And the Oscar for Infringement Goes To . . .
After watching the Oscars last night, I found myself searching YouTube for Logorama, the winner of the Best Animated Short Film category. This French-made film packs what must be thousands of corporate logos into its 15 minutes, casting familiar characters from the Michelin Man to Mr. Peanut to Ronald McDonald in a crime caper. Truly everything in this film is a recognizable corporate symbol, from the distant landscape (Evian) to the stoplights (Stop N Go).
Now, this raises one huge question in my mind: Is this fair use? I can’t imagine the companies would have licensed their logos to anyone, much less a film like this (which is actually pretty filthy and profane). Granted, I don’t know anything about trademark law (as opposed to the thimble-full I now know about copyright), and the company in question here is French, so I’m not sure which laws would actually apply and how. My cursory search didn’t turn up anything about legal action against the film, though the Hollywood Reporter did note in a review that “it’s rather amazing that the film can be publicly shown at all without the threat of a lawsuit.”
But here’s the best wrinkle. Last night, immediately after the Oscars, a relatively good-quality version of the film was up on YouTube, split into two parts. The person who posted the videos added a note saying that all content was being posted under fair use. Well, sure enough, by today, any attempt to pull up those videos led to a notice that the clip “is no longer available due to a copyright claim” by production company Autour de Minuit.
For the moment, you can still see a less-clear version of at least the first half of the film here (though I claim no responsibility for any offense or trauma on your part due to language, violence, or the sheer weirdness of seeing the Pringles logo rendered as a leering old man).
My first instinct is that if this company is going to dish it out (in the form of using a bunch of corporate logos to make its art), it should also be able to take it (in the form of letting the clips stand on YouTube). But I’m curious to hear other thoughts.
3 Comments
Yeah, I had a similar questions (saw it in the theatre, actually — one of the plexes on Shattuck was running programs of the nominated animated and live-action shorts).
My quick review: really funny, technically brilliant, though the one-joke commentary on corporate imperialism can’t sustain the entire film. Worth a watch. Maybe (http://www.cinematical.com/2010/02/09/watch-this-brilliant-oscar-nominated-short-logorama/) is a better-quality link.
So, is the copyright claim that took the YouTube down from the filmmakers? Do you think it was to “protect” their original creation of the film, or because of pressure from owners of the copyrights used in the film? I’m not clear on that.
Funny you focus on the Pringles man, rather than Ronald McDonald (violent and profane protagonist). Not to get too 203 on you, but this seems to reflect the American attitude that violence isn’t as scandalous as sex… .
well, Dan, I never got to see part 2 because of the infringement claims. Perhaps Ronald gets worse in the second half!
As far as I can tell, the claim is from the filmmakers (or at least one of the production companies behind the film). That’s who YouTube says the copyright claim is from, anyway. I’d be surprised if it was to protect the copyright-holders, as opposed to protect their own work, because if they wanted to protect the corporate copyright-holders I’m not sure how they’d show the film anywhere at all . . . but again, I haven’t found anything definitive on this.
http://vimeo.com/10149605