☝️ All Comments
TIL: CineStill is suing film photography businesses for the misuse of their newly-minted trademark, “800T.”
While the film community is generally tight and friendly, lawsuits around business entities aren’t unheard of. Some years ago, Polaroid threatened to sue Instax for the square format (which they settled under undisclosed conditions) — and I am sure there’s more. I think it’s fair to understand that photography, aside from being an art form, is often a livelihood for many, the threat against which can cause a lot of trouble to those involved.
Because CineStill’s lawyers demanded anonymity about this case, this action has been under wraps since May and we are yet to hear their (public) side of the story. CatLABS, however, paid a lawyer who helped them navigate the case and bring it to the public view on their blog: catlabsblog.blogspot.com/2… — which has also given an opportunity to another seller to come forward with their experience: reddit.com/r/AnalogCommuni…
According to CatLABS, this was done to curb the competition from Reflex Labs’ product, which is essentially the same product as CineStill’s 800T (a pre-processed Kodak 500T emulsion, more on that here: analog.cafe/r/cinestill-50…)
Update. It appears that CineStill never sued CatLABS, according to this PetaPixel article and their quoted statements (with receipts) in it: petapixel.com/2023/10/11/f…
The article clarified that CineStill sent a cease and desist letter that’s “neither legally binding nor a lawsuit.” A copy of this letter can be found here: blogger.googleusercontent.…
I was upset to read CatLABS’ blog post, but I am now even more upset to see the evidence that colours their piece as deliberately misleading and unfairly damaging.
I expect CatLABS to respond or correct their statement.