Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Displays The Media

IMAX Tries To Censor Ars Technica Over SteamVR Comparison 190

Posted by Soulskill from the reading-this-article-having-an-IMAX-theater-on-a-two-dimensional-window dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IMAX Tries To Censor Ars Technica Over SteamVR Comparison More

IMAX Tries To Censor Ars Technica Over SteamVR Comparison

Comments Filter:

  • Streisand Effect.? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @01:52PM (#49947577)

    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: (Score:3)

      by tmosley ( 996283 )
      I don't think any reasonable person would be confused by the wording of that article to think that those were IMAX goggles or something.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        Does not matter. The Trademark Dilution Act [govtrack.us] "Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury."

        In other words, you can't use IMAX to generically mean large-format movie. This is because once you let th

        • Re:Streisand Effect.? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @02:27PM (#49947957)

          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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dissy ( 172727 )

          If they didn't want the world to refer to IMAX as the name "IMAX" then they probably shouldn't have filed a trademark on IMAX, which legally enforces us to refer to IMAX only as IMAX and nothing else, while also not referring to anything else as IMAX.

          There was no claim that the VR headset was IMAX, and I see no other references claiming IMAX to be called something else, so all is legal from both directions.
          The only reference I see is calling an IMAX theater IMAX.
          I see no evidence of your claim that they use

        • It's trickier than that. You can go ahead and use IMAX however you want, but IMAX is compelled to send you a cease and desist to show that they are actively protecting their trademark. They can't win in this case, but they are obligated to ask.

          • They're only obligated to do those things if you try to use that name for something you're trying to sell. If you are literally talking about an IMAX theater made/certified by IMAX (or comparing something to one), then they have nothing to say about that.

            • They have to make a reasonable effort to prevent genericide. This would fall under that, because they are using IMAX to describe a large format theater and not an IMAX. They could need cases like this in the future if someone wants to claim that IMAX willfully let their trademark become generic.

              • But in this case, they could easily argue that they're trying to compare it to the best example rather than any large format theater.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )

            IMAX is compelled to send you a cease and desist to show that they are actively protecting their trademark.

            No, they are not. That is a common misconception held by those on Slashdot, but is incorrect. Unfortunately, I've seen it so often here that I don' t think I'll ever convince anyone of the truth, though your misunderstanding of reality doesn't change it.

        • Does not matter. The Trademark Dilution Act "Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury."

          It's your comment that doesn't matter. Despite other legislation, there is an exception in U.S. law for fair use. Since it was a descriptive article or review, and not an advertisement, the situation clearly falls under fair use, which allows critical discussion and comparisons.

          • Before anyone tries to cut you down by suggesting you're confused and that fair use is a copyright concept, I'll provide this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair use (U.S. trademark law) [wikipedia.org]

            Which is to say, I'm glad I decided to do a quick search before shooting off a reply, since I was about to tell you that fair use applies to copyright, not trademarks. I never knew that there was also a fair use doctrine for trademarks as well.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tmosley ( 996283 )
          " in commerce"

          News ain't commerce.

          Nor is language. Otherwise, we'd be calling Kleenex, tissues. Kleenex has no problem protecting their trademark. If they let Puffs use their name, that would be problematic for them, and they would have to take action.
      • Well now, wait, why not? Imagine having a headset on your head that was able to simulate the large, concave screen in a way that was portable and private. Essentially a "movie theater" in your pocket. That's not outlandish and I can see IMAX'S point of view on this.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Usually the kind of people who get paid by how tight they can clench their buttcheeks.

  • Stupid stupid stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @01:52PM (#49947589)
    "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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      Problem is, that only works to the benefit of the newcomer and the detriment of the trademark holder. 'Product X is as good as IMAX!' Hey, I've heard of IMAX, that is high-quality stuff. Customer buys product X and it is a piece of crap. Association is now IMAX must be crap. THAT is why holders of famous marks like IMAX do not want their marks used to generically describe a product, which is exactly what Ars is doing.

      • Let's assume the customer thinks IMAX is awesome. Given that he's buying X because it was compared favourably with IMAX, this is reasonable. Let's say product X turns out to be crap. The customer's reaction is likely to be something like, "This is a piece of crap--the experience is in no way comparable to what IMAX does for films." This, too, is reasonable.

        He is not going to decide of a sudden that IMAX has suddenly turned to crap, too, which is what you seem to think, even though this is not reasonable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tmosley ( 996283 )
        No, that's stupid, and you are stupid. Just stop posting.

    • You hit the nail on the head. I propose we comply with [IMAX' obvious desires] and since they clearly don't want their trademark associated with quality, we appease them; here's a suitable example:

      After that six-pack of Guinness and all those 7 Layer Burritos, I IMAX'd the hell out of that bathroom!

  • Slahdot Censored by IMAX!

  • The Streisand Effect will not affect IMAX (Score:4, Funny)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @01:55PM (#49947631) Journal

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

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • IMAX apparently doesn't understand trademark or copyright at all.

    Simply mentioning IMAX in an article isn't "use of trademark".
    Had Ars set up a company selling things tagged with IMAX logos, THAT is use of trademark.

    Fucking idiots.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Next auto magazines will have to stop saying, "...it drives as good as.... $OTHER_CAR..." and you can extrapolate to all the other goods in the world.

  • For the first few times I saw IMAX it was good. Then IMAX decided to create just a large flat screen and slap IMAX logo to wring cash. The large flat screen is nowhere near the IMAX parabolic dome screen. Then very good head phones came to the market that will compensate for outside noise and deliver deafening sound without all the 18 kW speakers IMAX uses. After all the technical things, what really sucks is the fare they are showing. How many times can one watch the Colorado river and the polar ice caps?

    • These days, the IMAX name is about as reputable as a "THX Certified" sticker.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawguy ( 1600213 )

      For the first few times I saw IMAX it was good. Then IMAX decided to create just a large flat screen and slap IMAX logo to wring cash. The large flat screen is nowhere near the IMAX parabolic dome screen. Then very good head phones came to the market that will compensate for outside noise and deliver deafening sound without all the 18 kW speakers IMAX uses. After all the technical things, what really sucks is the fare they are showing. How many times can one watch the Colorado river and the polar ice caps? It has become so bad local science museum has made IMAX free with membership.

      Now will they dare to ask slashdot to take down my comments?

      What are the headphones that compare to the surround sound experience of an IMAX theater? Or did you just mean that headphones can be loud?

    • Sounds like you have things a bit backwards. IMAX is known for really big flat screens. As in, 5 story tall screens. Then, what was then known as the San Diego Hall of Science, went looking for a large format projection system for their dome planetarium, and wound up working with IMAX to redesign the system for the planetarium. The result was initially called OMNIMAX and is now known as IMAX Dome.

      IMAX's real downfall was the introduction of their digital projection system into retrofitted multiplex cinemas.

    • For the first few times I saw IMAX it was good. Then IMAX decided to create just a large flat screen and slap IMAX logo to wring cash. The large flat screen is nowhere near the IMAX parabolic dome screen.

      I think you're confusing IMAX and OMNIMAX. OMNIMAX has the dome shaped screen.

  • That's weird I always assumed IMAX was just a generic term for theatre with a big ass screen?

    Let me put this another way... ask anyone what do you call a movie theatre with a big ass multi-story curved screen? ... and before they answer say ...but you can't use the word "IMAX".

    In various contexts people talk about IMAX cameras and film formats even NASA folks talking about the imax camera for curiosity ... I seriously always assumed it was just a generic specification.

    Who knows that IMAX is a brand? Perhap

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suutar ( 1860506 )

      Is there a theater with a big ass multi story curved screen that is not an IMAX? I haven't heard of anyone else doing that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawguy ( 1600213 )

      That's weird I always assumed IMAX was just a generic term for theatre with a big ass screen?

      Let me put this another way... ask anyone what do you call a movie theatre with a big ass multi-story curved screen? ... and before they answer say ...but you can't use the word "IMAX".

      In various contexts people talk about IMAX cameras and film formats even NASA folks talking about the imax camera for curiosity ... I seriously always assumed it was just a generic specification.

      Who knows that IMAX is a brand? Perhaps they have already suffered severe dilution and currently deserve no trademark/brand projection of any kind.

      NASA isn't using "IMAX" as a general term for high def camera, they use actual IMAX branded cameras:

      https://www.nasa.gov/multimedi... [nasa.gov]

      Your belief that IMAX is a generic term is exactly why IMAX has to vigorously defend their trademark, even if they've overstepped this time.

  • Apparently, they've never heard of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution either.

  • Dude, we are suing you for the iMax. You can't change a single letter from the name of our product, iMac, and call it your own!

    And don't you know that we *own* the letter 'i'?

  • ... saying "our new car is as fast as a BMW" could be restrained due to the unauthorized use of the BMW trademark. I believe this would fall into the category of "fair use" (if it was copyright, I believe there's a similar doctrine for reasonable use of a Trademarked term)
    I assume IMAX (the company which I expect I CAN comment on) is worried about the possibility of pervasive VR taking some seats away from theater attendance.

  • It looks like IMAX has issued and "IMAX sized" apology [arstechnica.com] to ARS for this issue.

  • Too bad... (Score:5, Informative)

    by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @02:23PM (#49947923)
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @02:24PM (#49947935)

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

  • I just took an enormous IMAX and had to use the plunger to get it to go down. My house still smells of IMAX, so I opened the window.

    And my 13" Sony black & white TV from 1970 is like an IMAX that rests on my belly when I'm watching Wheel of Fortune. Except I have to hold the antenna or I get fuzz.

    Just like I have fuzz on my IMAX.

  • We need a law that lets us sue for people for sending out letters stating they will sue you.

    / end joke

  • If I ran Ars, I would have responded with a promise that IMAX would never be mentioned in any form on Ars or any of its affiliates ever again.

  • Misleading indeed! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Scragglykat ( 1185337 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @03:30PM (#49948495)
    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!
  • I read the exchange on Ars, and I'm not convinced IMAX has properly understood their egregious error. Their apology said, "... in this situation we acted too quickly without truly understanding the reference to our brand. ... we will try to be better at taking compliments ...". That reads to me like they still think the take-down request would have been appropriate if the reference was uncomplimentary. But, as Ars pointed in their open response to the request, it would still have been an inappropriate actio

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close