• jqubed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    Maybe it’s more about the trademarked logo than the trademark look-and-feel

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Usually it’s even dumber than that. Shows use the logos to try to blackmail large companies into paying them for “advertising”, and if the companies don’t pay up they censor the logos.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      yea all logos and names of brands are heavily trademarked, using them in your own works isn’t allowed unless you get written premission/contract for advertising for them or if it’s incidental use (imagine the main character running through a busy street and a small Apple ad flashes at the edge of the screen somewhere for 2s, if someone tries to sue for that courts are most likely to dismiss the case with a legalese equivalent of “bruh chill”)

  • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    Can somebody explain what i’m missing? The logo is blurred correctly and can’t be read

    • pturn1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The three stripes down shoulders and legs are usually indicative of a certain German sportswear brand.

      • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yeah, i recognize the brand, but i thought it had to be more than that. The purpose of censoring the logo is usually legal and to be clear what is and what is not product placement. That is done correctly, so i’d say this doesn’t fit this community

        • criitz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          Right, it’s not about making it impossible to tell who made the clothing, it’s about hiding the legally trademarked logos.

  • ef9357@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ve never understood why anyone would pay money to be a walking billboard.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s all about conspicuous consumption; gotta show that you can afford the real article. Some people really do believe in the power of “pay to win” and bolt-on status points, and by all accounts, are actively supported by their peers.

      On occasion, branded stuff really is the best value. IMO, that’s usually when a brand is starting out, not when they’re popular.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Otherwise people wouldn’t be able to tell that you spent $75 on your T-shirt instead of $25

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        $25 for a T-shirt? Try $5! I buy 32 Cool shirts in a big ol bulk bag at Costco. I have around 20 of the exact same shirt, and I wear them every day.

  • illi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    The more stripes - the more [brand]