CineStill's Film Controversy Explained!

[@metalfingersfilm]

IMPORTANT NOTE: I mistakenly misused "copyright" and "trademark" interchangeably here; which was obviously a mistake and oversight. Additionally; CineStill may NOT have technically threatened to sue, but they DID send cease & desist letters, potentially hurting smaller resellers, making it seem like they were aiming to get ready to sue off the parameters that said film is too similar to their CineStill 800T on certain retail platforms. (I.E. their CineStill Trademark) Cinestill's trademark policy is so loose and quickly seems to become problematic when using terms that are description words within film and filmmaking. I DO NOT want CineStill to fail! It's the last thing I want. Rather, I want them to recognize that they way they've chased this down, has, in my eyes and many others, come across as shady. Please do not assume that I wish the downfall of CineStill, its the opposite, in fact. I want the best for them, and what's best for the community. While I understand CineStill needs to protect their original idea, I think there is a better way to transparently go about this with these smaller brands. Especially if only a handful of people are involved, I would assume they could've been reached out to from CineStill themselves with an explanation, rather than seemingly from a blanketed message from certain retail platforms. Furthermore, I wanted to upload this video in lue of it all, with some haste, as I think it's quite a confusing issue and wanted to keep you guys in the know, and give my opinion on the news presented. I will keep you updated as we hear more about it, and as Cinestill makes a statement. I am not a trademark lawyer, so I do NOT know the ins and outs of trademark law, but from a consumer standpoint, it does seem quite unfair, especially with the context and given the angle that it's been approached at. At the end of the day; this is solely just my opinion.

[@andrewinaustintx]

This strong arm monopolistic tactic will back fire on the CineStill brand. The film community is pretty savvy with regards to business practices that are occurring in the industry. I just sent off an order for a couple of rolls Reflex Lab 800.

[@flyingo]

Greed kills everything.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, I think there was a better way to go about this, and sadly, they're seeing some of it backfire now. I'm hopeful we'll hear from CineStill and they can begin to amend themselves and give some transparency to the situation.

[@williamlasl]

Greed is probably too strong a word. I doubt anybody is getting rich in the world of film in 2023. With small companies in such a niche industry as film, and specifically the sub-niche of tungsten balanced film, it’s greed in the way beggars fighting each other over scraps is greed.

[@metalfingersfilm]

@@williamlasl Yeah, maybe greed isn't the word. But CineStill had a corner on the market for 10 years and definitely seem to not to be liking to share, which I understand is tough to blame them, but I think the way in which they've gone about it, has been less than ideal.

[@jolyonstone4942]

@@metalfingersfilm They are basically bluffing and working on the principal that none of the victims of their bluff have the funds to challenge them legally (where they would undoubtedly lose but the costs of the process and its repercussions to the colour film community would mean that everyone loses). What is needed is a crowdfunded challenge to Cinestill to call their bluff and make them desist! it might need Kodak's co-operation at some level though and I imagine that the big K has other fish to fry. I don't shoot colour in the ordinary way, I'm a simple b&w person but, having been gifted a few roll of Fuji I was interested in Cinestill's C-41 chemistry and their monobath b&w (for its temperature tolerance; summer where I live is too hot for ambient temperature b&w processing). Now who supplies Cinestill with their processing chemicals?

[@ralphstark9961]

I am glad you picked up on the fact that KODAK "Vision" film was called "Vision 800T 5289" . It predated the existence of Cinestill by DECADES! My own experience with CatLabs is they have been outstanding. Like you Cnestill is dead to me.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, seems like a weird stance to take, I'm curious on the litigation that will follow from here.

[@robertknight4672]

If you look at the cinestill Box closely doesn't even say 800T it says 800 Tungsten where the tea is just written really big compared to the rest of the word. I'm aware that they could have had other box styles I'm only going off pictures I've seen.

[@ericsandys5846]

This was a really good breakdown, I agree with your sentiments 100%. This kind of behavior is bad for everyone. I already made the decision to no longer purchase Cinnestill products when I first heard of this.

[@metalfingersfilm]

I do think CineStill can rectify/clarify this with a transparent public statement, but the lack of one, from my eyes, would appear to be not a great sign.

[@andyfoto620]

I'm on board with purchasing vision 3 elsewhere also

[@metalfingersfilm]

400 foot roll from Kodak does look appealing if I can shoot enough, haha

[@LesterBeasley]

I'm no lawyer but I play one on TV...but seriously I think Cinestill would lose in court as "800" and "T" are technical specifications and not subject to copyright. They should never have been given a copyright. No more Cinestill film for me until they change their policy.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, I'm interested to see how they will formally respond! Thanks for watching Lester!

[@Shmooexe3440]

i think the main thing to take in to count is very simple, its price. There are few sellers that i have seen that are doing the exact same thing, respooling old motion film, the difference between them and cinestill is the offer bundle deals, i have seen some online selling sets of 250D 500T and 800T for the same price as a single roll of cinestill 800T. I feel like the only thing you are really paying for with Cinestill nowadays is a simple red packaging and a branding. Great video as always dude

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, I think that's where many have an issue with it. Especially in America with capitalism ( :/ ), competition is inevitable. CineStill undoubtably has more resources than these other sellers. Hell, they've raised a brand out of the ashes of basically the death of film, and have been super successful. They definitely deserve credit there, and they should've, imo, just leaned into the fact that you have infrastructure and brand awareness, where many similar companies do not. However, I feel the trademarking should've been done with the IP at the beginning of them creating said film, what 10 years ago? I do think there's merit to be had to think of that process, especially at that time, and take the risk to bring it to life, but I don't know, I think waiting this long and then the way they've gone about it just seems questionable. I'm interested to see what their follow up will be. If they'll release a public statement or not, etc. Thanks for watching!

[@Shmooexe3440]

@@metalfingersfilm completely agree with all points you have made dude. The do deserve credit for doing what they have done for the community. For all the things they have done. I would love to see the follow up to! And any time dude! Can’t wait for your next video!

[@robbiemer8178]

Good overview, thanks! I think it is NOT complicated, though. Cinestill wants to bully smaller competitors so Cinestill gets more money (one issue) and, in general, rebranding respooled film as something "new" is at least a disservice to us film shooters. So, that's two things. Meanwhile, us film shooters learn to manage at least four things to make the photos we want: shutter speed, aperture, focus, and exposure. Quite a lot of us manage that and I think we can all agree that 4 is twice 2. Even more basic: well behaved commercial entities need a short leash. Or, even simpler: more transparency is better for consumers. (mandatory joke about transparency and slide film goes here. ) Thanks for the video!

[@metalfingersfilm]

"more transparency is better for consumers." is the key takeaway I want from this! Thanks for watching, Robbie!

[@DayneFilm]

Dang, thanks for covering this mr. Fingers Sucks that some of the bigger companies have some of the slimier practices

[@Caballeroshot]

"Bigger companies" they have 10 employees! 🙄

[@DayneFilm]

@@Caballeroshot that’s 10 times more than others! Haha

[@Caballeroshot]

@@DayneFilmSo you blame them for growing their business to a whopping 10 employees in the 10 years they've been in business? Interesting!

[@DayneFilm]

@@Caballeroshot i think you’re misunderstanding what i said and not taking it within the context of the video my guy, it’s mentioned that they’re strong arming other people who’re respooling kodak film and making their own ‘version’ of 800t. Whether they have 10 employees or not, that’s ‘bigger’ than the one man operations they’re strong arming

[@Caballeroshot]

@@DayneFilm They're still a small company and if sending a courtesy email is "Strong arming" someone then this world sure has gone soft! If you look into it, said email just said to refrain using the name they copyrighted not to stop respooling film. It was only Catlabs who asked for a seize and desist letter and when they got one they told them to just fk off anyway so who exactly is being "Strong armed" at all?

[@robbieland1610]

Thanks for this informative. I used to purchase the vision 800t stock from Kodak in 16mm. The newer 7219 500t satisfies what the 800 T used to provide due to the new V3 technology (and isn’t 800T same emulsion as 500T). It’s a shame cine still has made this turn as I want to support anyone that provides film stock in any gauge and however, manufactured or respooled.

[@b6983832]

I don`t like the concept of selling ECN-2 film as a C-41 film as CineStill does. These processes are not actually compatible. What is being done is cross processing and relying on photoshopping. Vision3 developed in C-41 has very serious color crossovers. It can´t be printed optically with acceptable results and is a film suitable for scanning and digital post processing only. As such, selling it as a C-41 film is not fair.

[@BenGibsSr]

"Consumer Confusion" is a term used exclusively by Brand Managers and their lawyers. No customer ever walks up to a shelf of Coke, Pepsi, and RC and says; "OMG, I am SO confused"! It is effing cola!

[@aaronthecameraguy]

Totally agree with this take and thank you for speaking up, its important for us all to band together to stop this kind of bullying in such a delicate eco system. One thing I love about this whole thing is of course cinestill isn't even 800 iso. I think most people know this already, but the fact they they just willy nilly go 'uh yeah, this re spooled 500 iso film, its 800' just because 800 is, idk, more marketable? Its ridiculous. On top of that their other products have some quite bold claims as well, I noticed that their film scanning light source has these add on diffusion sheets that claim to increase the output of your by "2.3x" which I assume is total BS. Granted I haven't tested this but I dont think I need to when there is a big difference between increasing spread of light and output which one could only really do with a Fresnel imo. All of this stuff just does not make sense to me. Why be so brazen in their copyright stuff and claims about their products with a community of people who can often times be quite obsessive about the finite details of these sorts of things? Just really does not paint them in a good light as a company or group of people. Coupled with their really embarrassing responses to all of this stuff and I can't see a reason to buy from them for now.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, I think that's the difference in these legacy brands like Kodak and Ilford, and CineStill which is much more of a marketing company from what it seems.

[@garyc6183]

I used to buy motion picture film short ends and respool it myself. I even removed the remjet before shooting a few times which, unless you're shooting at night to get the halo effect, is unnecessary. I even processed myself which saves tons of money as well. I never considered buying film from them in the first place. However, if I did, I would buy the Vision 3 5203 50D 120 version. Vision 3 5203 is the finest 35mm color film I have ever shot and I grew up in the pre-digital era where all we had was film.

[@metalfingersfilm]

I need to try those lower motion picture film stocks. I've shot one roll and didn't meter correctly when first beginning and was somewhat off-put by it!

[@AlexanderHernandez-sb7lq]

CineStill was transparent about the fact that they were using Kodak motion picture film from the beginning, that’s not really the issue here. What’s happening is, that this company is seeing a major threat to their profit margin in the form of these smaller company’s and vendors. What I can’t believe, is how did CineStill not see this coming. I mean how long did they think that this money train was gonna keep rolling. I’m not choosing a side cus I feel there are more important things happening in the world right now and this seems so small in comparison, plus I have no horse in the race, so. What I will say is that CineStill better change and expand their business model if they still want to be around in The next 10 years, cus clearly repackaging Kodak film is not enough anymore.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, my points at the end of the video are not about CineStill but about other companies releasing "new film" under some veil. Moreso, over the last couple days, CineStill has been using purposefully misleading marketing jargon to make it seem like their film is not a modified version of Vision 3. Many people on reddit have caught and posted them saying completely different things depending on who's asking. It's quite a shit show.

[@Minolta_Gal]

This just is so petty. Sounds like I’m just gonna be a lomography gal for here on out. Lomo 100/400/800 film is nice. We really don’t need this drama in the film community. Especially since film isn’t a get it everywhere item.

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

Sorry, but Lomo color film is just rebranded Kodak. If you’ve been paying the Lomo price premium, stop. There are really only two color film manufacturers left: Kodak and Fujifilm (don’t know if the old Chinese Lucky is still around.). What this means is that whatever film brand you’re using now that’s not Kodak or Fujifilm, is either Kodak or Fujifilm. Understand that absolutely huge amount of expertise and capital expense is behind film formulation and manufacturing. This isn’t the kind of endeavor that a garage operation can cook up.

[@Minolta_Gal]

@@RobertLeeAtYT yes I am aware that Lomo is rebranded film. But they don’t have the drama that Cinestill is causing. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, sadly, what Robert said. Kodak and Fuji are the only two companies with enough skin in the game to be able to be producing color film now.

[@YotamGuttman]

fine. their financial model has been threatened by smaller distributors... I think instead of trying to own what isn't theirs, they should've (and couldn't considering the outrageous pricetag they stick to their product line) develop an original stock, which, if they really wish, they could indeed trademark but mainly do an act of support for their customers and the photography community, by expanding the choice of films available for artists to shoot on

[@metalfingersfilm]

yeaahhhhh

[@trels203]

The earl shirt 🔥 And i agree, cinestill has lost my support. Their actions only serve to shrink the film market and bring us further towards the eventual exintction of film by decreasing the amount of already few companies in the game. Its greed and the fact it comes in the form of a product they dont even produce but repackage is almost laughable. Unfortunate because they made such a name for themselves up until now.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Haha, thanks, I think this thing is like +10 years old.

[@robertknight4672]

I don't anyone would be confused. Competing retailers often have a lot of private label and grocery items what's similar sounding names often times with the word value in the different competing brands. Great value, Guaranteed Value, Shoppers Value.

[@ToyStoryNBarneyFan]

It’s a shame because I liked their 800T film and I really wanted to buy their 400D film and even now I still do but if they’re going to treat other companies like this, then it shouldn’t be a surprise if they loose customers. I hope they get their act together and maybe people will give them a second chance.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Agreed, I hope they can just be honest that they messed up and things got to their head. I think being honest instead of being more deceitful will only help them. Have you tried shooting Kodak motion picture film yet?

[@ToyStoryNBarneyFan]

⁠@@metalfingersfilm As of the posting of this comment, yes for both stills and actual motion picture shooting. I’ve used Cinestill’s own 800T for 35mm, Amber D400, and Ektachrome for Double 8mm. I have yet to use raw ECN-2 motion picture film with the remjet intact

[@SiggyPony]

I like Catlabs, their my source for Aerocolor IV in 120 😉😅hehe. I'm not aware of it being the case for any Kodak Vision 3 film, but someone did point out that a reselling agreement from a company like Kodak could prevent the reseller from disclosing the original stock and manufacturer. That said I am not aware of that actually being the case and if it were the seller wouldn't be able to say so anyway 😅

[@ScaryKheri]

So I just shot my first rolls of cinestill 800t two weeks ago lol. Who's a good company for that film?

[@metalfingersfilm]

Definitely still get it developed and shoot whatever CineStill you still have! As of now, we'll have to keep our eyes peeled for how this turns out and purchasing motion picture film moving forward!

[@StepsAndStoness]

Great video as always!

[@metalfingersfilm]

Thanks for watching!

[@AmorsAverageAdventures]

I just recently got into Cinestill's film stocks myself, I'd say within the last year, MAYBE year and a half. And for how well off the company seems to be doing, I find it very silly of them to try and stop other companies from selling similar ( or even the EXACT SAME, depending on how you look at it) film stocks. Hopefully Cinestill can recognize that the other companies aren't a threat; they're simply creating a wider audience and/or range of products to be available. People like me love trying out new film stocks, from various companies. Also, we can be supportive of MULTIPLE companies. Like they say, "here you go pitting two bad bitches against each other for no reason" 😂

[@metalfingersfilm]

😂😂😂 thanks for watching!

[@AmorsAverageAdventures]

@@metalfingersfilm thank you for taking the time to break things down for us 😌

[@devroombagchus7460]

I never tried cinestill. When I learned that they removed the RAM layer, I knew that I would get inferior film cheaper to develop. Silbersaltz is at least honest.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, I think people are starting to realize they can get the same thing for cheaper, basically.

[@jamesjuranke]

Really good view on it! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it!

[@metalfingersfilm]

Thanks for watching, James!

[@Americas_Laziest_Photographer]

I think people should go in with friends and buy 400' rolls of Kodak Vision 3 film and have a spool party. just my 5cents.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Hell yeah, spool party!

[@mgpyy]

They should buy all these small companies instead of suing.

[@williamlasl]

I think Cinestill itself is quite small so probably has little ability to do a buy out. And some of competitors are just individuals working out of their garages. In buyouts, you try to figure out a value for the target of the acquisition. What is even the valuation of such a “company?” This is a fight between midgets for a very small piece of pie.

[@shanelee4094]

100% agree!!

[@metalfingersfilm]

Thanks for watching Shane!

[@BiggsWrld]

Dropped a banger at the perfect time, do you know the youtube algorithm!?

[@metalfingersfilm]

Haha, thanks homie. Saw this relevant news and dropped everything to film/edit it quick. safe to say it paid off!

[@talleyrand9442]

I don't see why this huge uproar.

[@metalfingersfilm]

I think CineStill's public response will be telling for what the situation is.

[@Photovintageguy]

@@metalfingersfilmbecause they are lawfare on smaller companies, just because they are competitors and know they don’t have the financial resources to fight back.

[@PoeInTheDitch]

Done with Cinestill.

[@metalfingersfilm]

I think they can still make it right, they just have to be honest and open about it.

[@AmbercoolPhotography]

Why even call it 800T? Fuji was smart. They just called Kodak Gold their own name.

[@LaskyLabs]

I'd rather just shoot the raw vision stocks myself. Not cool Cinestill. Can't even make 220 400D and now this.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Make 220 film CineStill!!

[@LaskyLabs]

@@metalfingersfilm if 400d was in 220, 110, and 4x5, I would forgive them for all of this trademark trolling.

[@vangstr]

Great video. Pass on the word. Cinestill has dug their own grave.

[@metalfingersfilm]

I would be interested to see what their response would be!

[@tuckershepard1328]

This is lawfare, nothing else because you can claim your customers think of Cinestill when they use the term 800T, isn't a valid legal claim. It is a point in successful brand promotion but nothing else. Kodak made 800T and other "T" films decades before Cinestill was a twinkle in their father's eye. It's a product description. This would be like Dole trying to claim rights to the word juice because they sell Dole Orange Juice, or Mobil trying to issuing cease and desist papers to a rival for selling 10W30 oil.

[@Mulva234]

Home developing is not difficult, neither is removing Remjet.

[@ctrsamuel]

現在還有那些廠商在生產底片？？？

[@metalfingersfilm]

I believe Kodak, Ilford, and apparently Fujifilm too

[@diaryofito]

a shame really. decidedly not going to buy their stocks from now on. gonna use up the rest i had in my fridge then it’s onto motion picture film from other companies.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah, I have some Reflx that I'm interested to shoot!

[@gewglesux]

first i'm hearing of this... thanks.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Thanks for checkin' it out!

[@Photovintageguy]

We can’t accept this it’s obnoxious behavior. There can only be one reaction, as a precedent. Never buy any product they sell every again and setup a go fund me for legal battles. This will make it clear users will not tolerate this type of behavior from anyone going forward.

[@arturocontreras6648]

You last statement about capitalism not fitting in here is prolly wrong. We do need more greedy companies entering the film industry. Make more stuff charge less money.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeah perhaps that is true, rising tides raises all ships!

[@Daniel.Walker]

I’m so please everyone is coming out in droves to talk about this, for two reasons: It can signal to Cinestill that they’re off the mark It can also be used as evidence regarding the flaws in their “secondary meaning” trademark

[@metalfingersfilm]

I'm hoping they will come out and clear the air with all of this.

[@graffdad2827]

Cinestill Tweakin

[@metalfingersfilm]

Haha, I think some transparency would help the situation a lot.

[@loficutoff]

I won't buy cinestill items, just not fair what they did

[@loulou704]

I mean it’s simple to me… they are not claiming the film. Just the name…. If the film is vision 3.. and cinestill calls theirs 800t then that’s what they call it. Doesn’t matter if 800t is a common term amongst film.. if they were approved for the copyright then it is what it is. I as a company would definitely have an issue with other people using my product name. It causes BRAND confusion. Call yours 800 tungsten, 800 tongues 😂, something else. And I think that’s fare.. what would you call yours 800t unless you wanted someone to know that the product is the same as what cinestill is selling. Cinestill is simply saying hey call your product something else other than 800t.

[@metalfingersfilm]

Because 800T describes said film since it's inception? CineStill ripped their "original name" right off of old Kodak Cine Film 800T anyways lmao. Also, if you look into their trademark; they're trying to trademark "800" "T" "Tungsten" "Cine" etc. Any variation of their name, they're trying to trademark.

[@loulou704]

@@metalfingersfilm that would mean that 800T or variations of it were never trademarked by whomever coined and to cinestill did… now trying to trademark and actually receiving the trademark is two very different things. So if what you’re saying is accurate NO one should be stopping the sell of their product and they should ignore or respond in-kind to cease and desist orders. It’s simply a scare tactic with no backing. There would be know reason for them to actually proceed with legal action knowing they have no actual claim to the name at this time. And while I think it’s likely that they could get a trademark for “800T” I think we all know it’s unlikely that a trademark would be issued for the other items you mentioned. My question is this.. if Kodak only makes this film for movie reels.. where is cinestill getting 120 film from? Cause I don’t see Kodak using 120 800 tungsten is any applications.. is Kodak imaking that exclusively for cinestill?

[@GavinSeim]

Well done Cine Hole. I just started using your file.. After this crap I'm going to stop using it. Let's see how it works out for you 😂

[@metalfingersfilm]

Haha, right!

[@earvinquero2037]

Dont Support Cinestill. Ever since I didnt buy their film or Fascinated about it.

[@banjo5835]

I would just call my film cinnestyle 400x2 tee

[@metalfingersfilm]

Haha, right. SineStill799t

[@AhmetAygit]

Will not buy nothing from cinestill..

[@aaronlabarre501]

I agree with cinestill. Making material changes to something and selling it has value. They popularized 800T and few if any stocks use this naming convention other than clones of what CS are doing. I think the reason they dont disclose the source is because technically kodak isnt supposed to sell stills film because kodak alaris exclusively owns the rights to do so. CatLabs is not handling this well. The actual people making this controversial film (reflx labs) updated their naming so there isnt even a real issue anymore.

[@bestmoviesever1]

Yeah, I think people blew this whole thing up way too much. When I first got wind of this, I bought a roll of each, CineStill 800T, VIBE 800T AMBER T800 and Vision 3 200T. They each have a slightly different look compared to each other I find plus I enjoy the look of each and whenever I can access a new version I will try it out. So yeah I see no reason to boycott, or maybe you could say I am boycotting the boycott.

[@KosmicJelly]

Whatever, I just hope that this controversy will bring the prices down to a more reasonable level. 400D is one of my all time favourite colour negative film stocks, and some of my best nighttime work was done on 800T, so I’ll still be buying them regardless of all the drama and the fact that they’re just re-branded Kodak cinema film. Greasy AF move on their part, but I’m not going to deprive myself of some really great film stocks because of it.

[@JuanSewDLKS]

byebye CineStill

[@dangoldbach6570]

Film aside, cinestill C41 is a good color film developer. But yeah. Kinda douche-y suing over people respooling a KODAK film

[@metalfingersfilm]

Yeahhh, not a great look. Anxious to see what their next move is!

[@PooMonkeyMan]

As someone that’s only recently got into film photography, when I hear 800T, the default product that comes to mind is CineStill. But if I were to hear 800 colour negative, then maybe Portra or Lomo comes to mind. So, from this angle, I can see where CineStill is coming from. On the other hand, I feel like other resellers could have made this easier by just not using the T in their repackaging. It seems all this comes down to the inclusion of a T. Drop the letter and it seems like a relatively simple way to get CineStill off their back. I mean, is a missing letter that critical in this case? And that’s a legitimate question, not rhetorical.

[@k-ozdragon]

They could even just put the 800T on the package, so long as it's a designation and not a logo. A court would likely throw out their claim to the 800T as a protected trademark name for their product, but only after a ton of cash is spent in litigation. Just name the film something else, and designate it with the 800T label. That would immediately halt any claim to infringement. Or another thing they could do is just add another label to the film. Like, literally just one letter. So one of the films shown here was reflex. They could just name it 800Tr, with the "r" meaning "Reflex." As long as it's not the exact name that Cinestill has trademarked, then they are good to go. Even the same name with slightly different spellings don't count. I've encountered this at my job when naming products.

[@BooHoogland]

lukewarm reddit takes, regurgitated to the T

[@metalfingersfilm]

What is your take on it, @user-kj5en4hz6c?

[@Caballeroshot]

At what point exactly did this tiny LA company of less than 10 employees become the Corporate VILLAIN everyone seems to make them out to be? Seriously though, i've said this in other videos regarding this drama, Cinestill did not invent the film obviously and at no point did they hide that it was respooled Kodak stock capable of C41 development. They created the marketing, the packaging, the investment costs to provide us film shooters with another option of film when Kodak was raising prices and Fuji was cancelling product lines. There would be no Reflex labs/Catlabs/YourMama labs whatever versions of this specific stock without Cinestill having done it first and now that their product is confused by all these variations you're all surprised that they want to protect their name? Oh GROW TF UP!

[@Devdev009]

While these others wouldn’t necessarily exist without Cinestill doing it first, it’s the fact that they’re trying to bully anyone from competing at all. By attacking smaller sellers, they’re trying to destroy any potential spread of market that Reflx could make. They want a monopoly and to squeeze out competition. While it’s not a perfect metaphor, it’d be like Kodak threatening legal action against Fuji and any stores that sell Fuji products to keep their market share in the 20th century. The difference being that Reflx is literally selling the same thing. Just because Cinestill was first, doesn’t entitle them to a monopoly.

[@Caballeroshot]

@@Devdev009 How exactly are they looking for a monopoly when they're not fighting against Kodak Vision 500T being respooled but rather just the use of the name they've been using for a decade? THAT is the argument, you're capable of doing the same thing REFLX and CATLABS is doing, they're just saying 800T is their copyright and you can call it whatever you want except that very specific variation. 800T isn't the only rebranded film stock on the market but every single other variation out there chose to use a unique identifier for their name for that very specific reason, COPYRIGHT!

[@Devdev009]

@@Caballeroshot In the CatLabs blog post, they talked to an expert Copyright lawyer who said that the trademark Cinestill got for 800T really should not have been granted and that it would not hold up in court. Many of the smaller sellers they are going after can’t afford a legal fight. 800 iso is what the other companies have rated their respooled 500T with the remjet removed, and the T is for the tungsten balance of the film, making both descriptors. And the trademark hasn’t been around for a decade, they only got it recently and have now started a campaign to try and stop others from selling competitor products with a name that has the technical description. Keeping image is one thing but it’s about how they’re doing it, with threats of legal action that they want the threatened party to keep confidential. CatLabs talks about it in their blog post and includes the first page of the C&D Additionally, CS isn’t just going after 800T in specific, as they lay out on their copyright page. Reflx Labs calls their film 800 Tungsten and not 800T

[@Boxspeedx2]

You can’t own a descriptive term

[@vangstr]

Copyrighting descriptive terms was Cinestill’s plan to monopolize the market. They will copyright 400D too!!! Just a matter of time.