the misspelling of words on certain products on Roseanne

[joan davis fan]

On TBS yesterday I caught Roseanne. Darlene was seen with a can of soda with the words "Shasa" on it. Looked just like a can of Shasta I saw recently at the local Target. Same show a can of Mello Yellow was seen, again with some letters taken out but you could tell it was a can a Mellow Yellow.

A while back on Roseanne, John Goodman is seen with a cigar. Clearly seen in the background is a pack of "hillies blunts", looked just like a pack of Phillies Blunts, only the "P" was missing.

A friend of mine who is a big Roseanne fan tells me that sometimes the characters are seen having a beer. Well the can looks just like a regular Coors Lite. Same color, wording everything only instead of "Coors" it simply says "Beer'.

Same thing with Marlboro Cigarettes and Dr. Pepper. On Roseanne its " Marloro Cigarettes" and "Dr. Peeper". The packages look just like the real thing only the wording is different, usually just a letter is missing or changed like the Dr. Pepper.

Is this some kind of a joke or is it some kind of copyright thing.
If its the latter thing, wouldnt it still be a copyright problem as the logo is still seen just letters were changed.

Either way I dont get it. Anybody else noticed this? I have only seen it on Roseanne.

[DJM77]

I've noticed stuff like that on Hogan Family and a couple of other shows. I think it's like you said, a copyright thing.

[TJL]

To avoid expensive copyright fees, the props are usually designed to resemble real products, but with changes in spelling.
I also think there would probably be some issues brought up with "product placement" the practice of companies paying money to have their soda or fast food displayed openly on screen. That is usually only done in movies.

[bb]

Originally posted by TJL
To avoid expensive copyright fees, the props are usually designed to resemble real products, but with changes in spelling.
I also think there would probably be some issues brought up with "product placement" the practice of companies paying money to have their soda or fast food displayed openly on screen. That is usually only done in movies.


I always thought the design and logo as well as the brand name itself fell under the copyright of the product. There have been stories in the past about compaines who ended up in court because their products looked just al ittle too close to their competition.

About "product placement" I am surprised this isnt done with tv shows today though it was used back in the 50s ( Phillip Morris with I Love Lucy for example ).

[TJL]

I too have heard of compaines suing because a logo is the same color or shape or whatever as their product, but in most cases I guess it's a little nuisance the company has to deal with. Why should a billion dollar company like Pepsi care if some TV character has a can in the fridge that looks like a Pepsi?

It would be interesting though highly improbable if "sponsored" programming ever came back to TV.
I remember a year or so ago the WB aired some limited run series that was "presented" by Coke. Critics went crazy over the blatant product placement throughout the show. The Coca-Cola logo or some Coke product was in every scene. It was laughable.
Still, now that major companis like G.E. and Disney own major networks, you would think they would try to sneak more products into their shows.

[flagler]

That seems odd to me because on Seinfeld they named products all the time and Friends clearly did it when Rachel worked at Ralph Lauren and Polo and Bloomingdales, I have also heard characters name car brands, On the Nanny the talked about Sara Lee and other types of food and they named restaurants and bars that actually exsist but I don't think you are allowed to blatanly advertise like in The Truman Show how they would position products and have the "actors" do commercials, if they did that in real life I think it is against some trade practices act or something, you can't show the label or go on about how good it is or why someone should use it.:o