Slashdot Mirror
Warner Bros Sued For Pirating Louis Vuitton Trademark
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You have to love a case where Warner Brothers, copyright maximalist extraordinaire, gets sued for 'piracy,' in this case for using a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag in a recent movie. This lawsuit has been described as 'awkward' for Warner; I have to agree with that characterization. Louis Vuitton's 22-page complaint (PDF) alleges that Warner Bros. had knowledge that the bag was a knock-off, but went ahead and used it anyway. Apparently Warner Bros. takes IP rights seriously only when its own IP rights are involved."
they will just shift the blame to some other person or just pin it on a intern.
You act as if the law applies to the Movie Studios. How naive.
It was used as a prop in a movie. Nobody thinks that's real, like the whiskey and champagne they supposedly drink in the movies, it's just a prop. I'd be amazed if they'd spend the insane amounts of money for one of those ugly bags, when they can get something that looks the same on film for a tenth or less the price.
If they had said that Louis Vuitton bags caused cancer and alien leprosy, maybe I could see the point of a slander/libel suit (no idea which applies to films), but for using a lookalike prop? OMG - They'd have to start using the real Mona Lisa, Spacecraft, Prize winning Livestock, etc... Yeah, right.
I think they'd also have a case if the filmmakers were selling the props as the real thing. Obviously selling a prop as a prop is just memorabilia, and not counterfeiting, but as far as I know, they aren't even doing that.
The Louis Vuitton bag makers have apparently lost their sanity, and this lawsuit is the proof.
Why it is required permission of the manufacturer to show item in the movie? Second if item is going to be destroyed wouldn't it be expected for fake to be used? Is it legally required or "keep court away".
A mockup of an BMW is not going to excuse the studio from getting permission from BMW. It may make it cheaper, but it won't eliminate it.
The thing is, they were presenting the LV bag as a legit LV bag, explicitly using the LV brand on film. But WB knew it wasn't real, were warned it wasn't, and went ahead anyway. Now, if there was a payoff joke at the end where they go, "It's not a LV! Look! You can tell by the cross-section!" that might have worked. I dunno, not a lawyer.
Either way, the goddamn thing cost $80 mil to make and it returned $250 mil stateside. No excuse WB couldn't have dug around in a cushion for a legit bag to satiate the legal beagles. Take an olive out of every salad for Ed Helms; it worked for American Airlines...
I haven't seen the film so I can't confirm it, but in the clip Zach's character clearly mispronounces Louis Vuitton as Lewis Vuitton. That would seem to suggest he knows jack shit about fashion. I can't find a high quality shot of the bag itself, but TFA says the bag is "marked LVM." That would seem to suggest that it's a rather pathetic knockoff, and that's possibly the joke itself. Thus, LV wants WB to pretend a real LV is a fake LV, and deserves to be slapped for being so stupid.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Because the companies that owned the rights to those logos wouldn't pay for product placement.
While it may not apply across the board, it is certainly possible that they don't want to give said brands free advertising, or don't want to be seen to be endorsing a particular company/brand/idea.
Personally, after reading a little about Hollywood accounting years ago, I shed my last tear for Big Celluloid.
Yeah, really. When you read the list of movies that have "lost money" on paper (Forrest Gump, Coming to America, The Lord of the Rings films, Spider-Man, JFK...to name a few) it's hard to take any claims they make seriously.
This was not a Handbag, it was a Prop.
Just in case anybody doesn't know . . . everything you see in the movies and on TV is fake.
We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
yes, as opposed to the 'pirate' who will take the blame with pride and meet them head-on in court!
oh, wait.. no...
their wireless was hacked!
it was a DHCP'ed connection and it was somebody else!
it was somebody else in the household and even though they pay for the connection that doesn't make them responsible!
their IP was spoofed!
their ISP's DHCP records are mistaken!
the upload was only named after the movie but it was actually a private collection of poems in third person!
the file was shared automatically by the software and they didn't know this was happening!
a guy saying they were a representative told them to share it - and he looked very trustworthy - sounds legit!
For further 'shifting the blame' awesomeness, see every single story on 'piracy'.
Somehow I suspect that WB will either A. pay up or B. (don't know the movie) suggest that the knock-off LV was actually part of the story as being a knock-off.. at which point LV will have to claim that knock-offs still command royalties to them and that'll be that.
It's 'embarassing' only when the audience is e.g. Slashdot, not when it's any of the legal eagles who deal with exactly this (product placement/featuring in audio/visual productions) subject matter day in, day out.