Hi, im the guy who started the discussion over on Reddit. Your video explained everything really good and also mirrored my thoughts on the whole problem. For me to forgive Cinestill they need to apologize for all the stuff they have done and drop the Trademark they have on the 800T. I hope that everything will be resolved soon and quick so that everybody is happy.
In the US, you legally HAVE to defend your trademark. This would be the same thing as someone respooling other Kodak B&W films and calling it Tmax....I have a feeling Kodak would sue them for using their trademark. No one is saying someone can't buy Kodak cinemas film (500T) and respool it and all, they just need to use a name other than the trademark brand of 800t which cinestill owns.
@@chilecayenne Your right with the Tmax but its not the same as 800T. Tmax is a name and it has nothing to do with the iso or light balance like for example 800T where the T stands for the Tungsten and 800 for the iso. Even for us laws this Trademark shouldn´t have been approved because its a description and nothing more no special thing like Tmax
@@wildechap I believe is the same thing. There is not Kodak 800Tfilm, CS buys the 500T and removes the remjet....and respells and renames it Cinestill 800T. They 800T is their brand for this type film and they have every right to trade mark it.
Leica sued the hell out of everybody who dared to name their cameras M"somenumber" (remember what the OM1 should be named) although the "name" also just is a description M for Messsucher (rangefinder) and 3 for the number of framelines :-) In the automobile world even certain number charcter combinations are copyrighted ... something three digits with a 7 at the end or A"somenumber" etc. Copyright for naming ... if not copyright at all ... is one of the stupidest and most limiting ideas ever 🙂
Love how Ilford and Adox are trying to educate and inspire about shooting film in general, like no other company does. And yes Ilford and Adox are making their own film.
I think Adox and if I'm not wrong Rollei and others are using old Agfa emulsions recipes and facilities. So not 100% their stuff like Ilford or Kodak, but way closer to that than repacking stuff made by others. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Adox is bad for this, quite the contrary I love that they are improving on the Agfa legacy that would have been otherwise lost, I just felt the need for this clarification.
@@joshuapaolino2199 Not to mention incredibly high quality. And that's all of their products---film, chemistry, paper, etc. I basically only shoot Ilford. I bulk-roll, dev, and scan at home, and I have my costs per roll down pretty close to $7 at this point. Films shooters need to support the companies who have the community's best interests at heart.
I already stopped buying their films. At my local photo shop 800T and Portra 800 are the same price. That’s a no brainer! Portra 800 is so much more flexible and lovely in my opinion.
The big problem is that trademark is the indication of origin. So a product that is trademarked comes from specific source. There is no universe where 800T originates from cinestill. That trademark should've never been rubber stamped in the first place. There is also the issue that "800T" is descriptive. You cant trademark that.
I am in Taiwan. You can purchase re-spooled Kodak 250D (or 50D, 500T, etc) for about $4 a roll. Which is up from the $2 a roll it used to be. The remjet is still there, but there are multiple places that are able to remove the remjet before developing. I love the results from 250D, and it just so happens that it is one of the most affordable films to shoot.
You can replace "Cinestill" and "800T" and it applies to so many company. Reminds me a lot of RED and their Red Code patent... but as you said, your money is your political voice against this. Great video Eduardo !
This is called Copyright Trolling. It's legal intimidation. No one has the resources to pay for litigation, even if they would win it, and CineStill knows this. This is classic rent-seeking. Thanks for the heads up. I've been getting into 50D and 400D but I can go to other places for that.
KODAK named 800T 23 years before CineScumb filed for an invalid TM. Its invalid because a number and letter are trademarkable, hence why KODAK in at its peek didn't do it. It is also not trademarkable because it is KODAK film name not CIneScumbs.
Yes, and it's exacerbated because normally, even if you win you have to pay your own lawyers, often for years or decades. I am in favor of intellectual property, but repackaging Kodak's film is not what the laws are designed to protect. I understand the frustration of CineStill when others start to use the same business model, but it was expected. The proper way to deal with this is by lowering the prices.
@@toulcaz31 Not really. They just wanted a new product and made the less interesting one. 200T would be much cooler for C41. Portra 400 is a much better 400 speed film and Color Plus will give you the look for half the price.
Yeah I hate when companies do this, peak design is another good example of this. I think they trademarked the words tech pouch and everyday backpack and will shut down anybody who is trying to sell things with the words everyday and backpack or tech and pouch, which is crazy for me. They make great products but I refuse to support that practice.
Did not know that. That sucks a lot, I generally enjoy peak design products. This makes me not want to support them anymore, if true. Thanks for bringing it up.
I’m pretty sure Cinestill lawyers are filing bogus claims. Intel famously couldn’t protect “i7” as a trademark. 800T is a descriptive term, just like 5m for “5 meters”. That’s trademark law 101. But yeah, I’ll be greeting my respooled Kodak Vision from Reflexlab from now on.
I don't even shoot color film often, let alone Cinestill. This whole thing is sketchy. Registering a trademark for a speed and color temperature is bad; It shouldn't have even gone through. But then going after other companies for selling film at the same speed and temperature is classless.
It's sketchy that they trademarked 800T? They're not suing anyone, they're not saying you can't use ISO 800 or Tungsten balanced...etc. They have copyrighted the use of 800T for their own product because they created the product itself. 800T isn't even an 800ISO film, it's more like 640 but the resellers see fit to keep using the same name as Cinestill because of....say it with me kids... BRAND RECOGNITION! What's classless is the droves of foto-nerds angrily mouth-breathing their disgust over a situation they blew out of proportion and don't understand!
@@Caballeroshot I disagree. Kodak could have trademarked 800T, 50D, or any number of other films that are in their catalog decades ago and altered the landscape of film production but they didn't. It makes sense for CineStill to trademark CineStill because that's their name. Trademarking 800T and 800Tungsten on the grounds that they are a unique product is weak. If they wanted better differentiation, they should have named 800T with more than just descriptive indicators.
@@Caballeroshot The same people that MAKE the film Cinestill sells, also has a film in their history (Kodak Vision 800T Color Negative). The suing part I get, but sending Cease and Desist letters to companies isn't exactly a friendly gesture either. They literally bit the term "800T" from Kodak! So with this knowledge, what exactly did Cinestill create? It's Kodak film... They just remove the remjet, and most believe Kodak is doing that service for them. Cancel Reply
SURFS UP BRO! They fumbled the bag! Even with the other 800T brands, people were misguided to thinking Cinestill was the greatest and would still be buying it, if they didn't self detonate the grenade in their business. Going on IG and commenting to trolls is one way to lose the popular vote. They could have easily posted a video and addressed everyone to quiet the pitchforks. Like people still buy Kodak gold 200, and splurge on higher prices color films (Portra/Fuji) just because.. I bought reflex stuff and still bought Cinestill. People knew what they were doing with Kodak film, but now it makes them look even more like losers after knowing Kodak made an 800T.
I seriously doubt "800T" would survive a trademark dispute in court. Intel has already been through this with their early numbering scheme. That is why they went from model numbers like 386 or 486 to Pentium.
Think about that critically for a second, when you hear someone say "I'm shooting 800T" do you assume they're shooting Reflx labs, or any of the small labs rebranded stuff? No, you think of Cinestill and that's why they reacted the way they did, to protect the brand they made for themselves,
@@Caballeroshot being the first to market doesnt mean that the trademark is viable in court. just because cinestill is the most well-known of the kodak 500t respoolers, doesnt mean that a trademark of a film speed + intended color temperature represented by a number and a single letter is going to hold up.
@@rslrandy that’s not the stance the copyright covers. they’re not saying you can’t use the number 800 or the tungsten designation, they’re saying the branding of specifically using a product like Kodak vision 500 and re-spooling it after remjet removal can’t be marketed as “800T” because they own that designation of the name. Reflx labs would agree, they renamed their film Reflex 800 for a reason.
@@rslrandy Exactly, anyone re-spooling the same kodak stock has the ability to name it ANYTHING under the sun, except "800T" which is what Cinestill copyrighted, you're getting it. The fact is that a 500 ISO film being marketed as anything other than 500 is a marketing tactic for which Cinestill was smart enough to copyright the use at 800 ISO, mainly because they couldn't go with 500T because perhaps they knew all along they would release 400D and they wanted to separate their product choices, I'm speculating. Regardless, they are fighting the specific targeting of the product name along with copy specifically stating "Just like Cinestill" or "Better than 800T" which if they didn't they'd lose their brand value.
My understanding is that Kodak outright stole Polaroid's intellectual property and used it develop their own films. They were caught doing this and had to stop selling instant film. This was a patent dispute, which is different from the trademark violations that CineStill is alleging.
Eduardo, I’ve learned so much from you in the past and enjoyed your videos about processing Kodak movie and other films. You’re on the money again, people need to listen to this. Cheers.
Hey Eduardo, I love what you do. Your channel was instrumental in me learning a lot of what I know about film photography, which I really appreciate. Regarding CineStill (and I'm not sure if you'll ever get to this comment), I disagree. CatLABS lied to the film photography community and wound us up, which I think is ingenious, manipulative, and grossly negligent. CineStill never sued anyone, nor have they put a gag order; CatLABS lawyer(s) requested an official legal response which is a cease and desist letter (in no way a lawsuit nor is legally binding according to the recent PP article). We are yet to hear from CatLABS about why they decided to dub it a "lawsuit." CineStill was quoted on PetaPixel and KosmoFoto saying that they are not going after anyone re-spooling Kodak films and they were not suing anyone. The Reddit thread's author appears to have the remaining issue with eBay, not CS. We are free to dislike CineStill or call them liars but they seem to have the receipts.
Thank you for your reply, and yes, I read all comments (I think?). The author of the reddit posts has posted here so you can ask them directly. So far it’s not just CatLabs but several other small companies showing the cease and desist from CineStill. Sure, they are not suing anybody yet, but claiming that a cease and desist is not an intimidation tactic and they did it with zero interest of going to court sounds like a PR move. If they didn’t plan on doing it, with send those messages? It doesn’t sit right with me. But let’s see how it all develops.
Any company/individual selling respooled film should clearly write the original manufacturer of the film in their box. And, it's crazy how some people are making so much profit by this.
Most cinema film has it's marking on the film like 'Kodak Double X' or 'Kodak 250D' etc. Now if another company/person is selling the Kodak film under their brand name, I believe Kodak can legally sue that individual.
@@abhishekdasgupta8409 yes however boutique films that noviscoat make, or any Kodak make for anyone, can’t be disclosed, if it’s not the same as an existing film. Think Fuji acros
Cinestill 800t is like my favorite film for night photography, and I ingored absolutely everything about these copyright shenanigans. My god this is so evil, and BTW an actual obstacle to the enthusiasm amoung passionates who try to make more diverse film available. What the hell are they doing? Are they really going to hinder the rebirth of film photography for cash grab? WTF In france we have a small lab who launched the Miracolor 400, an equivalent to the 400d, and I do hope someday they will produce their own 800t. I hope cinestill doesn't go Nintendo mode and doesn't send they lawyers to murder miracolor in they sleep. I am so disappointed with this company right now
I think some of this is just dogpiling and some of it is ignorance, but it's also fueled by industry secrecy ... Cinestill has made a bad misstep in their approach to this issue, however. I think they probably should have concentrated more on their remjet removal process being vastly superior to others (because it is so far in the last 2-ish years), and solving the conundrum of having their film finished by Harman (pure speculation, but the backing paper and packaging are dead giveaways), which would almost certainly be a major driver of their price (shipping). On top of diversifying into spaces that are not so easily DIYed. Also, Reflx is definitely NOT a small business. I was ready to disagree, but I agree overall with your stance. Insofar as whatever I believe in capitalism, it's true that it's anticompetitive and monopolistic. We, as consumers, need to be better at educating ourselves on films, too, because Kodak refuses to let direct purchasers say they are selling Kodak stock. Maybe that's Alaris, maybe it's not? But yeah ... good stance. I hope Cinestill realizes the misstep and takes corrective action so we can not lose one of the great success stories of recent years.
Thanks for coming forward with your opinion. What Cinestill is doing is pure lawfare. It's scummy, it's trying to intimidate small businesses.. It's a shame I just bought 800T roll just yesterday, to have to see this now.
This is why I exclusively shoot BnW. Ilford/Harman and Adox make their own film and also distribute various stocks from dirt cheap to premium. They’re super in touch with their community and I love it. Ilford Delta 3200 has magical amounts of natural grain.
The origin of 35mm photography is based on reusing an existing movie format. Before Leica there were cameras that did this, and we've come full circle. If a company can sell a branded product more cheaply than the original manufacturer, I'm all in. If they're selling repackaged film as a bespoke, premium product, I'll take my money elsewhere, generally to the people who make it.
Sellers in my country just label their respooled Kodak film as is - Vision 3 500T or just 5219 etc. - they even tell you that since it's respooled you may get one or two extra frames per roll.
I think the biggest problem with bulkloading for people is the investment in to the big filmspools. I still totaly agree about cinestill. it's weird to monopolise the name of a repacaged version of a nother companys product.
This is exactly right, I think as more people start to buy more "500t" films and the vision series stuff there are more labs that are willing to develop remjet backed films. Here in Atlanta we have two labs that partnered with Kodak Film lab Atlanta and they will send your rolls off to them to develop them in True ECN-2 processing. I honestly think Cinestill is too washed out anyway. Maybe that's because they remove that remjet layer before you shoot it.
When I started to see stories about Cinestill a few days ago I took a look at the price of a reel of 65mm Vision 3 (for 120 film); you need really deep pockets and a lot of investment up front. If you can deal with the remjet in processing though, you can buy it for a reasonable price in 35mm and bulk load your own.
I always thought CineStill's colour films were only slightly more expensive than they needed to be because removing remjet of long rolls and respooling them to cartridges AND doing it consistently can't be cheap and easy; specially when the 120 film came out where you would need to cut and fit them to 60mm rolls. The Eastman double-X though, it's just standard respooling... and charging almost the same as the colour film makes no sense. But they always were a little sketchy, a lot of marketing fluff to make things seem bigger and more exciting than they really are, and everyone bought into them! My favourite was "removing the remjet turns this ISO 500 film to ISO 800". Like I never really trusted them. I didn't even trust them when they compared C-41 to ECN-2 development and showed it to yield the exact same results. They then started to do other sketchy thing like capitalising on their brand name to sell other products that they kept describing as something like they came up with themselves, again with a lot of marketing fluff to make it seem like they're oh so innovative. Just standard 21st century company, where you do the bare minimum of R&D and the marketing dept. does the heavy lifting to make everyone buy your product. So it doesn't at all surprise me that they're doing these nasty legal moves, specially after watching the owners on a video once and hearing them talk like average rich kids from the US.
Wow haven’t been keeping up on this news. Thanks for the info and video. Super lame when all we are trying to do is enjoy a hobby without being further ripped off. Cinestill what the hell
Good to see you back and well said! Totally agree that the film landscape is a strange one these days compared to when I first started following your stuff years ago. Prices are going crazy and it's been disappointing to hear from camera shops around me suspecting people of bulk buying their film stock and reselling online for more. The scarcity over the lockdowns really brought out the worst (and most capitalist) side of it. That's saying nothing about prices rising around dev and scan/etc. It's ok when you've worked out all the tricks/bought the kit to save here and there but I'd never manage it if I was starting out now. Hopefully the bubble bursts again so that more people can enjoy film!
I have actively avoided Olympus until they sold it to JIP and rebranded it as OM System. Olympus was involved in huge financial and medical scandals (which led to death and injury). I too believe that buying something from a company is equivalent to supporting their practices.
Благодарю Вас, Эдуардо! Я полностью солидарен с Вами. Я тоже объявляю этой компании бойкот. Я никогда не буду ничего покупать, что изготовила эта компания. И я призываю всех любителей плёночной фотографии поступать так же. Бойкот!
And there's something else to talk about: Cinestill buys 500T, sells it as 800T, claims that the ASA is now 800 and that the film is "Safe for C-41 photo lab processing" (in the web you have to go down into the notes section to find out that if you develop it in C-41 you're cross-processing, which seems a little dishonest coming from them tbh). So my question here is, why does the iso increase? Is it because of the cross-processing? Maybe because of the remjet removal? Both? What I'm saying is that this, on paper, this is a very niche product that has gone through a lot of things it was never intended for (remjet, cross-processing, new iso aproximation...) and yet it has gotten really popular, probably because of one of Cinestill's great virtues: marketing.
Agreed. I enjoy cinestill however it's too much at this point. I will shoot lomo over cinestill. What cinestill is doing is partially the reason film was pushed aside at the birth of digital era. Meaning this proprietary business model is really obsurd at this point in time. Copyrights are quite the nuisance as well. I predict in near future if someone farts and it sounds like a song, they will get a copyright lawsuit. 800T cmon....greed is really the worst.
The 800T is completely insane and totally frivolous - they would be laughed out of court anywhere if it goes this far. Thanks for putting this out. Lets all do our part to make everyone aware of Cinestills horrible business practices. If you buy their products your endorsing this. Im a pro shooting film and a lot of us know a lot of people and words Travel fast these. I wouldnt mind seeing these fucks going out of business.
I left shooting analog for about two years now. Best decision. it´s just to much work and expenses, for your photos to end up in instagram... however i cherrish my prints for myself and few relatives
This is like 95% of products now. They own the brand. This is why there are 12 versions of the same thing on Amazon, just with different ISAN numbers and names slapped on it.
Someone screwed up, when they allowed Cinestill to even apply for this copyright. 800T is a technical term and can't be copyrighted. In theory, if another company developed a new ISO 800 film corrected for tungsten based light, that would be an 800T film as well, and no one can stop them from labelling their film as such. I guess, I'll have to find a different brand the next time I need fresh film chemicals... That's the thing, that's gonna hurt the most for me.
They arent saying theyre the only one who can do the process they just want other respoolers to stop calling their film 800t bc cinestill did actually popularize the name. Like it or hate it they also do actually own the trademark for 800T. Reflx labs heard them and changed the name of their respooled kodak. Everyone should read sources from both sides of this drama
I was searching 35 mm film on Amazon I didn't type anything more specific than that and Amber T800 came up. In the case of Amber the letter T is in front of the 800. Trademark is very interesting. In the United States the phrase "Taco Tuesday" what is trademarked in 49 states buy Taco John's. And for some strange held the trademark. Taco John is recently gave up their trade mark.
“Things regulate themselves”, which means, if another company can produce the exact things for less price, people will gravitate towards the less expensive one. Especially, if the results are pretty much the same. Screw, the Cinestill monopoly!!
I really think this is a big issue. I will be doing more research, i am a relatively new 60 year old who returned back to film about 2 years ago. In the meantime i have just removed 8 roll's of cinefilm from my suppliers basket at a cost of £136😮 UK PRICE AND THESE ARE THE CHEAPEST
I think it’s a crappy thing to do, suing others for using “800t” especially given the brothers’ own grassroots beginnings. What happened to those two? But I think they are within their rights to copyright anything:800t, 801t, etc. especially since they pretty much created the category back in the day. I think it’s up to the other sellers to get creative and find ways to market their film. “800 Tungsten” works for me. Or why not “640t”? After a while, it’ll be as familiar and recognizable as 800t.
You can call it "My ISO800T film" and be in the clear because it's a marking per legally binding industry standards. But dropping that "ISO" turns it a product name, and CineStill won the patent office race and claimed it as their own.
Agree with you Eduardo 100%. Myself, I never pay for more than $5 a roll. I either find it on the cheap or roll my own. If you are diligent you can keep it on the cheap. for me rolling my own film is not a hassle.
Correct me if i'm wrong: but aren't high film prices just "normal" now and prices before were too low, meaning the companies producing film were barely breaking even?
It’s not a simples yes/no. It’s a mixture of market speculation + inflation + scarcity. Prices have gone out of control, especially in the secondary market.
My question is why Kodak doesn't even bother to start selling its motion picture films as 36 or 24 exposures canisters? Just put them out worldwide at the right price and stop all this silly thing. Re spooling is an option but it's not for everyone as you said. Also people who don't live in the USA are affected by custom taxes and shipping prices.
Excellent video, and I love the bookshelf management, by the way. You can't trademark a descriptive code such as 800T. I hope the court will throw out this case. Note, in former times, long before Eduardo was born, and when his old cameras were young, film was extremely expensive, especially colour film. In real terms, allowing for inflation, it is now actually cheaper or at most about the same price as it was then.
Porsche was taken to court by Peugeot in the 60's when Porsche wanted to call their car the "901", because of the "0" in middle of the three digit model number. Porsche eventually lost and was forced to rename the car to the 911. So, whilst it is possible to "own a number", "500T" is a measure of light sensitivity and colour balance, which denotes the specification rather than any trademark and therefore CineStill should not be allowed any rights to that. It's very disingenuous.
Kodak Vision 3 costs about 3€ per 135 roll, how can cinestill sell their rolls for 5x? Silbersalz or Cyberpunk is a much better deal for the same stuff.
Cinestill film is different from Eastman Vision3 film in one regard: the perforations. Cinestill is perfed like normal still camera film, not like motion picture camera film. That had to be done at Rochester.
5:40 Would an alternative be to just call it something different? In the cannabis industry, with name ownership & censorship, a lot of times they just make a new name for their version of something that already exists. Only negative is that it's yet another redundant way to explain the same thing
Did Kodak ever comment on this bs? I mean from what I understand Cinestill had to create a process to remove the remjet and that’s cool. But in the end it’s like they’re driving dad’s convertible Cadillac and all they’ve done is put down the top to stunt out in public 😂 It’s ridiculous. Btw I had no idea Catlabs had an 800t film?
Im in BK and if you want some free 200D or 500T, and a couple of rolls of ORWO b/w its your for free. I bulk roll my own film for fun, its really meditative for me so I don't mind.
Not a very smart move from a company that doesn't even make film. So basically their value as a trademark is... the idea the community have about them.
American 'Free Enterprise' is nothing more than the creation of a monopoly via litigation and threats thereof. Add that to putting a Trademark or Copyright on , as you say, " numbers & letters" makes none of this neither 'Free' nor 'Enterprise'..... it is blatant bullying to crush legitimate competition
They're both in the wrong but human nature "demands" one side is right and the other is wrong, especially when there's a lawsuit. It's true that Cinestill should not be able to trademark alphanumerics that literally mean something other than what their product is, separately. And the combination is what they're banking on. What did Kodak do? They gave theirs a name: Vision. They also gave it a part or model number: 5219, 7219 etc Why did Kodak do this? Because they are not amateurs. The "500T" was always more of a technical reference only. Or perhaps I am wrong and Kodak should sue Cinestill and claim 800T sounds a little too much like 500T. What I find bizarre is why anyone --- and this includes Cinestill --- would *want* to name their product 800T. It shows incredible lack of branding creativity. So much so that someone just might be tempted to "name" their product the same worthless thing ... REMless 800 NoREMForYou 800 NoREMToday 800 Tungchrome 800 (I'm no good at naming, but you get my point here.)
Hi,
im the guy who started the discussion over on Reddit. Your video explained everything really good and also mirrored my thoughts on the whole problem. For me to forgive Cinestill they need to apologize for all the stuff they have done and drop the Trademark they have on the 800T. I hope that everything will be resolved soon and quick so that everybody is happy.
In the US, you legally HAVE to defend your trademark. This would be the same thing as someone respooling other Kodak B&W films and calling it Tmax....I have a feeling Kodak would sue them for using their trademark.
No one is saying someone can't buy Kodak cinemas film (500T) and respool it and all, they just need to use a name other than the trademark brand of 800t which cinestill owns.
@@chilecayenne Your right with the Tmax but its not the same as 800T. Tmax is a name and it has nothing to do with the iso or light balance like for example 800T where the T stands for the Tungsten and 800 for the iso. Even for us laws this Trademark shouldn´t have been approved because its a description and nothing more no special thing like Tmax
@@chilecayenne Nope thats different
@@wildechap I believe is the same thing. There is not Kodak 800Tfilm, CS buys the 500T and removes the remjet....and respells and renames it Cinestill 800T. They 800T is their brand for this type film and they have every right to trade mark it.
Leica sued the hell out of everybody who dared to name their cameras M"somenumber" (remember what the OM1 should be named) although the "name" also just is a description M for Messsucher (rangefinder) and 3 for the number of framelines :-) In the automobile world even certain number charcter combinations are copyrighted ... something three digits with a 7 at the end or A"somenumber" etc. Copyright for naming ... if not copyright at all ... is one of the stupidest and most limiting ideas ever 🙂
Love how Ilford and Adox are trying to educate and inspire about shooting film in general, like no other company does. And yes Ilford and Adox are making their own film.
And Ilford does all formats, bless them
And presumably they are making Acros 100 ii for Fuji
I think Adox and if I'm not wrong Rollei and others are using old Agfa emulsions recipes and facilities. So not 100% their stuff like Ilford or Kodak, but way closer to that than repacking stuff made by others. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Adox is bad for this, quite the contrary I love that they are improving on the Agfa legacy that would have been otherwise lost, I just felt the need for this clarification.
And Ilford's products are still among the lowest priced film stocks out there.
@@joshuapaolino2199 Not to mention incredibly high quality. And that's all of their products---film, chemistry, paper, etc. I basically only shoot Ilford. I bulk-roll, dev, and scan at home, and I have my costs per roll down pretty close to $7 at this point. Films shooters need to support the companies who have the community's best interests at heart.
Not the JUANITA 500T!! 🤣🤣🎞
I already stopped buying their films. At my local photo shop 800T and Portra 800 are the same price. That’s a no brainer! Portra 800 is so much more flexible and lovely in my opinion.
people gotta have their viral halations
They have different uses.
The big problem is that trademark is the indication of origin. So a product that is trademarked comes from specific source. There is no universe where 800T originates from cinestill. That trademark should've never been rubber stamped in the first place. There is also the issue that "800T" is descriptive. You cant trademark that.
I absolutely love this take, might finally convince me to start bulk loading my own film "Bronco 800T" for $40 a roll
Someone should package T008, which is reversed 800T. Maybe waist level shooters find this more amusing. 😂
amber does T800. I wasn't looking for that film specifically it just popped up when I was browsing on Amazon.
007T
I am in Taiwan. You can purchase re-spooled Kodak 250D (or 50D, 500T, etc) for about $4 a roll. Which is up from the $2 a roll it used to be. The remjet is still there, but there are multiple places that are able to remove the remjet before developing. I love the results from 250D, and it just so happens that it is one of the most affordable films to shoot.
Can you share where in Taiwan one can get such films? Appreciate it!
You can replace "Cinestill" and "800T" and it applies to so many company. Reminds me a lot of RED and their Red Code patent... but as you said, your money is your political voice against this.
Great video Eduardo !
This is called Copyright Trolling. It's legal intimidation. No one has the resources to pay for litigation, even if they would win it, and CineStill knows this. This is classic rent-seeking. Thanks for the heads up. I've been getting into 50D and 400D but I can go to other places for that.
I'd love to see a reverse troll where the smaller sellers come out with 799.99 tea ... I would buy that 🤣
KODAK named 800T 23 years before CineScumb filed for an invalid TM. Its invalid because a number and letter are trademarkable, hence why KODAK in at its peek didn't do it. It is also not trademarkable because it is KODAK film name not CIneScumbs.
Yes, and it's exacerbated because normally, even if you win you have to pay your own lawyers, often for years or decades. I am in favor of intellectual property, but repackaging Kodak's film is not what the laws are designed to protect. I understand the frustration of CineStill when others start to use the same business model, but it was expected. The proper way to deal with this is by lowering the prices.
CineStill doesn’t remove the rem yet anymore. They get the master rolls from Kodak without the rem yet now. That’s how they can do 120.
OMG
I assume this is how 400D was born; ie working with Kodak to run cine film free of remjet.
@@toulcaz31 Not really. They just wanted a new product and made the less interesting one. 200T would be much cooler for C41. Portra 400 is a much better 400 speed film and Color Plus will give you the look for half the price.
Yeah I hate when companies do this, peak design is another good example of this. I think they trademarked the words tech pouch and everyday backpack and will shut down anybody who is trying to sell things with the words everyday and backpack or tech and pouch, which is crazy for me. They make great products but I refuse to support that practice.
Did not know that. That sucks a lot, I generally enjoy peak design products. This makes me not want to support them anymore, if true. Thanks for bringing it up.
@@stuartshaffer6619 big if true
I’m pretty sure Cinestill lawyers are filing bogus claims. Intel famously couldn’t protect “i7” as a trademark. 800T is a descriptive term, just like 5m for “5 meters”. That’s trademark law 101.
But yeah, I’ll be greeting my respooled Kodak Vision from Reflexlab from now on.
I don't even shoot color film often, let alone Cinestill. This whole thing is sketchy. Registering a trademark for a speed and color temperature is bad; It shouldn't have even gone through. But then going after other companies for selling film at the same speed and temperature is classless.
It's sketchy that they trademarked 800T? They're not suing anyone, they're not saying you can't use ISO 800 or Tungsten balanced...etc. They have copyrighted the use of 800T for their own product because they created the product itself. 800T isn't even an 800ISO film, it's more like 640 but the resellers see fit to keep using the same name as Cinestill because of....say it with me kids... BRAND RECOGNITION! What's classless is the droves of foto-nerds angrily mouth-breathing their disgust over a situation they blew out of proportion and don't understand!
@@Caballeroshot I disagree. Kodak could have trademarked 800T, 50D, or any number of other films that are in their catalog decades ago and altered the landscape of film production but they didn't. It makes sense for CineStill to trademark CineStill because that's their name. Trademarking 800T and 800Tungsten on the grounds that they are a unique product is weak. If they wanted better differentiation, they should have named 800T with more than just descriptive indicators.
@@Caballeroshot The same people that MAKE the film Cinestill sells, also has a film in their history (Kodak Vision 800T Color Negative). The suing part I get, but sending Cease and Desist letters to companies isn't exactly a friendly gesture either. They literally bit the term "800T" from Kodak! So with this knowledge, what exactly did Cinestill create? It's Kodak film... They just remove the remjet, and most believe Kodak is doing that service for them.
Cancel
Reply
Those Cinestill Bros. rode the wave...and wiped-out. Self-cancelled themselves. 🤦🏻♂️
SURFS UP BRO! They fumbled the bag! Even with the other 800T brands, people were misguided to thinking Cinestill was the greatest and would still be buying it, if they didn't self detonate the grenade in their business. Going on IG and commenting to trolls is one way to lose the popular vote. They could have easily posted a video and addressed everyone to quiet the pitchforks. Like people still buy Kodak gold 200, and splurge on higher prices color films (Portra/Fuji) just because.. I bought reflex stuff and still bought Cinestill. People knew what they were doing with Kodak film, but now it makes them look even more like losers after knowing Kodak made an 800T.
I seriously doubt "800T" would survive a trademark dispute in court. Intel has already been through this with their early numbering scheme. That is why they went from model numbers like 386 or 486 to Pentium.
Think about that critically for a second, when you hear someone say "I'm shooting 800T" do you assume they're shooting Reflx labs, or any of the small labs rebranded stuff? No, you think of Cinestill and that's why they reacted the way they did, to protect the brand they made for themselves,
@@Caballeroshot being the first to market doesnt mean that the trademark is viable in court. just because cinestill is the most well-known of the kodak 500t respoolers, doesnt mean that a trademark of a film speed + intended color temperature represented by a number and a single letter is going to hold up.
@@rslrandy that’s not the stance the copyright covers. they’re not saying you can’t use the number 800 or the tungsten designation, they’re saying the branding of specifically using a product like Kodak vision 500 and re-spooling it after remjet removal can’t be marketed as “800T” because they own that designation of the name. Reflx labs would agree, they renamed their film Reflex 800 for a reason.
@@Caballeroshot their trademark policy also said that other couldnt use combinations of "800" or "T" because that would also infringe
@@rslrandy Exactly, anyone re-spooling the same kodak stock has the ability to name it ANYTHING under the sun, except "800T" which is what Cinestill copyrighted, you're getting it. The fact is that a 500 ISO film being marketed as anything other than 500 is a marketing tactic for which Cinestill was smart enough to copyright the use at 800 ISO, mainly because they couldn't go with 500T because perhaps they knew all along they would release 400D and they wanted to separate their product choices, I'm speculating. Regardless, they are fighting the specific targeting of the product name along with copy specifically stating "Just like Cinestill" or "Better than 800T" which if they didn't they'd lose their brand value.
That reminds me so much of the Polaroid vs. Kodak story...
Now I'm just waiting for a company to release some T-799 and be done with this silliness 😁
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking, just change the number. 640t since people like to overexpose it anyway.
My understanding is that Kodak outright stole Polaroid's intellectual property and used it develop their own films. They were caught doing this and had to stop selling instant film. This was a patent dispute, which is different from the trademark violations that CineStill is alleging.
Eduardo, I’ve learned so much from you in the past and enjoyed your videos about processing Kodak movie and other films. You’re on the money again, people need to listen to this. Cheers.
Hey Eduardo, I love what you do. Your channel was instrumental in me learning a lot of what I know about film photography, which I really appreciate.
Regarding CineStill (and I'm not sure if you'll ever get to this comment), I disagree. CatLABS lied to the film photography community and wound us up, which I think is ingenious, manipulative, and grossly negligent. CineStill never sued anyone, nor have they put a gag order; CatLABS lawyer(s) requested an official legal response which is a cease and desist letter (in no way a lawsuit nor is legally binding according to the recent PP article). We are yet to hear from CatLABS about why they decided to dub it a "lawsuit."
CineStill was quoted on PetaPixel and KosmoFoto saying that they are not going after anyone re-spooling Kodak films and they were not suing anyone. The Reddit thread's author appears to have the remaining issue with eBay, not CS.
We are free to dislike CineStill or call them liars but they seem to have the receipts.
Thank you for your reply, and yes, I read all comments (I think?).
The author of the reddit posts has posted here so you can ask them directly. So far it’s not just CatLabs but several other small companies showing the cease and desist from CineStill. Sure, they are not suing anybody yet, but claiming that a cease and desist is not an intimidation tactic and they did it with zero interest of going to court sounds like a PR move. If they didn’t plan on doing it, with send those messages?
It doesn’t sit right with me. But let’s see how it all develops.
Vision3 developed in ECN-2 always looked better than CineStill anyways
By orders of magnitude. Those over-cooked halations in Shittystill are vomit-inducing
Any company/individual selling respooled film should clearly write the original manufacturer of the film in their box. And, it's crazy how some people are making so much profit by this.
Most times the contracts specifically say they can’t ie I don’t think the lomo people can disclose they get supply from noviscoat
Most cinema film has it's marking on the film like 'Kodak Double X' or 'Kodak 250D' etc. Now if another company/person is selling the Kodak film under their brand name, I believe Kodak can legally sue that individual.
@@abhishekdasgupta8409 yes however boutique films that noviscoat make, or any Kodak make for anyone, can’t be disclosed, if it’s not the same as an existing film. Think Fuji acros
Cinestill 800t is like my favorite film for night photography, and I ingored absolutely everything about these copyright shenanigans. My god this is so evil, and BTW an actual obstacle to the enthusiasm amoung passionates who try to make more diverse film available. What the hell are they doing? Are they really going to hinder the rebirth of film photography for cash grab? WTF
In france we have a small lab who launched the Miracolor 400, an equivalent to the 400d, and I do hope someday they will produce their own 800t. I hope cinestill doesn't go Nintendo mode and doesn't send they lawyers to murder miracolor in they sleep.
I am so disappointed with this company right now
If you're looking for 800T from other rerollers, Reflx lab is a great choice.
If you're looking for an 800t alternative, try Reflx Lab's 800 film. It's more or less identical
Yep, time for them to go bankrupt. We have to stop tolerate this kind of crap
I have been using Fujicolor for decades and have always been pleased with the results it gives.
that's true, fujicolor film is amazing, except that they almost halted all film production..
I think some of this is just dogpiling and some of it is ignorance, but it's also fueled by industry secrecy ... Cinestill has made a bad misstep in their approach to this issue, however. I think they probably should have concentrated more on their remjet removal process being vastly superior to others (because it is so far in the last 2-ish years), and solving the conundrum of having their film finished by Harman (pure speculation, but the backing paper and packaging are dead giveaways), which would almost certainly be a major driver of their price (shipping). On top of diversifying into spaces that are not so easily DIYed. Also, Reflx is definitely NOT a small business. I was ready to disagree, but I agree overall with your stance. Insofar as whatever I believe in capitalism, it's true that it's anticompetitive and monopolistic. We, as consumers, need to be better at educating ourselves on films, too, because Kodak refuses to let direct purchasers say they are selling Kodak stock. Maybe that's Alaris, maybe it's not? But yeah ... good stance. I hope Cinestill realizes the misstep and takes corrective action so we can not lose one of the great success stories of recent years.
Reflx is pretty much a one man show. What do you mean by not a small business?
A very balance stance that I would love to see more rather than the calls for burning Cinestill to the stick.
Thanks for coming forward with your opinion. What Cinestill is doing is pure lawfare. It's scummy, it's trying to intimidate small businesses.. It's a shame I just bought 800T roll just yesterday, to have to see this now.
This is why I exclusively shoot BnW. Ilford/Harman and Adox make their own film and also distribute various stocks from dirt cheap to premium.
They’re super in touch with their community and I love it. Ilford Delta 3200 has magical amounts of natural grain.
The origin of 35mm photography is based on reusing an existing movie format. Before Leica there were cameras that did this, and we've come full circle. If a company can sell a branded product more cheaply than the original manufacturer, I'm all in. If they're selling repackaged film as a bespoke, premium product, I'll take my money elsewhere, generally to the people who make it.
✊🏾 Great rundown of the shenanigans Cinestill is pulling. Let’s hope that we the film shooters and the ones with purchasing power, will impact them.
Sellers in my country just label their respooled Kodak film as is - Vision 3 500T or just 5219 etc. - they even tell you that since it's respooled you may get one or two extra frames per roll.
I think the biggest problem with bulkloading for people is the investment in to the big filmspools. I still totaly agree about cinestill. it's weird to monopolise the name of a repacaged version of a nother companys product.
I would buy color film in 100-foot rolls in a minute. The BIG rolls don't fit in the bulk loaders that most of us have, which hold 100 feet of film.
I buy a bulk 100ft roll of bw arista edu ultra for like 66 bucks
BW film is widely available in 100-foot rolls. I bulk load Ilford and Tri-X all the time. I would love to do the same with color film!@@bigboichoi0073
This is exactly right, I think as more people start to buy more "500t" films and the vision series stuff there are more labs that are willing to develop remjet backed films. Here in Atlanta we have two labs that partnered with Kodak Film lab Atlanta and they will send your rolls off to them to develop them in True ECN-2 processing. I honestly think Cinestill is too washed out anyway. Maybe that's because they remove that remjet layer before you shoot it.
Which can't be machine developed in C-41. Process it at home, or use a motion picture lab.
When I started to see stories about Cinestill a few days ago I took a look at the price of a reel of 65mm Vision 3 (for 120 film); you need really deep pockets and a lot of investment up front. If you can deal with the remjet in processing though, you can buy it for a reasonable price in 35mm and bulk load your own.
I always thought CineStill's colour films were only slightly more expensive than they needed to be because removing remjet of long rolls and respooling them to cartridges AND doing it consistently can't be cheap and easy; specially when the 120 film came out where you would need to cut and fit them to 60mm rolls. The Eastman double-X though, it's just standard respooling... and charging almost the same as the colour film makes no sense. But they always were a little sketchy, a lot of marketing fluff to make things seem bigger and more exciting than they really are, and everyone bought into them! My favourite was "removing the remjet turns this ISO 500 film to ISO 800". Like I never really trusted them. I didn't even trust them when they compared C-41 to ECN-2 development and showed it to yield the exact same results. They then started to do other sketchy thing like capitalising on their brand name to sell other products that they kept describing as something like they came up with themselves, again with a lot of marketing fluff to make it seem like they're oh so innovative. Just standard 21st century company, where you do the bare minimum of R&D and the marketing dept. does the heavy lifting to make everyone buy your product.
So it doesn't at all surprise me that they're doing these nasty legal moves, specially after watching the owners on a video once and hearing them talk like average rich kids from the US.
Wow haven’t been keeping up on this news. Thanks for the info and video. Super lame when all we are trying to do is enjoy a hobby without being further ripped off. Cinestill what the hell
Good to see you back and well said! Totally agree that the film landscape is a strange one these days compared to when I first started following your stuff years ago. Prices are going crazy and it's been disappointing to hear from camera shops around me suspecting people of bulk buying their film stock and reselling online for more. The scarcity over the lockdowns really brought out the worst (and most capitalist) side of it. That's saying nothing about prices rising around dev and scan/etc. It's ok when you've worked out all the tricks/bought the kit to save here and there but I'd never manage it if I was starting out now. Hopefully the bubble bursts again so that more people can enjoy film!
Brother, thanks for speaking out about this. I hope other UA-camrs follow your example and speak up against cinestill.
I highly doubt it
I have actively avoided Olympus until they sold it to JIP and rebranded it as OM System.
Olympus was involved in huge financial and medical scandals (which led to death and injury).
I too believe that buying something from a company is equivalent to supporting their practices.
Благодарю Вас, Эдуардо! Я полностью солидарен с Вами. Я тоже объявляю этой компании бойкот. Я никогда не буду ничего покупать, что изготовила эта компания. И я призываю всех любителей плёночной фотографии поступать так же. Бойкот!
And there's something else to talk about: Cinestill buys 500T, sells it as 800T, claims that the ASA is now 800 and that the film is "Safe for C-41 photo lab processing" (in the web you have to go down into the notes section to find out that if you develop it in C-41 you're cross-processing, which seems a little dishonest coming from them tbh). So my question here is, why does the iso increase? Is it because of the cross-processing? Maybe because of the remjet removal? Both?
What I'm saying is that this, on paper, this is a very niche product that has gone through a lot of things it was never intended for (remjet, cross-processing, new iso aproximation...) and yet it has gotten really popular, probably because of one of Cinestill's great virtues: marketing.
As far as I know, when you cross-process it you are pushing it involuntarily
C-41 temperature is higher than ECN-2 so you are slightly pushing the film
Agreed. I enjoy cinestill however it's too much at this point. I will shoot lomo over cinestill. What cinestill is doing is partially the reason film was pushed aside at the birth of digital era. Meaning this proprietary business model is really obsurd at this point in time. Copyrights are quite the nuisance as well. I predict in near future if someone farts and it sounds like a song, they will get a copyright lawsuit. 800T cmon....greed is really the worst.
everything from lomo is Kodak too so you won´t be loosing anything!
te quiero wn, extraño tus videos. saludos
The 800T is completely insane and totally frivolous - they would be laughed out of court anywhere if it goes this far.
Thanks for putting this out.
Lets all do our part to make everyone aware of Cinestills horrible business practices. If you buy their products your endorsing this.
Im a pro shooting film and a lot of us know a lot of people and words Travel fast these. I wouldnt mind seeing these fucks going out of business.
I left shooting analog for about two years now. Best decision. it´s just to much work and expenses, for your photos to end up in instagram... however i cherrish my prints for myself and few relatives
The source of this film is a Kodak brand how can company claim it as their brand? It’s repackaged Kodak film.
This is like 95% of products now. They own the brand. This is why there are 12 versions of the same thing on Amazon, just with different ISAN numbers and names slapped on it.
Someone screwed up, when they allowed Cinestill to even apply for this copyright. 800T is a technical term and can't be copyrighted. In theory, if another company developed a new ISO 800 film corrected for tungsten based light, that would be an 800T film as well, and no one can stop them from labelling their film as such.
I guess, I'll have to find a different brand the next time I need fresh film chemicals... That's the thing, that's gonna hurt the most for me.
Enjoyed your take. Thanks for the video.
They arent saying theyre the only one who can do the process they just want other respoolers to stop calling their film 800t bc cinestill did actually popularize the name. Like it or hate it they also do actually own the trademark for 800T. Reflx labs heard them and changed the name of their respooled kodak. Everyone should read sources from both sides of this drama
What’s next?! Is mobile 1 going to trademark 10-W30? This is ridiculous 😂
you're amazing eduardo, congrats on standing up and saying what needs to be said!
Wise, wise words. I hope people take them seriously
I was searching 35 mm film on Amazon I didn't type anything more specific than that and Amber T800 came up. In the case of Amber the letter T is in front of the 800. Trademark is very interesting. In the United States the phrase "Taco Tuesday" what is trademarked in 49 states buy Taco John's. And for some strange held the trademark. Taco John is recently gave up their trade mark.
Mi inglés no es tan bueno 🤧 pero que bueno ver un nuevo video tuyo edo
“Things regulate themselves”, which means, if another company can produce the exact things for less price, people will gravitate towards the less expensive one. Especially, if the results are pretty much the same. Screw, the Cinestill monopoly!!
I really think this is a big issue. I will be doing more research, i am a relatively new 60 year old who returned back to film about 2 years ago. In the meantime i have just removed 8 roll's of cinefilm from my suppliers basket at a cost of £136😮 UK PRICE AND THESE ARE THE CHEAPEST
I'm with Eduardo. Hope you're doing well, man.
I think it’s a crappy thing to do, suing others for using “800t” especially given the brothers’ own grassroots beginnings. What happened to those two?
But I think they are within their rights to copyright anything:800t, 801t, etc. especially since they pretty much created the category back in the day. I think it’s up to the other sellers to get creative and find ways to market their film. “800 Tungsten” works for me. Or why not “640t”? After a while, it’ll be as familiar and recognizable as 800t.
You can call it "My ISO800T film" and be in the clear because it's a marking per legally binding industry standards.
But dropping that "ISO" turns it a product name, and CineStill won the patent office race and claimed it as their own.
@@denisdrozdoff2926 Perhaps if word gets out and consumers express our distaste, the Brothers Wright will back off.
Very informative, another great video. Thank you for using your platform to spread awareness.
Cinestill: "Do as I say, not as I do." ...
You can buy HP5+ and some other Ilfords /Kentmere for under $9. And yes, I tried bulk loading. Not worth it.
Well said. I was thinking the same thing. Will not be buying any more Cinestill.
Agree with you Eduardo 100%. Myself, I never pay for more than $5 a roll. I either find it on the cheap or roll my own. If you are diligent you can keep it on the cheap. for me rolling my own film is not a hassle.
They’ve ignored it. I’ll never buy their rebranded crap again
thanx for being real about this topic. Makes me think that people are perpetrating this practice in their apartments
Hipster doing hipster things ! But seriously thank you for saying that.
Correct me if i'm wrong: but aren't high film prices just "normal" now and prices before were too low, meaning the companies producing film were barely breaking even?
It’s not a simples yes/no. It’s a mixture of market speculation + inflation + scarcity. Prices have gone out of control, especially in the secondary market.
Yeah that makes sense. I have seen hype cameras like M6, Mamiya 7 and Hassy drop in price again though, I guess that's a good thing :)@@edpavez
Agreed. I’m done with CineStill.
Imagine if Kodak would put a Vision 3 800T on the market!
If Kodak did this I think CineStill would be silent very fast😅
Business opportunity: automated film spooler table top edition!
My question is why Kodak doesn't even bother to start selling its motion picture films as 36 or 24 exposures canisters? Just put them out worldwide at the right price and stop all this silly thing. Re spooling is an option but it's not for everyone as you said. Also people who don't live in the USA are affected by custom taxes and shipping prices.
Where can I find a copy of the lawsuit? I’d love to read the exact language Cinestill laid out in the suit.
Excellent video, and I love the bookshelf management, by the way. You can't trademark a descriptive code such as 800T. I hope the court will throw out this case. Note, in former times, long before Eduardo was born, and when his old cameras were young, film was extremely expensive, especially colour film. In real terms, allowing for inflation, it is now actually cheaper or at most about the same price as it was then.
Thanks, Ed!
One way to lower the cost of developing i think might be to do it yourself. i'm looking into this.
I have videos for developing black and white, color, and slide film in 35mm, 120 and 4x5. It’s extremely simple.
@@edpavez Thank you for the reply. i THINK I AM GOING TO TRY THIS!!
Thank you...
I stopped shooting film, I love it. But can´t support this business anymore, I hope more people do the same until the prices go down
I love how everyone is a Trademark and copyright lawyer.
Porsche was taken to court by Peugeot in the 60's when Porsche wanted to call their car the "901", because of the "0" in middle of the three digit model number. Porsche eventually lost and was forced to rename the car to the 911. So, whilst it is possible to "own a number", "500T" is a measure of light sensitivity and colour balance, which denotes the specification rather than any trademark and therefore CineStill should not be allowed any rights to that. It's very disingenuous.
I would troll cinestill by naming the film 801T.
someone should start selling 799T film just to piss them off
Comparto tus comentarios, lo mismo pasa de manera contraria, me gusta apoyar a aquellos pequeños empresarios con una gran idea 😬
Kodak Vision 3 costs about 3€ per 135 roll, how can cinestill sell their rolls for 5x? Silbersalz or Cyberpunk is a much better deal for the same stuff.
Cinestill film is different from Eastman Vision3 film in one regard: the perforations. Cinestill is perfed like normal still camera film, not like motion picture camera film. That had to be done at Rochester.
Shooting film is a luxury.
Totalmente de acuerdo. Se pueden meter su película reempaquetada donde les quepa. De mi no van a conseguir ni un euro.
5:40 Would an alternative be to just call it something different? In the cannabis industry, with name ownership & censorship, a lot of times they just make a new name for their version of something that already exists. Only negative is that it's yet another redundant way to explain the same thing
Word! Your are on point!
I would like to have your opinion about Phoenix 200 by Harmann. It looks very bad beside the huge sponsored hype.
Well said Eduardo, I totally agree with you 👍
Thanks Ed! ❤
I believe in healthy capitalism without that neoliberal "all-is-competition" bs
Did Kodak ever comment on this bs? I mean from what I understand Cinestill had to create a process to remove the remjet and that’s cool. But in the end it’s like they’re driving dad’s convertible Cadillac and all they’ve done is put down the top to stunt out in public 😂 It’s ridiculous. Btw I had no idea Catlabs had an 800t film?
Im in BK and if you want some free 200D or 500T, and a couple of rolls of ORWO b/w its your for free. I bulk roll my own film for fun, its really meditative for me so I don't mind.
Going to name my next film 800minus600T
Not a very smart move from a company that doesn't even make film. So basically their value as a trademark is... the idea the community have about them.
Spot on my friend.
American 'Free Enterprise' is nothing more than the creation of a monopoly via litigation and threats thereof. Add that to putting a Trademark or Copyright on , as you say, " numbers & letters" makes none of this neither 'Free' nor 'Enterprise'..... it is blatant bullying to crush legitimate competition
CineStill is the RED of the analog photography, the damage they have done is inmesurable, and their products are overrated and expensive.
Just make one and call it 801T , people will get it.
Very much hoping a lot of folks stop using Cinestill AND they get countersued into oblivion 🙃
799.5t ??
They're both in the wrong but human nature "demands" one side is right and the other is wrong, especially when there's a lawsuit.
It's true that Cinestill should not be able to trademark alphanumerics that literally mean something other than what their product is, separately. And the combination is what they're banking on.
What did Kodak do? They gave theirs a name: Vision. They also gave it a part or model number: 5219, 7219 etc Why did Kodak do this? Because they are not amateurs. The "500T" was always more of a technical reference only. Or perhaps I am wrong and Kodak should sue Cinestill and claim 800T sounds a little too much like 500T.
What I find bizarre is why anyone --- and this includes Cinestill --- would *want* to name their product 800T. It shows incredible lack of branding creativity. So much so that someone just might be tempted to "name" their product the same worthless thing ...
REMless 800
NoREMForYou 800
NoREMToday 800
Tungchrome 800 (I'm no good at naming, but you get my point here.)