What is happening to Cinestill?

[kl122002]

Just seen many topics about Cinestill in Reddit, about this company is suing other parties.
What is happening? I am not a fan of Cinestill and so I don't know how this begin.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Oh, so they're suing everyone selling 500T under the name 800T, or any variation of it, including tungsten? And they trademarked it? I never liked them, now my opinion about them got even worse.

 

[mshchem]

I tried to read all of Omer's statement on Reddit, holy moly, 300,000 words.

 

[koraks]

Ok, so Cinestill is basically threatening retailers of one particular Chinese brand that also repackages remjet-less Vision3, likely because they can't successfully touch the brand itself. So instead they do a huff&puff cease and desist number, to which CatLabs have responded with a sincere "up yours", because according to CatLabs, the legal basis for Cinestill's powerplay is wafer thin and shaky (and I think CatLabs are right, too).

A poor performance all around. Sad, unimaginative and probably counterproductive in the end.

 

[mtnbkr]

I haven't read Omer's statement, but I recall that trademark holders have to defend their trademarks else they risk losing them. Cinestill may not *want* to do this, but if they don't, they open themselves up to losing the 800T name to others.

Does anyone have a link to the statement on Reddit?

Chris

 

[L Gebhardt]

I searched and found the write up here: . There are links to the two original posts

 

[michaelelliottphotog]

As far as I know the 800T trademark is pretty difficult to defend given it's a descriptor rather than a trade name (i.e. the supposed speed of the film and the lighting conditions it can be shot under).

Either way, I'm enjoying seeing Cinestill royally shafting itself. Never liked them. Bought 4 rolls right back about 3 years ago and never shot it since (might still have a roll of 800T that I can put in a pyre).

 

[Minolta93]

I haven't read Omer's statement, but I recall that trademark holders have to defend their trademarks else they risk losing them. Cinestill may not *want* to do this, but if they don't, they open themselves up to losing the 800T name to others.

Does anyone have a link to the statement on Reddit?

Chris

They shouldn't even have a trademark on it in the first place. How else are you supposed to name an 800ISO tungsten balanced film? And they don't even make the film themselves, they buy it from Kodak.

It'd be like a car company trying to trademark "1.7L I4" and they don't even make the engine themselves. And whoever approved a trademark for a standardized descriptor of a product needs to be fired.

 

[Anon Ymous]

They shouldn't even have a trademark on it in the first place. How else are you supposed to name an 800ISO tungsten balanced film? And they don't even make the film themselves, they buy it from Kodak.

Making it even more laughable. What are they smoking?

 

[Helge]

EK probably has little problem with competing indirectly with KA.
Could be a nice regulating mechanism to the market if they can bring the price of remjetless V3 down below Portra 400 prices on a steady basis.

 

[Helge]

Ever since I heard the brothers spew the “it’s about the process” platitude in the Kodakery podcast, I’ve had a problem with them.

 

[Cholentpot]

Let Kodak sell directly again. These games are silly.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Let Kodak sell directly again. These games are silly.

Just as soon as you compensate Kodak Alaris for use of the Kodak still film brand. Alaris' lawyers likely don't consider relevant aspects of law "silly."

 

[Cholentpot]

Just as soon as you compensate Kodak Alaris for use of the Kodak still film brand. Alaris' lawyers likely don't consider relevant aspects of law "silly."

If they're British they would completely understand if you walked in and said 'Here, stop this now. it's quite silly.'

 

[mtnbkr]

They shouldn't even have a trademark on it in the first place. How else are you supposed to name an 800ISO tungsten balanced film? And they don't even make the film themselves, they buy it from Kodak.

It'd be like a car company trying to trademark "1.7L I4" and they don't even make the engine themselves. And whoever approved a trademark for a standardized descriptor of a product needs to be fired.

Perhaps, but there's lots of silliness in trademark law. Cinestill is not alone in this regard.

Chris

 

[AnselMortensen]

If they're British they would completely understand if you walked in and said 'Here, stop this now. it's quite silly.'

Why am I now visualizing a Monty Python skit?

 

[mshchem]

Why am I now visualizing a Monty Python skit?

Oh yeah!!

 

[mshchem]

 

[cmacd123]

kodak will happily sell you Vision 3 500T. they will not let you repack and sell it as "eastman" "Kodak" "Vison" "5219" or any variation. They will tolerate CineStyle, mo-pic CineColor 500T and a host of others. they seem to be tolerating many folks who advertise that their product is "Made from" the actually Kodak product as long as the dealer is clear that the Various Kodak Trademarks ARE indeed Kodak Trademarks.

Eastman Kodak list a 400ft 35mm roll of 5219, 500T in their catalogue. just write ei-order@kodak.com and tell them how many rolls you would like. https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION3-5219-7219-sell-sheet-EN.pdf


even with the REM-JET removed, the ECN2 films are really not a subsitute for regular C-41 films. with the RemJet removed before exposure, they are a find demonstarion of why film needs an auto-halo strategy.

 

[Cholentpot]

Why am I now visualizing a Monty Python skit?

View attachment 350903

It's a bit woody don't you think?

 

[mshchem]

It's a bit woody don't you think?

Tinny ! I had to Google that episode.

 

[Cholentpot]

Tinny ! I had to Google that episode.

I need a bath

 

[mshchem]

I need a bath

You've had 8 today all ready.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Late-stage capitalism circus, I quite enjoy these reseller wars, demonstrates that we indeed live in a MP sketch : D

 

[Agulliver]

Seems petty, and in the end it's the consumers who suffer.