iPhones - Not for bad guys.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, That Franc said:

Because then you immediately know who's bad, and there's no way to maintain a mystery

Why are you assuming everyone else on the movie will be using iphones, though?

[Fnige]

3 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

On 3/29/2019 at 11:00 PM, Billie Eilish said:

I'm the Bad Guy

Well No iPhones for you.

 

Can i please ask how?

[Intrafinesse]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Many products have specific rules regarding their use in film.

its a confused and somewhat ugly field of law.

This would seem to be something every  company would require regardless of whether it is a phone manufacturer or not.  Firearms seems to be a partial exception though I could see it being done there too.

Use of products in film has weird and wild subsystems.  I recall reading about a sort of reverse store that had product placement props displayed along with the amount of money a company would pay the full maker to use a particular prop.  

 

Do any other phone companies do this?  I suspect there are various rules for most products ignoring whether they are Apple or not.

I am naive about the law but how can a company that sells me a product have any say on where or how I use it, such as in a movie?

I would think that any pre-sale agreement is (should be) unenforceable.

 

Can I tell a movie producer that I don't want black actors/actresses to wear my clothes because it will hurt their marketability to rich whites?

 

Also, how bad does the bad guy have to be to be banned?  What if they don't physically harm anyone, just help teh bad guy?  What if they bring teh bad guy coffee or pizza, is that enough to disallow their use?

[rcmaehl]

47 minutes ago, SlimyPython said:

Can i please ask how?

Don't tag colonel_mortis but despite people requesting non-WYSIWYG editing in the features for a while, the editor will accept most HTML you put in it assuming it's valid. So I just took an existing quote and used inspect element to put the edited HTML I needed. Such as:

 

The following post will say Just Now until 4/20/2020

Just now, SlimyPython (click me) said:

Testing... is the time travel working?

[Syaoran]

4 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Don't tag colonel_mortis

someone is probably going to do it or send a DM

^{_{DELETE THIS NOW}}

6 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

The following post will say Just Now until 4/20/2020

Hackerman  

[Bombastinator]

23 minutes ago, Intrafinesse said:

I am naive about the law but how can a company that sells me a product have any say on where or how I use it, such as in a movie?

I would think that any pre-sale agreement is (should be) unenforceable.

 

Can I tell a movie producer that I don't want black actors/actresses to wear my clothes because it will hurt their marketability to rich whites?

 

Also, how bad does the bad guy have to be to be banned?  What if they don't physically harm anyone, just help teh bad guy?  What if they bring teh bad guy coffee or pizza, is that enough to disallow their use?

I don’t remember.  I went to art school in the 90’s and I didn’t take much film, but it was one of the basic rules.  Met a guy who was an extra in that big sci fi sea movie Kevin kostner did in Hawaii.  The guy stole a couple props.  They were designed to look a bit like brand name goods but they were very carefully changed because they couldn’t use the real stuff.  Every piece was carefully hand made for multiple times the cost of what the real product would be to avoid the legal issues.

 

 It has to do with some very narrow legal loophole or other.  It’s totally a thing though.  Anything seen in a movie from a car model to literally anything can have a huge effect on sales.  The really famous one was the cars James Bond used.  No one cared about Austin Martin or even Lotus outside of England till bond drove them.  This was noticed as early as thunderball.  From then on only one car brand was used as “hero vehicles” for bond movies. Another biggie was how ET liked Reese’s pieces.  That could have been any candy.  But it wasn’t.  Generally things flow in the other dorrection with companies offering films money to place their products but it runs both ways.  The US military does it a lot.  One way to tell an indie film is all the cars you see in the movie are out of production.  Weird classic after weird classic will go by in the background.  The laws about it are very specific,

[rcmaehl]

Just now, Syaoran said:

^{_{DELETE THIS NOW}}

_{^{You can't delete your own posts}}

[Syaoran]

1 minute ago, rcmaehl said:

_{^{You can't delete your own posts}}

_{^{oops I meant edit it out}}

[Commodus]

Then there's Microsoft, which was particularly heavy-handed with promos in the mid-2010s.  You knew it was an unrealistic universe because everyone was using Windows Phones and Surfaces.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Engineer.AI said:

Im going to say something controversial, so close your ears if you dont want to get triggered.

 

"iPHONES ARE A CRAZE, NOT A CELL PHONE COMPANY!!!!"

 

There...I said it lol !

~Engineer.AI
 

You could easily change that to “Smart phones are a craze”. 
 

The whole concept of a cell phone has changed.

 

Just to be pedantic, iPhone is a trade mark/brand and therefore not a company in its own right.

[GreatZardasht]

Phones

 

Bad Guys = Android

Good Guys = Apple

 

Im wondering if apple gives films money for using there tech because in a way it is indirectly advertising Apple Iphones.

[Video Beagle]

This is nothing new. Bad guys couldn't use apple stuff going back to the early iMacs and G4 Cube.

[Video Beagle]

17 minutes ago, GreatZardasht said:

Im wondering if apple gives films money for using there tech because in a way it is indirectly advertising Apple Iphones.

That's what this is about.. it's product placement...one of the ways films gets financed. If you go see James Bond this summer (or any high budget films set in modern day), watch closely...anytime you see a brand name, that's being paid for.

 

(If you watch some of the Brosnan ones, you'll see them focus on the alcohol bottle, it's label rotated into view.)

[Video Beagle]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

The US military does it a lot.

 

With them, to get military dollars, they often require script approval.

 

-----------

 

 

[TechyBen]

19 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Many products have specific rules regarding their use in film.

its a confused and somewhat ugly field of law.

This would seem to be something every  company would require regardless of whether it is a phone manufacturer or not.  Firearms seems to be a partial exception though I could see it being done there too.

Use of products in film has weird and wild subsystems.  I recall reading about a sort of reverse store that had product placement props displayed along with the amount of money a company would pay the full maker to use a particular prop.  

 

Do any other phone companies do this?  I suspect there are various rules for most products ignoring whether they are Apple or not.

Yeah, do it the Futurama way. Just have your own "BolaBola" and "J-Phone" or something.

[Tech_Dreamer]

*sigh*  if it only were true in real life as well.

[straight_stewie]

On 2/27/2020 at 5:17 AM, Phill104 said:

If true that is insanely petty of Apple. Surely they must realise that most people wouldn’t even notice, let alone make a link between their products and criminality.

Apple has always had brand image policies like this. That whole "Steve Jobs was obsessed with perfecting even the smallest details thing" didn't come out of thin air, although he did slack up on it slightly after he came back from NeXT. It did nearly destroy the company on multiple occasions, and has had a lasting impact on their policies of all sorts.

 

But to the wider argument of using movies to create a brand image, have you ever noticed that this:

 

Is always the briefcase used to make hand-offs in spy movies?

It's a Zero Halliburton Slimline Aluminum Plus Attache and Zero Halliburton has built their entire image based on the use of this briefcase in movies. (the briefcase is widely used in the movie industry in general, not just for spy movies)

[dalekphalm]

15 hours ago, Intrafinesse said:

I am naive about the law but how can a company that sells me a product have any say on where or how I use it, such as in a movie?

They don't - I'm fairly certain this entire thing is about product placement (paid advertising to feature specific products and brands).

15 hours ago, Intrafinesse said:

I would think that any pre-sale agreement is (should be) unenforceable.

 

Can I tell a movie producer that I don't want black actors/actresses to wear my clothes because it will hurt their marketability to rich whites?

 

Also, how bad does the bad guy have to be to be banned?  What if they don't physically harm anyone, just help teh bad guy?  What if they bring teh bad guy coffee or pizza, is that enough to disallow their use?

I think you're over thinking it.

 

Basically, Apple will give filmmakers a bunch of free iPhones (and also likely a large pile of cash) to use in their film as props. These come with rules. One of the rules is "bad guy can't have an iPhone". Simple, and totally acceptable. There might also be an agreement that says the film producers won't go out and buy their own iPhone to give to a bad guy. Also acceptable.

 

Why? Because Apple and the movie production have entered into an agreement in which Apple provides money and props with certain restrictions. The movie producers are free to simply not take the agreement.

 

If they decide to not take the agreement, they can buy their own iPhones and use them however they want. Movie producers do not need permission to use a particular brand in a movie. However, most do get permission for a simple reason: Money, via advertising.

 

There are some laws around that though. If you decide to just go out and buy an iPhone and use it in the movie, you can basically only use it as any normal person would an iPhone (example: use apps, take calls, etc). If you do something that might be considered slanderous, then Apple could sue you (they'd have to prove it in court though). So, for example, if a character picked up a phone that is clearly an iPhone, and it exploded and killed the guy, Apple could sue you for slandering iPhones and implying they explode and kill people.

 

To get around that, filmmakers can simply use generic non-branded props - even ones that look similar to, say, an iPhone. They just can't be identical, and can't have the Apple Logo on it.

 

Hope this clears up some confusion from anyone in the thread.

[ARikozuM]

This is completely normal and part of the agreement made by the studio and the company of the product. If you're against this practice, maybe we should extend that to social media or internet providers. 

 

Now, if the studio didn't ask for the iPhones and simply bought them, Apple would have no say in the matter. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

This is completely normal and part of the agreement made by the studio and the company of the product. If you're against this practice, maybe we should extend that to social media or internet providers. 

 

Now, if the studio didn't ask for the iPhones and simply bought them, Apple would have no say in the matter. 

I really just posted this bit of news as a device to joke about the last jedi.

 

It does however make me think of the films McDonalds have famously paid for product placement or even bits of scrips to include their products.

[Fetzie]

22 hours ago, Commodus said:

Then there's Microsoft, which was particularly heavy-handed with promos in the mid-2010s.  You knew it was an unrealistic universe because everyone was using Windows Phones and Surfaces.

Yeah this one episode of NCIS (tracking a terrorist in the airport) they were basically doing a Linus sponsor spot for the Surface

[Bombastinator]

8 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

This is completely normal and part of the agreement made by the studio and the company of the product. If you're against this practice, maybe we should extend that to social media or internet providers. 

 

Now, if the studio didn't ask for the iPhones and simply bought them, Apple would have no say in the matter. 

I actually think this is not true.  It’s the very specific legal point I was talking about.

[poochyena]

On 2/27/2020 at 2:40 PM, RejZoR said:

Who is all of a sudden so dumb that they'd associate Ferrari brand with ANYTHING ?

Nearly everyone? When I say "Ferrari", do you just have no connection to anything? My connection to that brand is wealth and rich people.

[ARikozuM]

39 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I actually think this is not true.  It’s the very specific legal point I was talking about.

It seems it isn't true. A studio must make props for their productions due to licensing laws. 

 

Also

 

Quote

Goddamn...

 

 

[Video Beagle]