Brand names in fiction

[ralphkern]

I am just at the stage where I am adding some meat to the bones of my WIP.

One of the things I would like to do is add some brand names to pieces of technology to help with world building. To give context it is set nearly 200 years in the future.

An example is they use a piece of technology called a HUD (an implant that creates an overlay in ones vision that functions, in part as a smart phone and is also used to control the other implants throughout the body).

Also, other things are alluded to such as weapons, vehicles etc.

I am thinking about making some of these (not all, as I appreciate that new companies will rise and existing ones will fall) as known current brands to make the world seem more real. E.g, the MC may have an Apple HUD. He might drive a Hyundai *fill in model here* car. He might be trained on a HK MP10million carbine etc etc)

Logically, I don't think there are to many problems with this as many current day thrillers use brand names, and I won't be adding anything in the way of negative connotations to them. I can't see that there is an issue.

Does anyone have any firm answers as to whether this is a problem? I recall Peter F Hamilton does it a fair bit, but then he potentially has the resources to have someone conduct a legal check on his work. I don't.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Basic rules are simple. Most of these names are trademarked. You can't therefore use them to sell / promote your own work - that would be piggy backing off another's fame. And you can't write anything that would bring the good name of the make into disrepute - especially if it's untrue. There are lawyers here who can be more specific.

I would recommend doing what others have done in a lot of books - using similar names. So if you say something about Toyota for example that is untrue or could mar their reputation, they might get upset. An remember even if it's a product like a spaceship which they don't make, you could still be sluring their name by suggesting its unreliable or slow etc. On the other hand if you said it about Toymota which as far as I know doesn't exist, I don't think they can.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[ralphkern]

I got pointed to this site from elsewhere for anyone interested:

http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2010/12/can-i-mention-brand-name-products-in-my.html

In a nutshell the conclusion is, what I have described above may well come under Trademark Infringement - in other words I am creating a fictional product that the company is creating. I don't think I will bother with the potential trouble.

There wouldn't be a problem if it was something they had actually designed or created. Even if it was just on their drawing boards.

Greg, thankyou, but also drilling into that one:

http://accentuateservices.com/archives/567

(cut & paste)

Also, be careful when using a fictitious company not to use one that is TOO similar to a real life company for a story that is not parody. For example, you don’t want to say that Todd Johnson worked for a company name MacroShaft, based out of Seattle, and owned by a guy name Gill Bates.

Microsoft would probably sue you if your book did well enough in sales to get their attention.

In conclusion... I'm just going to make up my names!

 

[LittleStar]

Just to further this a little with an inquiry of my own. What about consumable brand names, does the same still apply? Like a character drinking a Pepsi, or using Heinz beans? Im pretty sure i don't use any of them, but just out of curiosity and for future knowledge.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

We had a thread on this a while ago because i used Fisherprice in one of my wips and it mostly came down to its okay provided you don't defame, and that it's an established name eg hoover for vacuum cleaner.

 

[The Judge]

In a nutshell the conclusion is, what I have described above may well come under Trademark Infringement - in other words I am creating a fictional product that the company is creating. I don't think I will bother with the potential trouble.

Um... no. You've read that wrong. Infringement would happen if you were a company producing goods/providing services which impinged on the trademark holder's own area, eg the aluminium foil and the clingfilm the article speaks of. You are not producing potentially misleading goods, you are only referring to the companies in the course of writing. That is fine.

The only real risk for a writer is in the tarnishment/defamation area, and that isn't just writing a screed about how dreadful XYZ product is, or showing a specific make and model of car to be a death trap, it's also linking things which would cause people to think less of the company in question. Showing a hooker drinking pepsi is fine, since the company can't control who drinks their products; showing a brothel run and operated by the Pepsi company to service its employees is not. Basically use common sense!

Having said that, in a SF story set 200 years in the future, I would be pulled out of immersion to see the same brand names as today around except in an historical context eg a character could muse on the beauty of a Harley-Davidson of the late C20th compared to the crap they're turning out in 2250, or he could visit a museum, but to have the actual motorbike companies of 2250 with the same names as today would make me wonder why there should have been such stagnation over the course of 200 years when companies rise, fall, get taken over, just change identity, and I'm afraid I wouldn't put it down to clever world building, quite the reverse.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Amusingly the evil Computer company in Fred Hoyle's Andromeda is Intel. But that was before Intel existed.
Most of the 1970s & 1980s computer companies are gone already. Very few of the 1950s ones survive. There might still be an IBM and Oracle in 200 years, but even in 2 to 5 years time they may not be making Computers. (IBM has sold not just PCs, Thinkpads but now x86 servers to Lenovo). Oracle is unlikely to be making Sun boxes much longer.
Apple is practically a one trick pony, they dropped Computer from Name. They may survive as an accessory seller (they own beats) and media store (iTunes), they are "fragile" as a gadget maker. Microsoft may not exist in 10 or 20 years unless they radically re-invent themselves.
Very few of today's companies will be around in 200 years. Many already from 20th Century are actually just labels used by retailers or OEMS:
All gone, but labels still in use:
Blaupunkt, Telefunken, Schneider, Roberts, Morphy-Richards, Bush, Goodmans, Alba, RCA, Grundig, Polariod.
Companies still exist but consumer Gadget products are using the licensed label and are NOTHING to do with named company:
Westinghouse, Philips (only do lamps and Health), Kodak.

Leading makers gone:
DEC (Digital), Apricot, Amstrad, Wang, North Star, Compaq, Palm, Nokia phones (Nokia still exists as Nokia Networks and other), Acorn (their spin off ARM holdings still exists and more ARM based CPUs in a week made than Intel in a Year!).
Motorola Phones, Motorola Semiconductors, Philips Semi, National Semi, Motorola Radio, HP Semiconductors, HP test gear (sold as Agilent), IMSI, Digital Research, Inmos and many more.

 

[Phyrebrat]

My take on this is that you're a writer and could have fun making up your own companies, anyway. As far as Trademark law goes, TJ has cleared all that up for you. And if it was that risky, someone should tell Stephen King - he has lots of products and brands in his writing (it really helps place his world and environment).

I tend to make stuff up and trust the reader is smart enough to get the idea. In Wheezer, the story is about a reality TV show that goes in and renovates a room. I couldn't use 'Changing Rooms' or 'Extreme Makeover' but came up with 'Renovation Nation' in the hope that it suggests a TV franchise. Can't you do something similar? Won't that strengthen your world building?

pH

 

[ralphkern]

im sticking with the fact it's an infringement view. I'm sure a judge would appreciate that if there is an option or inroads for something to be challenged in court, it can be. And seen as my Doug McClure style barrister who I could afford would possibly be inferior to, say Apples I've decided that It's not worth the potential bother.

Which is a pity as I think I contrary to other views, I like those kind of links. However this post was never intended to be a debate about which companies we would see around in 200 years. I have a good idea about who would be around and would justify and argue which companies have durability, but that's a different thread.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

If you have fictitious products you need a fictitious company. The 200 years who will still be around is a red herring, sorry. But assume you were writing contemporary. If you are writing contemporary, then you can only mention actual products in the ways already said above.

My point really is that if writing set 200 years time then there is less of a problem as it quite reasonable to have NO recognisable Companies, thus no issue with infringement.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'm sure if you said that Fred grabbed a Pepsi from the fridge, but why not just say he grabbed a cola.

For cars you could say that he jumped into a Toyota, but why not just say he gets into a Japanese sports car. Peoples imaginations will do the rest.

 

[Nick B]

The main reason I would suggest not using current brand names is the danger of dating your work. If you use Apple as a major brand set 200 years in the future but they go bust in 2018 it is immediately something that would jar me as a reader.
Imagine reading a story set today that was written a twenty five years ago where the MC walks into Woolworths and buys the latest Amstrad laptop...

 

[ralphkern]

There are many main-stream companies that have been around for 100 years plus, Cadburys, Lloyds, Burberry and Rolls Royce. There are also many that would have seemed to have been strong but are dying a death, Nokia and Yahoo have reduced immensely as they don't follow the times.

As I say, this isn't a side of this thread that I particularly wanted to get drawn into. But my opinion, for what it is worth is that some have shown a flexibility that means they will likely be around in some form or other for a long time to come.

I do balance that against Arthur C Clarke/Stanley Kubrik's big one (although it is now geek culture) with his Pan Am space craft in the 2001 movie (which in itself shows its dated from its mere title!) So yes, Quel, you have a good and valid point.

Regardless, its not a side I'm going to dabble in now anyway. It is so incidental to the story, merely a word here and there in relation to an idea I was playing around with while doing a sweep through my WIP. I'm not going to give it too much more thought.

Thank you for your imput folks. It might be an interesting debating thread in another section though...