Can I Expose Exxon in My Documentary?

Dear Rich: I am making an independent film about life on our ranch with ExxonMobil. I had a blog for a few years and youtube page. For three years, I filmed lots of Exxon activities on the land that is owned by my husband. About a six months into my blog writing, ExxonMobil sued me for tortious interference saying "my shenanigans raised their operating costs" because they had increased inspections from regulators. So, I am aware of how they can be big bullies with their lawyers. However, when I was not intimidated, they just backed off and I kept filming and writing. I never got any releases from Exxon workers or subcontractors but I have the permission of the land owner (my family). Of course, everything has Exxon stickers, etc. I even interview the people working there. Exxon's partners (El Paso Corp) sued me for tortious interference and exposing trade secrets on my blog. But, we made an agreed judgement where those claims were dismissed with prejudice. I am planning to make my movie free and put it on iTunes and the Internet. I have this idea that free speech is more protected than commercial speech. But, I don't know if that is true and where I got this idea. I also think that people are less likely to sue me if they think there is no money in sales to fight over. What do you think? We admire anyone who has something to say and doesn't let other people stop them from saying it. But we're also protective of anyone who calls themselves a Dear Rich reader, so we'll provide the legal rules with a caveat that you're already probably aware of --  free speech will protect your rights, but proving you have those rights may prove to be a burden. There is some recent good news for you. Last month, Texas passed its version of an anti-SLAPP law (as explained here). Anti-Slapp laws even the playing field by stopping lawsuits that are used to censor speech. That law could prove helpful if the claims brought against you are trivial or have no legal basis. Anyway, here are the legal rules.

• Copyright - Because you did all the filming, we don't see much of an issue with copyright. If you are quoting from Exxon's written materials, using their photos, or video, that's an infringement but we think you have a strong fair use claim. However, as we always note, fair use can only ultimately be excused by a court which means you're spending money on lawyers.
• Trademarks - We don't see much in the way of trademark issues. The reproduction of trademarks in an informational film about Exxon is permitted under first amendment principles and we discussed those issues here. These rules regarding informational uses would protect you against claims for trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Our only suggestion would be to avoid modifying the logos.
• Privacy/Publicity Rights - Because your film is a documentary (and it's not a commercial endeavor), you may be able get away without releases as you are skirting right of publicity issues. However, without a release, the people portrayed in your film can possibly argue the film violates their right to privacy, or alternatively, it defames them. These aren't likely claims if you make a fair factual film, but as you know, employees who are concerned about retaining employment may regret their statements or wish to recant them. In your defense, you may be able to claim that their permission is implied by the fact that they talked to you and were aware of who you were, and that the material was being filmed. (In the future, you should consider getting a video release. While the camera is rolling, explain what you're doing and what the video will be used for and ask for authorization to use the material in your film. We explain more of these releases in our Getting Permission book.)
• Trade Secrets - You're familiar with this one. When you disclose confidential business information that you acquired by an unlawful means, a company can claim that you stole their trade secrets. So, if someone has stolen trade secrets from Exxon and they give them to you and you publish them, you could be enjoined (stopped) from distributing them. As you know, this is a gray area encouraging litigation because only a court can ultimately sort out what qualifies as a trade secret. 
• Contract Claims - You're already familiar with tortious interference -- when you're accused of coming between two parties to a contract to undermine their dealings with each other -- another gray area of law in which a he said/she said battle can drag on in the courts. Your settlement agreements may also establish some contractual limitations on your future behavior (although it doesn't sound like it from your description).
• Defamation/Trade Libel -- If you include untrue statements that cause harm to Exxon's business reputation (or to any of their executives or employees), you may expose yourself to defamation claims.
• Likelihood of Being Sued When There are No Profits -- You asked if you were a likely target if you had no profits. Profits probably only matter when discussing copyright, trademark and contract claims. And Exxon may not care about your profits, anyway. They may be more concerned about stopping the film (getting an injunction). You could be personally liable for defamation, right of publicity or other tort claims. Some people who make documentary films attempt to shield their personal assets by creating an LLC or corporation to produce, own, and distribute the film. 

Can I use fashion trademark in movie?

Dear Rich: Please if you could let me know about using the Barney's name (Barney's New York) in feature film and presenting some space as its office. The lead actress gets an offer to work for Barney's from one of the managers, plot goes into different direction, and from her actions we conclude that she doesn't consider Barney's offer any more. So if it's part of the plot at all, it doesn't have a strong point. I would appreciate if you could respond to my dilemma. Short Answer Dept. You're probably fine with your planned use (although you should ditch the apostrophe as it implies you are dealing with purple dinosaurs not the store's apostrophe-free trademark). As we've said before, filmmakers and screenwriters have a First Amendment right to talk about and reproduce trademarks in films. However, such uses may trigger a lawsuit if a displeased trademark owner believes that your film is confusing consumers--that is, filmgoers  mistakenly believe that Barneys New York endorses or is in some way associated with your film.
Creating the fake Barneys office. We believe your re-creation of the Barneys office is permitted under First Amendment grounds but that doesn't mean that you won't get hassled. As you know from reading our blog, there's a difference between being legally correct, and surviving the lawsuit that proves you're legally correct. Re-creating the office may trigger a wider range of objections -- for example, if you accidentally use a character with a similar name as a real Barneys employee in an unflattering manner, or if the film defames management or by implying that working conditions at Barneys violate the law in some way. An apprehension of a trademark's owner wrath can even kill a big-time Hollywood production. As our previous post pointed out, another  problem in situations like this is that if your film becomes a success, your distributors and festival producers may demand releases for these uses. Hopefully, if you're successful enough to obtain distribution, you'll also be able to afford the legal power necessary to acquire the necessary rights.

Does travel photographer need property release?

Dear Rich: I have an opportunity to do some video work for a travel related website distributor. They want video tours of certain cities, highlighting the attractions. I was under the impression that I needed property releases from any property I depict in a video or photograph. Now I'm not sure. The video would have scenes of attractions such as museums, theaters, ball parks, amusement parks, bars, restaurants, casinos, etc. I will limit myself to shooting from public property such as sidewalks. I may also have people in these shots. Where would I stand? The client expects me to sign a contract saying I am responsible for obtaining all releases needed. In the U.S., if you're photographing from public property, usually no release is needed. There are two exceptions: structures such as statues and memorials that qualify as copyrightable works; and buildings that have achieved trademark status. You may not need to worry about either of these exceptions as we discussed in a previous post. If you're creating videos outside the U.S., you should review a principle known as Panoramafreiheit. As for the people in your videos, you're generally fine photographing people in public places as they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Problems will develop if the website deliberately either: (1) makes these people appear in a bad light -- for example, the travel video has a section entitled "The Amsterdam Red Light District" and shows two tourists who do not work there; or (2) you use screenshots of individuals in a manner that makes it seem as if they are promoting the site -- for example, the website creates banner ads using screenshots of individuals seen in your videos.
Property Release. If you need to obtain a release, here's a standard property release (also known as a 'location release') from our book, Getting Permission. You can use this release for buildings that are copyright protected or are not viewable from public space.
Property Release

He wants to use image from concert video

Dear Rich: I have some old Who videos from a concert about 35 years ago that I took one frame out of and made my own electronic art out of it. While what I created is quite different then the original frame, it is the foundation of my art picture that I am left with. If I were to hang that up or sell it, would I be violating copyright laws. It was from a very old concert and the frame that I used as a my foundation for what I created could have come from anywhere. And, if I am violating copyright, is it really enforceable and/or do you think it would be an issue with anyone if I were to sell this edited image? Short answer dept. No we don't think your use is likely to become a legal issue. As we explained in yesterday's entry, using a single still can constitute infringement though it's usually not likely to result in a lawsuit. The concert film is most likely protected under copyright law as the Who haven't been around long enough to trigger any of the traps that would drop the movie into the public domain -- for example, if it was published before 1964 and not renewed.
Fair Use Dept. It sounds as if you have the makings of a decent fair use argument (although we'd prefer if you didn't get embroiled in that type of dispute). Here's a link to compare your use to other visual arts fair use cases.
Staying out of trouble dept. Are you selling only a single print?  Problems are more likely to develop if you market the work in bulk. So if you're paranoid about being hassled, don't mass produce your prints.

Avril Lavigne What The Hell HD 720p Download Video

Avril Lavigne What The Hell HD 720p Download Video

HD DOWNLOAD 3:45 720p
Sexy and pretty Avril Lavigne in What The Hell video. Hot Avril Lavigne in sexy lingerie.

More on using (tobacco) trademarks in films

Dear Rich: Thanks again for the blog post with my question about using trademarks in a film. One of my concerns had been that a Marlboro sign appears in the store where we filmed. I've since tried to contact Philip Morris twice via e-mail, receiving the exact same stock response both times, basically saying they don't pay for or endorse their products in any media. So I was about to call them up when I stumbled on this article on their site, which quotes:

Unfortunately, the fact that we do not engage in product placement does not mean that our brands are never shown. Some producers and directors choose to depict our brands in their work without our permission. But we are limited in our ability to stop all displays of our brands because federal and state trademark laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution, protect freedom of expression and the "fair use" of trademarks in works such as movies and television shows. Our position is clear – we do not want our brands or brand imagery depicted in movies and television shows. The unauthorized use of our brands and brand imagery perpetuates the misunderstanding among some that we pay or are otherwise responsible for these depictions, which is simply not the case. We strongly encourage the movie studios to eliminate references to or depictions of our brands. 

So I'm kinda giving up on asking them for permission, and am just going to include the image in my film. I am contacting other companies to get their permission with great success so far, but I've given up on the tobacco industry. Thanks again for your help!
Thanks for filling us in on this fascinating aspect of trademark practice. There are two reasons for the tobacco company's response. First, the tobacco companies signed a master settlement agreement of a class action lawsuit in 1998 that prohibits payment for placement of tobacco products in films. Second, there's no sense in promoting tobacco products because the tobacco companies are often sued under the theory of negligent advertising. Of course, product placement is a separate (though related) issue from granting permission. However, as we've discussed before, use of trademarks in films is commonly justified under first amendment grounds.