CSI's cameras (the TV show)

Rich wrote:
On 2 Oct 2005 12:24:14 -0700, "Charlie Self"
wrote:


Eugene wrote:


Nikon and other manufacturers don't "pay" for passive advertising - they
donate their gear for free for the use of the show....that gets them the
"notice" that they deserve....


Why would the producers use something for free when they can be paid to
use it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/bu...html?th&emc=th

Interesting article about the subject, and timely.

Why not just copy and paste the article, instead of making people
subscribe to the frigging New York Times service?
-Rich

Because it's frigging copyrighted?

dylan wrote:

Why not just copy and paste the article, instead of making people
subscribe to the frigging New York Times service?
-Rich

Copyright ?

Yeah. And the NYT service is free, for the most part. At least the part
that has the article.

It's just ol' Rich again.

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:37:01 +0100, "dylan" wrote:



Why not just copy and paste the article, instead of making people
subscribe to the frigging New York Times service?
-Rich

Copyright ?


I don't think they'd freak out too much if the attribution was
there, even though some readers (a small number on this group)
wouldn't see the commericials on their website.
-Rich

Rich wrote:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:37:01 +0100, "dylan" wrote:



Why not just copy and paste the article, instead of making people
subscribe to the frigging New York Times service?
-Rich

Copyright ?


I don't think they'd freak out too much if the attribution was
there, even though some readers (a small number on this group)
wouldn't see the commericials on their website.
-Rich

What do you do for a living? I'm a writer/photographer and I do NOT
want "a small number" of people copying my work without payment, or at
least askikng for permission. Major newspapers are about like Disney in
protecting their intellectual property, too, so they just might "freak
out".

Proconsul wrote:



On 9/30/05 7:22 PM, in article ,
"Rich" wrote:


Unlike most other shows which use a piece of black
tape to blank out the names of cameras used, CSI
leaves the "Nikon" logo visible on all their equipment,
which is all Nikon. I figure Nikon could be paying them
for some passive advertising.
-Rich


Nikon and other manufacturers don't "pay" for passive advertising - they
donate their gear for free for the use of the show....that gets them the
"notice" that they deserve....

PC

Payment "in kind" ... but they also pay cash.

Charlie Self wrote:

Jer wrote:

dylan wrote:

"Rich" wrote in message
...


Unlike most other shows which use a piece of black
tape to blank out the names of cameras used, CSI
leaves the "Nikon" logo visible on all their equipment,
which is all Nikon. I figure Nikon could be paying them
for some passive advertising.
-Rich


read this
....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4257838.stm




.... any other questions from the peanut gallery?


I very much doubt that BBC regulations have much to do with CSI
behavior.


BBC is "public television". They don't allow their programming producers
to do certain things commercial broadcasters allow.

Things like commercial advertising. Product placement is advertising.
It's just subtle.

CSI appears on a commercial network, i.e. one that is supported by
commercial advertising.

Charlie Self wrote:

Jer wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:


A young lady (daughter of an ex-client of mine) is an assistant to a
set director for a local film company. She doesn't have a web site so I
won't point to one, but according to what she said, they're contacted
regularly by marketing firms for precisely this reason. You'd be amazed
(or appalled) at the bribes she's offered just to put the request
through. To my best recollection, she pleasantly declines their
generosity. Personally, I don't really know if these offers violate
some legal tenet or not (and I don't know that I actually care one way
or the other), but according to her, they do violate contractural
agreements on more than one front. Presumably, this is the reason why
she keeps these conversations short - and sometimes her skirt now that I
think about it.



How can offers from outside companies, that are not accepted, violate
contractual agreements?

1. If she accepted bribes to put requests through, that probably would
violate HER contractual agreements with her employer.

See also: Payola

2. The production company may already have contractual agreements to use
a competing product. Using Pepsi when you already have a contract with
Coke ...

On 10/3/05 5:28 AM, in article
, "no_name" wrote:

Proconsul wrote:



On 9/30/05 7:22 PM, in article ,
"Rich" wrote:


Unlike most other shows which use a piece of black
tape to blank out the names of cameras used, CSI
leaves the "Nikon" logo visible on all their equipment,
which is all Nikon. I figure Nikon could be paying them
for some passive advertising.
-Rich


Nikon and other manufacturers don't "pay" for passive advertising - they
donate their gear for free for the use of the show....that gets them the
"notice" that they deserve....

PC

Payment "in kind" ... but they also pay cash.

Rarely....

PC

Actually, product-placement has developed into a major form of advertising.
You can be sure that for their cameras to be recognizably used on CSI, the
highest-rated TV show in the country, Nikon pays plenty.

mack
austin


Unlike most other shows which use a piece of black
tape to blank out the names of cameras used, CSI
leaves the "Nikon" logo visible on all their equipment,
which is all Nikon. I figure Nikon could be paying them
for some passive advertising.
-Rich


Nikon and other manufacturers don't "pay" for passive advertising - they
donate their gear for free for the use of the show....that gets them the
"notice" that they deserve....

On 2005-10-01 22:55:11 -0700, Proconsul said:




On 10/1/05 8:55 PM, in article , "Darrell"
wrote:


"Proconsul" wrote in message
...



On 9/30/05 7:22 PM, in article ,
"Rich" wrote:

Unlike most other shows which use a piece of black
tape to blank out the names of cameras used, CSI
leaves the "Nikon" logo visible on all their equipment,
which is all Nikon. I figure Nikon could be paying them
for some passive advertising.
-Rich

Nikon and other manufacturers don't "pay" for passive advertising - they
donate their gear for free for the use of the show....that gets them the
"notice" that they deserve....

Perhaps it was for accuracy. Nikon is still considered a technical and
scientific camera. The local forensic types here do use Nikon gear. Not
digital however as there are evidence rules on forensic photography.

A sensible theory, but accuracy is the last thing those who produce TV shows
care about. They care about ratings - which is why you get to see all that
gratuitous gore and the actresses make sure their cleavage shows.....

You can be sure that those who put the show together haven't a clue about
cameras, digital or otherwise, nor do they have a clue about the rules of
evidence in varying jurisdiction. They use Nikons because Nikon made them a
deal to provide equipment free.....

Not necessarily. This stuff is all over the map. Sometimes, the
director has a lot of latitude. "Hey, Nikon rep... give me a few
cameras and I'll use them on the show, if I can keep them." And
sometimes, the higher ups in the studios put the kabosh on that. "Hey,
Smithee, your schtick is up! Canon is paying us $$$ to feature their
products, so they're what you're using next year!"

This same sort of thing may have played out on a day-long-serial-drama
over the past few years, where all the "good guys" computers used to be
of a particular brand, which switched last season ;-)