Belvita commercial Delorean

[sdg3205]

Anyone seen this? Random!

15809

15810

[Jonathan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b3ZTYJekQc

The car is 17076, and from Ontario.

[ccurzio]

There were a few exotic cars in that traffic jam.

Side note: BelVita is disgustingly similar to "Velveeta", and the idea of a Velveeta breakfast bar makes me want to puke.

[Dangermouse]

I assume the "DMC" logo is blacked out for copyright reasons??

[thirdmanj]

I assume the "DMC" logo is blacked out for copyright reasons??

Oh...here we go again....

Doesn't Steve Rice own that logo?

[Dangermouse]

No, I wasn't trying to resurrect that again. What I meant was that in many ads, the brand name/logo of a car, any car, is removed, rather than the advertizer going through the required steps/payment with the manufacturer (Audi/VW/ whomever) to show the logo.

What I should have said was "was the "DMC" blacked out or does the owner not have a logo at the front of the car?"

[thirdmanj]

No, I wasn't trying to resurrect that again. What I meant was that in many ads, the brand name/logo of a car, any car, is removed, rather than the advertizer going through the required steps/payment with the manufacturer (Audi/VW/ whomever) to show the logo.

What I should have said was "was the "DMC" blacked out or does the owner not have a logo at the front of the car?"

Ahh I see. Well it shouldn't matter for the DMC-12 since DMC doesn't exist anymore.

[ccurzio]

Whether the argument is valid or not isn't really the point. The DMC logo WAS removed for trademark infringement reasons, regardless of whether a violation would have occurred. So Dermot's question is valid.

The outfit that produced the commercial lifted the logo from all of the cars for that reason because they're not going to research every individual company to see if their trademarks have expired.

[thirdmanj]

Whether the argument is valid or not isn't really the point. The DMC logo WAS removed for trademark infringement reasons, regardless of whether a violation would have occurred. So Dermot's question is valid.

The outfit that produced the commercial lifted the logo from all of the cars for that reason because they're not going to research every individual company to see if their trademarks have expired.

Meh, makes sense I suppose. lol, as if we couldn't tell...

[Jonathan]

The owner of the car, who is knowledgable of the "filming" industry, said it is a no-no in general to show someone else's logo in a commercial. It wasn't specific to it being DMC. I believe he said taping over the logo is something called "greeking". Done to cars, computer monitors, etc.

[thirdmanj]

The owner of the car, who is knowledgable of the "filming" industry, said it is a no-no in general to show someone else's logo in a commercial. It wasn't specific to it being DMC. I believe he said taping over the logo is something called "greeking". Done to cars, computer monitors, etc.

Yeah, you see that kinda thing all the time on TV and film. Unless of course the car company has there products in the film for the purposes of product placement. When Myth-Busters first started out they "greeked" EVERYTHING, but now the shows so hot, they can't get enough logos on shit.

[Jimmyvonviggle]

Did Michael B have something to do with this commercial?