Apologies Mr. Bigley and Thanks for pointing out my bad netiquette. You were 'crying bullshirt' to Shawn's mention of Apple not paying for placement. I incorrectly assumed you were 'crying bullshirt' to the fact that Apple pays at all (in any shape or form). I think what Mr. Kegan mentions below is very interesting. Mr Kegan states, "Generally, in the USA, if a brand-identified product is used in media in its ordinary way for its ordinary purpose, there is no need to obtain permission. However, were there a likely confusion regarding sponsorship or endorsement, then permission might be helpful to obtain in advance. This is a general comment, particular facts may change the general rule." On 12/8/02 9:16 PM, "Michael Bigley" <wakinyan at fuse.net> wrote: >> On 12/8/02 3:21 PM, "Michael Bigley" <wakinyan at fuse.net> wrote: >> >>>>> Nope - Apple doesn't pay for product placement. > > shawn said the above > >>>>> >>>> >>>> They did for Berverly Hills 90210 some years back, and the Mission >>>> Impossible movie. > > someone else said that > >>> >>> Although I have no direct proof Apple, I have spent 10 years in the >>> advertising business, and this is common practice. So unless you can >>> provide credible sources Shawn, I will have to cry bullshirt. >>> >>> I will add, that this may not be pay in cash, but in actual hardware >>> and/or software... not just for the prop but for video editing, etc. > > I said those two things. > > > You are a victim of bad netiquette... Bill Reburn