Does it cost money to keep the original logos?

I often wonder this question myself. For example, even though the United Artists/Transamerica logos, from 1967-1981, have been virtually lost to history, some of them still exist. In fact, it seems the ones that still have them, feature the opening audio playing during the logo.

And just recently, "The Hexagon", UA's first logo, was restored on Blu-Ray versions of The Man With the Golden Arm. A film that had long been in Public Domain circles, and was NOT part of UA's catalog, when MGM acquired the studio in 1981.

Warner Bros. Pictures used to be a very serious offender when it came to logo plastering. For many years, they would plaster the Warner/Seven Arts logo on their 1967-1969 films, the Warner/Kinney logo on their 1969-1972 films, and the older Warner Communications logos on their 1972-1984 films.

The French film studio, Gaumont, is currently one of the worst offenders in terms of logo plastering.

 

I wouldn't imagine it would cost money to leave on an original logo, unless it is a title that changed hands and the original studio wants some kind of compensation (but let's face it, these logos usually get cut because the people releasing the current version don't want you to think of their competitors). I have a feeling the real problem is that the people putting out the films want to keep their brand fresh and current and so it would be costly in reputation or perception to use an older logo instead of a current one.

 

I think I remember vidiot saying something about this, like how it cost the current owner of the film Rear Window money to keep the original logo at the start of it.

But he can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Where is Vidiot these days?

 

That is what I would like to know.

Vidiot, do not leave this forum. We love having you here.

 

This!

 

I'm assuming those logos are copyrighted trademarks, which would remain property of the copyright holder until the expiration date, regardless of whether it was being actively used or not. The only expense I imagine would be the fees to renew the copyright upon it's expiration. If one film company acquired another or the films of another studio I would guess there would be provisions in the contract regarding the use and/or ownership of those logo trademarks.

 

Watched the BR of "Sleeper" last night and was pleasantly surprised to see the UA/Transamerica logo.

 

Last Activity:
Yesterday at 6:05 PM

 

Must have the Legal Dept keep an eye on them

 

Yup...he's around in other threads! I bet he gets busy with certain projects from time to time and can't post as frequently.

 

In IP law a registered Trademark remains the property of the owner as long as it is used in commerce. The idea is the Trademark becomes associated with a certain business in the mind of the consumer. It identifies that company and protecting it keeps consumers from being duped by some else trying to capitalize on the Trademark holder's hard work and good will. It also protects the Company from unfair competition by rivals trying to confuse customers. You know the type of thing, "This is a Fendar Astrocaster Guitar, you've heard of the brand. Right?"

The primary reason for Trademark protection however is on protecting the consumer from confusion. Some companies will keep an old Trademark alive by selling it in limited markets or occassionally reviving it for limited special offers. Mr. Pibb and Quisp are two examples.

 

Gone apparently.