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.

Comments

Streisand Effect.?

[bws111]

Apparently the submitter has never heard of the Streisand Effect. either. The Streisand Effect. is where one does not want publicity, but their efforts to suppress it increase the publicity. IMAX is not trying to hide from any publicity, they just don't want their name used in conjunction with some else's product. And preventing confusion about products is the whole point of trademarks.

Re:Streisand Effect.?

[Anubis IV]

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.

Stupid stupid stupid

[tmosley]

"I object to our brand being used to describe ultra-high quality."

Now if the VALVE said that, they would have a case, as it would be appropriation--they would need to work a deal to get an endorsement, but to censor an article for making the comparison (especially when used in such a positive light), is just plain stupid, whether or not they have a case.

The Streisand Effect will not affect IMAX

[fustakrakich]

Whoops! Will Slashdot have to take that down, like some Scientology thing?

Re:IMAX is a trademark, shame on Ars' editors.

[phantomfive]

You are allowed to use a trademark. You can say, "I like IMAX theaters." You can say, "Ibuprofin is generic Advil." You can even say, "VR is like having an IMAX theater in my house." A trademark doesn't prevent people from using the word, which is why the letter is a lawerly request, not a cease and desist notice or threat to sue. IMAX can't really do anything more to stop this use of the word.

Trademark prevents people from doing business under a given word (or phrase). So if I start a company and name it "IMAX VR," then I can be sued out of existence because it would mislead people to believe that IMAX was selling VR. If I start a grocery store and name it Malmart, then Walmart would need to sue to protect their trademark.

Trademark is a way to protect consumers, to prevent imposter companies from doing business as someone else. Using the trademark in normal speech (or writing) is not going to cause problems.

Re:IMAX is a trademark, shame on Ars' editors.

[thaylin]

Citation please?

Trademark still has fair use, and fair use can even be established if it is confusing.

Too bad...

[oh_my_080980980]

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."

Missed opportunity

[fahrbot-bot]

Ars Technica could have misspelled it "iMAX" and pissed off both IMAX and Apple.

Re:IMAX did the right thing

[hawguy]

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.

Misleading indeed!

[Scragglykat]

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!

Re:IMAX is a trademark, shame on Ars' editors.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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.