Hacker News Reader

Comment by no_butterscotch | Hacker News Reader

> Another fun fact. It is quite expensive to license some games to show in TV/Movies.

> We had some pinball machines and arcade games not make the cut because they were too expensive to license, or the IP owner wasn't licensing that particular game for that use at that particular time. We had a Ms Pac-Man that wouldnt clear because they were not allowing a license at that time.

> ...New titles from the 90s were all mostly too expensive to license or use

> ...Some licenses only allowed for showing the game in the deep background, or couldn't feature game play, but only attract modes (Street Fighter II for example).

"New titles from the 90s"

Can anyone on here explain why these IP owners would want to keep their product OUT of these shows? Why would they want to require an agreement/or-money for licensing out when it is free advertising for some old ass IP that could get second life?

View on HN

> Why would they want to require an agreement/or-money for licensing out when it is free advertising for some old ass IP that could get second life?

It's because it is "old ass" and has low value - the corporation gets forever monopoly on the IP basically for free. To work out the licensing deal, some appratchik needs to talk to legal and several people need to be dragged into meetings and write reports and write marketing papers and contracts and all the other ceremonies that go with DoingThings(tm) at a corporation.

And if noone gets promoted or mentioned in the next performance meeting, it ain't happening. It's not like there's any downside for them to keep the IP locked down and inaccessible forever.

I love that we have a system in place that people with complete disdain for art are in complete control of it. Art is better without love.

For some of the cases, it's just not worth the time and effort, even for that "old ass IP". If HBO/Warner/Discovery shows up asking to use your title and it takes a lawyer 20-40 hours to iron it out at $200/hr, what's the return? Is someone really going to buy a copy of Ms Pac because they saw it in the background of a zombie show?

Some of the IP should have been a slam dunk. I'm surprised Williams/Midway was a hassle since Warner Interactive now owns most of those titles.

For things like pinball with licensed titles, that's a huge mess. If you want a Bally Addams Family pin in your show you not only need to contact the slot machine company that owns the Bally pinball IP but you need to contact Paramount Studios, Anjelica Huston's agent, and the estate of the now deceased Raul Julia. Good luck with that.

The real question is why do you even need a license? I thought it was well established that you can show copyrighted images/text and trademarked images/text in context - i.e you can show beer and signage of real companies that exist in real life.

I really don't understand the value in our currently level of IP law... like you said it often costs more paying lawyers to review contracts than the actual contract is worth.

It might just be as simple as a defensive/precautionary maneuver to convert a slam dunk case into a triviality that could be decided in a default judgment. If you can get there blessing even if you don't need it, it's that much less risk.

You wouldn’t need a license, is the bottom line. It’s CLEARLY fair use to passively display arcade games in a fictional arcade setting, without infringing on the intent of the IP.

Unfortunately, in this litigation-happy world we are becoming increasingly risk-averse.

There was an article recently on how music is now “co-written” by the influences for that piece, as well as the influences for those influence pieces, etc - just to preempt these kind of legal challenges.

It’s fucked up, and it needs to change.

Wasn't it like this forever? Why otherwise all fake brands for cereal, beer and whatnot in movies?

Someone else responded to you - but they seem to have now deleted it.

Those fake brands are either as placeholders for product placement, or the art directors just wanted to have some more fun/control :)

Some products - like beer, cigarettes, etc - likely need to be changed due to advertising restrictions on alcohol/tobacco/etc

There's a myriad of shows where company trademarks are blanked out or modified to something else. Seinfeld is full of this. And I've seen countless shows where actors are using MacBooks or iMacs and the Apple logo on the case is taped over or modified with a different shape. It's not a placeholder for product advertising. Either Apple said no, or wanted some other control over the show's content and oversight on the Mac and the producers refused.

> Either Apple said no, or wanted some other control over the show's content and oversight on the Mac and the producers refused.

No. Apple have absolutely no right to dictate that. It would be fair use to use a commercially available laptop to denote a laptop in a TV show. They could ONLY contest if it was to dilute their mark through misuse. A product being displayed and used in its intended way is - by definition - not misuse.

It is possible that they greeked the product to appease a competitor. e.g. masking out apple logos if they are sponsored by samsung, etc.

But as I already mentioned in a previous comment: we live it a litigation-happy world, and the threat of a court case can be enough to scare some producers - even if it would be unjustified.

Real brands can be distracting visually, even real no-name brands.

I agree with where you're coming from, but this is likely to be backed up by industry norms, standard production contracts, guild/union requirements, and informal black balling. Imaginary property maximalists living their best lives /s.

Many of the things you use as examples are trademarks. Beer signs involve company logos. Beer signs ARE company logos.

I'll give you a real world example. Madonna Ciccone, famous pop singer, published a coffee table book called Sex in 1992. The book, natch, is filled with explicit images and words.

One of the pictures featured Madonna, semi-nude, being sexually penetrated on top of a Williams Electronics "Taxi" pinball machine. The entire machine is visible including a very prominent Williams logo.

Williams took Madonna to court over it and she quietly settled before it got to a judge. Williams had a very strong argument that their trademarks were being used in a manner contradictory to their product - a family-friendly pinball machine. This kind of imagery is damaging to their brand. And, of course, no permission was requested by Madonna. This was a slam dunk case. You need permission to do things like this.

IP holders get all kinds of legal opinions involved when permission is requested. What exactly are you doing with that Ms Pac machine? Is it just background filler, or is a major character going to be beheaded on top of it? It's not just a matter of "can we use this?" but a question of "HOW is this going to be used?"

>? Is someone really going to buy a copy of Ms Pac because they saw it in the background of a zombie show?

I bet Steam could release a deal called "Games featured in the hit show The Last of Us" and it'd sell well. The videogame version of an OST.

They could! But was this an inked deal when negotiating? Or even mentioned?

And now you have made it more complex, because "Games featured" with only Ms Pacman sucks, so you need to get a variety of stakeholders on board, so more meetings, etc.

And who codes the pinball games? Engines exist, but...

Is someone really going to buy a copy of Ms Pac because they saw it in the background of a zombie show?

Do you think the obvious answer is no? Kate Bush's resurgence during the Stranger Things run was so recent...

It is now morally repugnant to not chase every possible dollar? Unless the brand is directly associated with the big evil of a film, I too am at a loss. Reeses Pieces sales famously had an enormous boost after being featured in the movie ET. Other candy companies had refused to be featured in the film.

From a different angle, if a character is seen drinking a Coke Cola, is the film paying for that shot or Coke Cola?

From a different angle, if a character is seen drinking a Coke Cola, is the film paying for that shot or Coke Cola?

As I understand it, yes! Otherwise, it is a made up brand, with the goal of no freebies.

And consider, if this wasn't done, who gets to pick the brand. The actor? Are they already affiliated, and thus, getting kickbacks essentially?

Did a writer, the director, props guy, get cash on the side?

So, it is fake generics, or paid brands...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com