Using Real-World Locations or Products in a Published Work

I know it might sound silly or n00bish or paranoid, but one thing I've been wondering for a while is how to handle working a real location into a fictional work without running into copyright issues or otherwise getting into trouble with the people in charge of said location. I know things like country, state, or city names are most likely okay (and even real-life people in some instances), but what about universities, libraries, or other important buildings or institutions or road names or landmarks, for instance? Or products like movies, video games, TV shows, brand names, etc. Where do you draw the line between acceptability and infringement?

I ask this because one of the stories I have planned would ideally take place at an existing university in an existing city, but revolves around a fictional class there. I don't plan on mentioning any names of any real people, but likely will be involving well-known city landmarks and locations in addition to the university itself. Of course, the alternative would be to use a city and university that's completely fictional, but I would rather avoid that for the sake of (semi-) realism.

Copyrights based on governmental entities such as towns, cities, counties, etc., or based on properties they own (county or municipal libraries, roads, parks, etc.), are not enforceable in the United States.

Mere reference is not violation (this is why we aren't all sued for singing Happy Birthday). Mere reference you make money off of is more problematic.

Read a few books set in real places. You'll notice they're distinct with things like street references and they tend to use landmarks that are out in the open. Novels have more room to fudge and name real institutions like universities than visual works do; the mere words are less troublesome than the logos because people use the mere words all the time. You can always use nicknames; Mc Donalds hasn't copyrighted Micky D's yet. Just don't overuse them.

edited 9th Jun '15 1:32:05 AM by Night

Now let's say we have a story named... Oh, how about 'A Standard Type of House-enemy'. In this completely hypothetical work of fiction, we have a character who's obsessed with going to Starbucks and only wants Starbucks and loves Starbucks, Starbucks, Starbucks.

If Starbucks is only ever represented in a positive light, the visual logo is never used, and any revenue is made through donations, do you think the writer of that story could continue living a life where Starbucks doesn't sue her?

Edit: In the interest of giving back, I've read up and discussed a few things with not-lawyers to consider.

1) Generification: is your use of the Thing (product/service/company) diluting the brand name? There is nothing as serious in a company's eyes as losing a trademark to generic use. They will absolutely clamp down on this if they feel your work is cheapening their uniqueness. Like the yo-yo lost its special name to everyday terminology, Jell-O (for example) will fight tooth and nail - even against the little guy; this is how much this means to them - to make sure no one turns their brand into an interchangeable name for the overall product.

Jell-O is Jell-O. Everything else is a jelly dessert or gelatinous dessert or whatever. Kleenex is Kleenex. Everything else is a tissue. May the gods that guard your wallet help you if you call any regular bandage a Band-Aid.

b) Negative Portrayal: are you dragging their name through the mud, or targeting the name in anything less than a neutral light? It's fine to say someone looks like Harry Potter. It's not okay to say someone looks like a total asshole Paris Hilton I hate that bitch I hope she dies. It's okay to say the car is a Chevy. It's not okay to have paragraphs on why you should never buy one (and here come the fuzzy parody laws. The thing is, those can vary by case, and even if you're in the right, that doesn't mean the company can't fight you on it anyway).

Third) Endorsement risk: does it look like you're being sponsored by a company that isn't sponsoring you? From working their logo into cover art from mentioning their trademark in your blurb (which I did and have since painlessly changed; the sooner the better, so you're less attached), you can't make it seem like you've got active permission to feature their intellectual property in your work when you don't. A casual name drop is fine. The Penguin Publishing House penguin logo modified to flip you off isn't (Sorry, David Thorne. I still love you).

edited 9th Jun '15 9:37:41 AM by Tartra