Guitar headstock logos hidden in old movies and such

[ksdaddy]

I've seen old movies, promos pics, album covers and others where the logo of the guitar is hidden; sometimes it was airbrushed out, sometimes there was even a piece of tape over it. I wonder why? Could it be they didn't want to appear as they were promoting a brand? Or was it something in their contract? Did this stipulation come from the artist or the record/movie/tv management? It didn't seem to be consistent; sometimes the logo was prominent, other times hidden.

 

[Murph]

I think in the old days, it was out of ignorance. Thinking maybe of a copyright infringement and such which was why it was so haphazard.

 

In modern times it's because they want to be paid to LEAVE IT VISIBLE........

[fromnabulax]

Tommy Smothers used to intentionally take a piece of electrical tape and cover his head stock logos feeling that if the guitar companies wanted advertising on a guitar that he owned, they ought to pay him for the privilege.

[sparquelito]

I believe that all of the above reasons are valid.

* copyright concerns

* no free advertising

and

* avoiding the appearance of sponsorship

 

I read somewhere one time long ago that the guitar used by Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast At Tiffany's had the headstock logo blacked out because the cinematographer didn't want the shiny gold letters to flash at the camera lights, causing undue distraction from Audrey's face.

 

You can find a variety of publicity stills where the headstock logo is visible, but in the final release of the movie, it is blacked out.

 

[NHTom]

I've been wondering this about modern videos also.

 

and specifically Marshall............

 

Countless stacks with black rigging tape over the Marshall logos.....WHY?

 

I watched a video last night where there were two Gibson, Ampeg, Vox, Musicman, and Ziljian logos all visible, but the marshall ones were covered.

 

I wonder if marshall has issue with it, or if they are not good to deal with so musicians block their logo, etc??

 

NHTom

[Notes_Norton]

We've come around 180 degrees since then.

 

Before: No advertising in movies as it compromises the story

 

Now: Companies pay big dollars to have their brands put in movies and on TV as subliminal advertisements.

[feldkeen4]

I used to collect football cards and in the 70's the team logo's were always air brushed out. Because, the license was with the player not the league. The use of the NFL trademark would require a license. Not sure if it equates to this issue. Wouldn't want somebody after the fact wanting a piece of some iconic photo, claiming trademark infringement.

[stein]

I think a lot of it, is because there is/was an existing agreement with somebody else.

 

A good "famous" example is Les Paul having to hide the logo's on his Epiphones after just signing his agreement with Gibson.

 

I am also pretty sure that when a product is purchased, you have the right to use it in a movie and have it be shown.

 

I recall another example, when Ferrari would not "give" cars to have them appear on TV or movies. But when making MIAMI VICE, many were paying big bucks to have replica's made of the Ferrari they used in the show. (They even were using replicas in the show instead of the real one they had). Ferrari finally relented and agreed to supply cars, but as a condition it had to be a new one (that they were currently making), and they had to "blow up" the old one in the show.

[Dennis G]

Now: Companies pay big dollars to have their brands put in movies and on TV as subliminal advertisements.

This. I have some first hand knowledge of this (you know, a guy who knows a guy who...well), and it's true. All you have to do is look at any show/movie/et al over the past (insert # here) years to see it.