Apple Won't Allow Villains To Use Its Products on Screen, Says Rian Johnson (inputmag.com) 166
Apple is trying really, really hard to always come off as the good guys. From a report: According to Rian Johnson, director of Knives Out, Apple won't let villains use iPhones on-screen. Apple is so obsessed with how the public conceptualizes its products that the company has taken steps to ensure none of the bad guys ever use its phones in movies. Johnson told Vanity Fair in an interview, "Also another funny thing, I don't know if I should say this or not... Not cause it's like lascivious or something, but because it's going to screw me on the next mystery movie that I write, but forget it, I'll say it. It's very interesting. Apple... they let you use iPhones in movies but -- and this is very pivotal if you're ever watching a mystery movie - bad guys cannot have iPhones on camera."
Way too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is already tightly associated with a drama starring Satan.
But then, that was by their choice.
Re:Way too late (Score:4, Funny)
According to a company that with the logo of what got 2 people kicked out of Paradise...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, be sure to sign up for a future version of Apple Pay that turns off your life by someone flipping a bit.
Probably will come with a cool complimentary mark.
To be fair, it wasn't always imagined as an apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically, Genesis says "fruit" (peri [biblehub.com]) rather than "apple."
Some think that the representation of this fruit as an apple came about due to a bit of a pun in Latin, because malus means evil in Latin, while malum means apple.
Re:To be fair, it wasn't always imagined as an app (Score:5, Interesting)
Some think that the representation of this fruit as an apple came about due to a bit of a pun in Latin, because malus means evil in Latin, while malum means apple.
It's my understanding that it gets associated with an apple because of artwork in northern Europe, particularly in tapestries. Bright red apples stand out noticeably more than other fruits that northern Europeans would have been familiar with, so bright red became the default artistic choice to represent the fruit in tapestries and paintings.
Re:Way too late (Score:4, Interesting)
So Satan is not the bad guy...
I got kicked out of Sunday school for making this point.
Let's look at God vs Satan:
God: Created the world and peopled it with billions. Set up multiple irrational religions, supported by no evidence. Sends multiple prophets who contradict each other. Then tortures for all eternity anyone who picks the wrong religion, chooses the correct religion but misinterprets it, or chooses to be rational or skeptical. So nearly everyone ends up being horribly tortured for countless eons. I can't even imagine how any greater evil is even possible.
Satan: Everyone he has approached (Eve, Faust, Jabez Stone) has been offered a fair deal, and each time Satan kept his side of the bargain. He is certainly no philanthropist, but he offers a clear informed choice.
So who is the bad guy?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
God: Created the world and peopled it with billions.
Billions of what? Yes, that is a subtle question.
Set up multiple irrational religions, supported by no evidence.
Set up one, and it isn't irrational. Demonstrate your bare assertion fallacy.
Backed by extensive evidence.
NDE phenomena [thelancet.com]
Fine Tuned Universe [wikipedia.org]
Statistical improbability of prophecy [christinprophecy.org]
Irreducible Complexity, i.e. stepwise survivability [evolutionnews.org]
Historical accounts [theguardian.com]
EAAN (incoherence of naturalism and evolution) [wikipedia.org]
Sends multiple prophets who contradict each other.
Demonstrate your claim. Doing so with an accurate understanding of what "contradiction" means. The "contradicting statements" being made regarding
Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And if I were to make a movie and the bad guy had an Apple device - what would Apple do then? Especially outside the US where EULAs may not be worth the value of the paper they are written on.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Johnson actually means "Apple won't pay you to show its device in your movie", which is the usual reason why something is or isn't shown
This, a thousand times. I notice that UK television and film don't show fake brands, I strongly suspect that the Hollywood whores won't shell out for their own props and don't have enough integrity to risk angering other major corporations. One more reason not to respect or support mainstream media.
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been a documented case of Apple paying for product placement. However, they do provide products that they then take back after shooting.
Re:Apple (Score:4)
This might not usually be true. Rather, if the company wants to pay for the placement they leave it in, but if they refuse to pay they put a sticker over the label.
I'm surprised you're not old enough to know that, to remember the Before Times, when few items on TV were product placements, and so the characters just used normal-brand everything. The days before Demolition Man.
Re: (Score:2)
This might not usually be true. Rather, if the company wants to pay for the placement they leave it in, but if they refuse to pay they put a sticker over the label.
I'm surprised you're not old enough to know that, to remember the Before Times, when few items on TV were product placements, and so the characters just used normal-brand everything. The days before Demolition Man.
I'm not certain what we are supposed to be disagreeing on. If any product is identifiable, the producer of that product has to be on board with it.
The only exclusions are satire, news, or investigative reporting,
Imagine if a movie had as a plot device the failure of a condom. Yet all through the lead up to it's use, it was clearly identified as a Trojan condom. The company that manufactures the rubbers would have possible legal recourse regarding their products failing.
Now Apple isn't likely in su
Re:Apple (Score:4)
It really is true, you don't remember the Before Times.
Re: (Score:3)
It really is true, you don't remember the Before Times.
Wasn't that when men were men, women were women, and all the sheep were nervous?
Re: (Score:3)
The sheep are still nervous.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the argument comes from whether they are simply showing the item versus (shit-)talking a product. If they are just showing an iPhone, they don't need Apples blessing. If they are doing a show about iPhones melting people eyeballs because they produce too much RF, then, that's different. Just showing someone's trademark doesn't make you owe royalties on it. If I film a street scene, you are saying I have to go to every place with a sign and get their permission?
No, I believe the OP, in that it's
Re: (Score:3)
Cars were usually the big "product placement" thing. You'd usually see something in the end credits about how the vehicles were provided by Chevrolet or Ford or something like that. If you had a particularly fashionable person, you might see something in the end-credits about how so-and-so's outfits were provided by fashionable company.
The reason for the sticker--at least in syndicated television--is mostly about advertisements. As you suggest, if I'm not getting money, I don't want to show the brand. T
Re: (Score:2)
We don't want to see, say, Stargate SG-1's Samantha Carter using an Apple PowerBook to save the planet followed by an ad for Dell computers.
Their computers are constantly getting hacked, even remotely from other galaxies, I'm not sure this is a problem; the story might still support the ad.
Re: (Score:3)
its called 'greeking' (not sure why).
I was once on a TV show (tech related) and the whole prep process was a person who went around to all of our workbenches and taped over (matching color tape or other materials) ALL logos that did not PAY for exposure.
even our sneakers had the logos taped over ;)
Re: (Score:2)
its called 'greeking' (not sure why).
I was once on a TV show (tech related) and the whole prep process was a person who went around to all of our workbenches and taped over (matching color tape or other materials) ALL logos that did not PAY for exposure.
even our sneakers had the logos taped over ;)
Holy hell - do they know the other meaning for "greeking"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sue for copyright infringement. Using brand names in published works like that without their permission is a no-no.
Re: (Score:2)
Which in a court outside the US may end up in a verdict 5 years later and Apple being awarded a participation trophy.
Re:Apple (Score:4, Informative)
That would be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.
Also, nominal use is an explicit exception to trademark infringement, but ensuring that your use case qualifies for this can be a bit of a minefield. It's usually not impossible, even when a company is demonstrably litigious, but it can sometimes involve much more effort than simply acknowledging the owner of a trademark and saying that they did not endorse its use or appearance.
Although it is usually just easier to put a white sticker or something like that over the logo so that it doesn't show up on screen.
Re: (Score:2)
So evil they won't let those who are less evil use their stuff.
No, they just don't want the perception that they are evil to spread beyond the cellar dwelling, conspiracy theory concocting incel community.
Then maybe they should consider using someone other than Foxconn to build phones for them. It's a bit late for pretending they are a bunch of good guys.
Permission? (Score:2)
âoe Apple... they let you use iPhones in moviesâ
Wait, you need to ask a company permission to use their product in a movie?
I can imagine Apple not giving you freebies, but if you pay for your iPhone props what laws allow Apple to prevent you from showing them in your film?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
âoe Apple... they let you use iPhones in moviesâ
Wait, you need to ask a company permission to use their product in a movie?
I can imagine Apple not giving you freebies, but if you pay for your iPhone props what laws allow Apple to prevent you from showing them in your film?
Yeah, they would normally pay you to show their products. So what are they going to do. NOT pay you?
Hollywood should try to hire some balls some day.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the bean counters are allowed budget for balls.
Now you know what an "Executive Producer" does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're old enough that you would know different, except you that you make up each comment from whole cloth, you make each observation about the world from whole cloth, so there is no past, there is no Before Time.
You are the ultimate cosmopolitan of the Age of Apps; you plugged into information sources 24/7, but in practice you have no useful information access.
Re: (Score:2)
âoe Apple... they let you use iPhones in moviesâ
Wait, you need to ask a company permission to use their product in a movie?
Absolutely yes. If it is identifiable, the company has to be on board with it.
Let's take an example. Let's take say, an Antifa member that assembles something nasty to do something nasty. He uses Goex black powder.
If the people at Goex do not want their product shown in the movie because of the criminal aspect, they are completely within their rights to refuse showing it.
I think once we get past the hated Apple products and into some other product, it starts to show why manufacturers have a strong
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it works. You can use whatever products you want as long as you don't create e.g. market confusion, defame the product, or present an association with the product that is misleading.
The problem is companies have long memories. If some little studio under the umbrella of 10 other companies that finally lands under Disney does something Apple doesn't like, Apple may not be willing to pay Disney great sums of money 2 years later for product placement in Avengers 18: More Meaningless Action.
know thy villian (Score:5, Interesting)
this tells me if I am watching a mystery movie and I see an Iphone I can be reasonably sure that anyone not using an iphone is the bad guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"What if they're all not using iphones?"
All the criminals and serial killers use Android phones, I guess that's how they get caught.
Re: know thy villian (Score:2)
That movie's been done, and they were all using two-way radio, and I doubt it will get a reboot without the late Alan Rickman. Besides, Die Hard spawned four sequels already
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but Google can't be evil either. Look for the Windows Phone user? That would be a dead giveaway.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see Sauron using an iPhone, but neither did Frodo and Sam. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought real bad guys that where smart used no name burner phones and trashed them frequently.
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And how do they propose to do that? This is just some guy's statement. No actual indication of any rules or processes in place for Apple to enforce this. Seriously??
That's how news works nowadays. One guy's statement, picked up by news organization a, repeated by news organizations b, c, and d, and on and on and on. Eventually it'll be linked to Russian collusion.
Re: (Score:3)
The process is simple enough -- they sue on grounds of trademark tarnishment.
Now, as a matter of law, simply having a villain use an iPhone wouldn't usually trigger actual liability. However, the court ruling that the use of the Apple-trademarked product in the movie is legal cones after the lawsuit, not before it, and US law doesn't have the sensible "loser pays" provision for the costs of the lawsuit like every other developed country.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do they propose to do that? This is just some guy's statement. No actual indication of any rules or processes in place for Apple to enforce this. Seriously??
Product placement is a big business for movies. Apple won't play unless you follow their rules; so if you want a baddie to use an iPhone it's on your dime. Apple could sue but in my INAL opinion I think I'd be hard to prove the movie's use of an iPhone that way tarnishes Apple's reputation; especially since real world cases exist of just that type of use.
Re: (Score:2)
that's NOT how it works.
you can use ANY product in a film. this IS a free country, isn't it?
now, the ISSUE is about pay. bean counters want to get paid to advertise (that's the central theme) if they show a brand.
if they show a brand and don't get paid, NO LAWS ARE BROKEN. but they leave money on the table.
stop talking about laws. this has NOTHING to do with laws.
sheesh. you guys are nuts if you think a vendor can stop a free expression of a story, with use of valid legal props. damn, you guys believe
Re: (Score:2)
a) Apparently it is illegal to use someone's trademark without permission in a film, and the image of an iPhone is trademarked.
b) You will not get Apple's permission without the iPhone use being in a good light. The exact text from Apple that I found was, "c. The Apple product is shown only in the best light, in a manner or context that reflects favorably on the Apple products and on Apple Inc."
c) If you knowingly choose not to ask for Apple's blessing on
Re: (Score:3)
This is what I found: https://rodriqueslaw.com/blog/... [rodriqueslaw.com]
Have fun with that one. I was hoping for a quick answer. This is the paragraph Google was summarizing in my search: "Trademark owners may object to the use of their trademarks in fictional films or other media productions without their consent, and seek to enjoin such uses by filing a trademark infringement action under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125(a)), unfair competition in violation of the common law of New York, under the Fede
Re: (Score:3)
keep reading:
In Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., the court found that, âoeif a trademark is placed in a negative context through a defendantâ(TM)s depiction, the reasonable consumer is correspondingly less likely to be fooled into thinking that any trademark owner would sponsor or endorse such a negative portrayal.â
As these cases indicate, tarnishment does not occur simply because a trademarked product is depicted in a negative context or that the trademark holder finds objectionable.
Applyi
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a lawyer? I'm not. I made absolutely no comment on as to if it was illegal or not. They asked to cite a law, I provided a citation that I found.
again, this blogger is wrong and too many people just believe in without doing any checking.
From the bottom of the blogger's article: "In general, it is not necessary to blur the logos and products of brands in films. There are several limitations on a trademark holder’s ability to successfully assert its trademark rights to prevent the unauthorized use of its trademark in a works of art. How the product is portrayed makes a huge differen
Rian Johnson Wont Have A Female or Minority Baddy (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess the real story here is that Cinema died so long ago nobody even remembers what it was like to enjoy a movie.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Uhh...you only need to go back just one movie in Johnson's filmography to disprove your subject line. I'm gonna butcher these details since I can't be bothered to look them up, but he directed The Last Jedi, which notably featured a female stormtrooper, Captain Phasma, played by the same actress who was Brienne of Tarth in Game of Thrones. Phasma was a baddie and leader of baddies. She wasn't the big bad, but she was a baddie.
Also, while I didn't like The Last Jedi at all, I watched Knives Out for the first
Re: (Score:3)
Captain Phasma? You mean the character with about 7 lines and only half her face was shown in a brief second before she died? Also, it was a character established by JJ Abrams...
Re: (Score:2)
Those kinds of movies are so stuffed full of characters nobody gets much development.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the real story here is that Cinema died so long ago nobody even remembers what it was like to enjoy a movie.
I remember. They "enjoyed" Demolition Man so much, product placements took over. There was no Taco Bell backlash. There were no protests about art and society losing anything. They just chortled and chortled about the Three Seashells and VR sex, and let a whole art form vanish like a wayward graffiti drone.
Spoilers! (Score:3)
Apple won’t let villains use iPhones on-screen.
That's great! So when there is some dude who might be good, but might be evil, I can tell by looking at the brand of his phone. I'm gonna seem soooo smart.
P.S. Fuck Apple. They don't get to tell people who can and cannot use Apple products. Remember this stuff next time someone tells you that you should use Apple products because they aren't evil like Google! Hopefully, this director is wrong, and Apple would not attempt to do such a thing. Companies don't get to dictate this kind of thing. [rodriqueslaw.com] Unless the villain says "I use Apple because I am evil just like Apple is!" Apple doesn't have a say. Ironically, if they tried to sue for it, it would show that they are evil, and they should thus lose their case. :-P
24 season 1 (spoilers) (Score:2)
Clever ad placement! (Score:2)
I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that Knives Out just came out of streaming and BluRay this week. Clever viral marketing, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I thought when I saw the headline.
It's not like they can choose. (Score:2)
I don't see how they have any rights over somebody else's property.
Good luck telling me e.g. I can't go into a Samsung store after having bought an iDevice.
Unless of course, you guys choose to listen to those nutters and give their insanity weight and an audience. ...
Now let's see what the other commenters wrote
As unAmerican as Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple, China. What's the difference?
Cronovirus, at least for now...
So what's a villain? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can complex antiheroes use iphones? What about sidekick's of villains who act as comic relief? What if the character is initially presented as a villain, but turns out to be a misunderstood weirdo who just wants to do good?
So many questions...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally, a use for all the failed Windows Phones! (Score:2)
Super Evil Overlords, using Kin?
From what I've seen most of the phones in entertainment are all faked anyway. Sometimes quite poorly.
And there seems to be a preponderance of flip phones...
This is as old as 2002 (Score:2)
In shows like 24 or movies like mission impossible.
Reference:
https://www.wired.com/2002/02/... [wired.com]
so, thanks for reminding the new generation of this, cptn. obvious!
How can they stop a 'bad' actor using one ? (Score:2)
Try putting it in an EULA - but that is only good if it has been agreed to. These guys are actors the 'phone does not even need to be switched on for someone to act as if they were using it ? Maybe they can take actors through the courts ... how would that look? Apple would be derided for their stupidity and how they tried to out-lawyer someone less rich than they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not in the EULA. If you want to use their trademark in your movie, US law says you have to go to Apple and ask for permission.
Good grief! You are right [rodriqueslaw.com] how stupid. I could understand, perhaps, if something was a major part of a scene - but if it is incidental ... the cost and time of seeking permission must be huge. The only people who gain are lawyers (as usual).
The only answer is to not use any Apple product - especially not for the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical product placement (Score:2)
Product placement in TV and movies has always gone to the highest bidder, when they can get a bidder. In a capitalist marketplace, image is everything and valuable. When no one pays, the brands on-screen are usually anonymized somehow. Who can afford to pay more than Apple for product placement in their own content? If Elon Musk was making a movie you can bet that the bad guys getting caught in the chase scenes wouldn't be driving Tesla's.
Well then... (Score:3)
...Give the bad guys phones with a Pear symbol instead, REALLY bad guys, terrorists, kidnappers, etc....
Way to go.... (Score:2)
So if someone needs advanced encryption or extreme privacy, it's best not to use iPhone. That's the message they're giving - criminals choose Android because it's more private / more secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, these not-just-arrested-by-street-cops villains are the more intelligent of the bunch and throw entire elite policing forces into chaos and confusion routinely. The idiot police use iPhones.
it's standard biz practice (Score:2)
makes sense to me if I'm in charge of making sure my product(s) look good to a consumer; terms and stipulations on how their products will be portrayed doesn't make them evil, it's good business sense
it's the practicality that seems difficult; silly example: character starts off as bad guy, can't use an Apple phon
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I could tell from various info sources, yes, Apple gets prior review of script and final cut for any prominent use of their trademarks. And if you're too small to get Apple's attention to even ask for permission, you're better off not risking it (have the actor cup the phone in the hands so audience cannot tell what kind it is, for example).
Not legally possible (Score:3)
If it were auto makers would never allow their vehicles in a movie or show where a single bullet causes it to explode.
Why would you want to date your movie like that? (Score:2)
There is a reason why Star Wars has never used period technology in their movies, and it's the same reason they've never used period music (imagine Vader entering to the BeeGees...)
Re: (Score:2)
link pls
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the BeeGees, but I hope it's close enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
O really? (Score:2)
Then how are they going to demo the new iPhone?
Define bad guy (Score:2)
Seriously, how does a trillion dollar corporation with top notch lawyers define a bad guy? Does this mean the protagonist? That could readily be someone that does not share Apple values, and lawyers do not like that kind of thing.
This is being cooked up in the heart of Silicon Valley, a very woke place. Does this mean that identity politics comes into play and Apple calls out the use of white males for bad guys? Do we start to formally define Hollywood bad guys by liberal standards so that anyone that's a
Is this what reporting has come to? (Score:2)
How can they stop this? (Score:3)
How can they stop this?
Is there some law that says you have to get permission from a manufacturer of a product before it can be shown on screen? If so, this is news to me.
What he really meant is Apple wont pay (Score:4, Insightful)
>Apple... they let you use iPhones in movies, bad guys cannot have iPhones on camera
you dont have to ask anybody for nominal trademark use. What Rian really meant was
'Apple... they PAY YOU for showing iPhones in movies, but not if bad guys have them'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...and don't show ANY of their products."
Not so easy. For example you only ever saw Microsoft Phones and Surfaces in movies and series, never in the wild.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite easy in today's digital age. Hell, even non sci-fi/fantasy movies are touching things up digitally. And I actually had a Microsoft phone a while back. I know they seemed mythical, but they actually existed! It was only for development/testing purposes, though. I worked for a convention company that made lead-gathering software for pretty much EVERY mobile device in existence.
Re: (Score:2)
...and don't show ANY of their products.
That's SOP in the movie industry. Some times there is payola, where a company pays for product placement, and some times a company doesn't want it's products associated with a particular use. Any company has to be on board if one of their producs is identifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just put a round decal with a made up brand over the logo, and don't do anything in the film that draws any attention to it.
Also, the rule isn't that they can't use an iphone, only that they can't be shown using an iphone on camera.
So you could easily have your good guys giving some exposition about how the villains were using iphones in some scene that wasn't on-screen.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how trademark works. You don't have to defend against being used in fiction. That doesn't create confusion.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thanks god then... (Score:4, Informative)
That's not how it works. If you show a product being used as expected with no indication it's being paid for or associated officially with your film you are safe unless maybe you defame the product specifically.
They could show a kiddie diddler using the phone if they wanted, as long as he didn't say e.g. "This apple iPhone really makes my kiddie diddling much easier!".
Re: (Score:3)
Perfect example: in the movie "The Wedding Singer" there was a joke about Consumer Reports magazine. The movie studio wa
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a problem for some indie director making an art film with unknown talent. But for a blockbuster movie with big name stars, you're being advertised to in practically every scene. If the hero swigs a coke while he checks his messages on his iPhone, you can bet the KO and AAPL are doing their part to offset the film's financial risk.
Human beings prefer the familiar, and blockbuster movies are part of the brainwashing machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Things were much better in D.W. Griffith's day, when you could depict black men as subhuman savages with an insatiable drive to defile the purity of white women.
There's a natural history to these things. First minorities supply stock, cardboard villains. Back in the day you could show the cavalry charging through an Indian village, shooting people as they emerge from their teepees; and you could count on your audiences to cheer.
Then somebody points out that technically, people are cheering for genocide.