Slashdot Mirror
IMAX Tries To Censor Ars Technica Over SteamVR Comparison
Cutting_Crew writes: An article published last week at Ars Technica looked at the SteamVR virtual reality headset created by Valve. Contained in the article is a quote from game designer Alex Schwartz, who said in reference to the device, "The jump between a regular game and playing a room scale VR experience is X times 100. It’s like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house.' It’s so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup." Now, for that single quoted reference, IMAX has sent a trademark complaint to Ars and demanded that they take the story down. "The company said our story required a retraction because it included a brief reference to IMAX—included without IMAX's permission. 'Any unauthorized use of our trademark is expressly forbidden.'"
If you look at the letter from IMAX (PDF), you'll see they think the reference to IMAX is "misleading to readers." They further request that "all future articles regarding this "room-scale" virtual reality system make no reference to our registered trademark." Apparently, IMAX has never heard of the Streisand Effect. Update: 06/19 19:26 GMT by S : IMAX has apologized.
If you look at the letter from IMAX (PDF), you'll see they think the reference to IMAX is "misleading to readers." They further request that "all future articles regarding this "room-scale" virtual reality system make no reference to our registered trademark." Apparently, IMAX has never heard of the Streisand Effect. Update: 06/19 19:26 GMT by S : IMAX has apologized.
Citation please?
Trademark still has fair use, and fair use can even be established if it is confusing.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Apparently, they've never heard of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution either.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
IMAX doesn't know trademark law. But for the dumb-asses out there...FTA:
"First of all, this isn't a story about IMAX, and it contains just one (nice!) reference to IMAX. The statement wasn't Ars' speech at all, but one that an Ars writer chose out of many possible interview quotes. But that's all a bit of an aside, because the important point is that despite Ruby's fantastical interpretation of what a trademark means, we're actually allowed to say whatever we want about IMAX. I can say IMAX screens look like SteamVR, or that they look like my 47" Vizio TV, or that they remind me of purple bunnies. We can review IMAX directly, we can compare it to other products, we can love it, we can hate it—all without IMAX's permission."
IMAX published an apology and admitted they overreacted. IMHO this is exactly the right thing to have done.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
And they really did apologize, not use the typical "We're sorry that you were offended by our perfectly reasonable actions" fake apology that are so common in these situations:
This is an IMAX-sized mea culpa to you, your team at Ars Technica, and your readers.
We are very passionate about our brand and sometimes we can be overzealous in trying to protect it. Unfortunately in this situation we acted too quickly without truly understanding the reference to our brand.
Again—we apologize for how this was handled and we will try to be better at taking compliments moving forward!
It'd be nice if Slashdot could mention their apology in the summary.
In other words, you can't use IMAX to generically mean large-format movie. This is because once you let that happen, it becomes incfreasingly difficult to protect the trademark, and that is where the confusion comes in.
That's not correct. You absolutely can use it generically to mean a large-format movie, just the same as many folks use "Band-Aid" to mean an adhesive bandage and "Kleenex" to mean a tissue. There's nothing in trademark law stopping you, as a regular person, from using protected marks in your everyday speech in whatever manner you desire. You can disparage them, you can conflate them with a knock-off, or you can even use the names incorrectly. Trademark law doesn't cover any of that.
What trademark law does (and what your own quote even says, though you seem to have missed it) is prevent the use of protected marks in commerce. You cannot make a large-format movie product and brand it with "IMAX", any more than you can make a tissue product and call it "Kleenex" or make an adhesive bandage and call it "Band-Aid", because doing so would cause customer confusion regarding which product is the legitimate one and which ones are knock-offs.
A news article providing a quote from a person that makes mention of a protected mark does not mean that the mark is being used in commerce. The article is simply quoting someone who mentioned the mark. Were the site called "IMAX's Ars Technica", IMAX would have a valid claim against Ars, but merely using the term, even incorrectly, in a quotation from someone else is in no way engaging in commerce, and as such does not fall under the quotation you provided.
IMAX sucks. The few theaters you find in science museums, the original IMAX screens, are pretty cool, but the vast majority of tiny screen theaters being marketed as IMAX and up-charged accordingly are lies! My I's have seen more, that is not their MAX!
Do you have any examples of this? I'd be curious to see a couple as I can't seem to find examples after some searching.
I think you may be mistaken, and part of the reason is because IMAX sent an apology letter to Ars as follows:
This is an IMAX-sized mea culpa to you, your team at Ars Technica, and your readers.
We are very passionate about our brand and sometimes we can be overzealous in trying to protect it. Unfortunately in this situation we acted too quickly without truly understanding the reference to our brand.
Again—we apologize for how this was handled and we will try to be better at taking compliments moving forward!
So as near as I can tell, a company like IMAX cannot prevent you from referencing them in an article or other publication.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...