforehand, and because Ellen said, "Yeah it's like that. Another word for that." The lawyer for jacuzzi sent Ellen a long-winded letter clarifying how the word jacuzzi should be used and asking her to stop using it incorrectly. It was insane and of course just made the folks at Jacuzzi appear really nutso, but it's a good example.

dzinerbear

[citiboyz]

One of the tests of copyright violation is whether or not the use of the logo or brand appearing in your photos or videos was "integral" or "incidental". If you intentionally shoot models with A&F clothing and market them as "Hot A&F Boys", for example, A&F could rightly take issue with that and accuse you of infringing on their copyrighted name for your own profit. Incidental use means that the branded item was not important in itself. In other words, anything would have sufficed. It was incidental to the work that the model wore that particular item of clothing. Merely depicting an item of branded clothing doesn't expose you to much risk, but I think it's a good rule of thumb to avoid clothing where the logo is very large so you don't give the wrong impression. You should also avoid making references to brand names in printed text.

[Marc]

I see Calvin Klein and 2(x)ist underwear on models all the time.
In fact thats how I first learned of 2(x)ist.

[Dzinerbear]

Yeah well, I imagine underwear's probably an exception.

dzinerbear

[IntenseCash.com]

Awesome replies thanks everyone. I didn't even think about this until yesterday when a friend of mine mentioned it. I think the underwear is the only thing that would be hard to get away with plus I love Abercrombie underwear etc on models I think it looks hot. I wonder if any adult company has ever been sued for something like this. I could see where is might be a problem but to me if someone see a hot model getting out of his abercrombie shirt, jeans and underwear and fucks some guy and the viewer loves it, it would help Abercrombie because that person would be more likely to buy that clothing because he liked it on the model that they got laid in, hehe.

Mark