There was a case a couple of years back where Coke sued to halt the distribution of a movie because they didn't like one of the characters drinking a marked coke bottle - he wasn't doing anything particularly bad, but i think they felt that he wasn't the type of character they wanted a brand association with I can't remember exactly what the outcome was , but win or lose it must have been a big PITA for the movie company (who probably wished he'd just drunk some fizzy cola from an unmarked bottle) ETA this was what I was thinking of https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070406/115104.shtml 2007 , and coke may not have liked that the character was supposed to be Jesus
It was a Jesus character, right? I think the re-edited the film to take it out. Coke thought it would be viewed negative as to their brand. Also, given that product placements in movies are well-known, they may have worried that people would mistakenly think they paid the filmmakers to have Jesus drink a Coke.
That's the one ... course if 'rats was right things like that would never happen and Jesus drinking coke in your story would be completely fine
Next time I have a client threatened with a trademark action by some large entity, I'll just respond with a screenshot of his posts in this thread and I'm confident they'll back down.
Google tells us it was an Italian film called "7km from Jerusalem " https://www.theage.com.au/news/world/coke-wont-swallow-jesus-scene/2007/04/09/1175971016078.html
Yeah I mean what do you know about the law, you're only a lawyer, its not like your're a writer or anything
The jokes are just that. I wouldn't take them more seriously than warranted. However, the underlying discussion isn't a matter of simple disagreement. It's someone spreading bad legal advice to writers on this forum. I've had enough occasion to fix problems people got themselves into by listening to legal advice on the internet that I think it is worth countering.
Ah yes, that's the one. I feel like Coke overreacted, but if you're the filmmaker what are you going to do? I had a matter with Warner Bros. where I felt like they overreacted and my client would probably have won, but they threw in the towel early on because they're a small operation and couldn't afford to fight it.
Yeah its a 'might is right' thing - McLibel is the most famous example - although that turned into a real mess. Macdonalds won the original suit but ellected not to collect their damages, then the Mclibel two sued the UK Govt at the ECHR for lack of a fair trial and were awarded 57k - then it turned out one of them was an undercover cop anyway.. (that seriously came under - you couldn't make this shit up)
Countering information and publicly butt-patting with each other about how wrong the other guy was are two different things, "jokes" or otherwise.
There was no reason to do that. I wasn't commenting on your argument with deadrats, that was all fine. I was commenting on you and big soft moose more or less shittalking him, which there was no reason for.
Given the assertions rats makes on this thread which are completely wrong, I can't help feeling that if you ask for it you get it . Also I'm sure she is able to speak for herself should she wish to
Why thank you kindly good sir (you'll note i thought better of it and edited it , sadly not in time) Point remains you don't like what Steerpike or I have to say you know where the report button is
