Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Spiderman 2 on SR system (and ridiculous trademark argument)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Large Format Forum » Spiderman 2 on SR system (and ridiculous trademark argument)

Author

Topic: Spiderman 2 on SR system (and ridiculous trademark argument)

Dick Vaughan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1032
From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 07-29-2004 04:57 AM

Are any of you guys running Spidey on SR'S?

What plates are using , 1 60min & 1 75min or will it (just ) fit on 2 60 min?

What's the changeover and final picture off frame counts?

Thanks

[ 08-06-2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

| IP: Logged

Andrew Jefferson
Film Handler

Posts: 23
From: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 07-29-2004 10:59 AM

We're playing both "Spiderman 2" prints in SR (only cause the SRD track sheded off the film within the first week), but at dolby level 8.5! Usually we can get away with playing SR films at 5.5. Otherwise the Optical track sounds almost as good as the Digital..

Australia is being plagued with these crap prints [puke]

The SRD track flakes and sheds off before even half of the patrons get to listen to digital... [thumbsdown]

| IP: Logged

Robert Stawiarski
Film Handler

Posts: 62
From: MW
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 07-29-2004 11:26 AM

Andrew, this is the Large Format forum. Dick is referring to the IMAX SR Projection System, and not Dolby SR sound.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Jefferson
Film Handler

Posts: 23
From: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 07-29-2004 09:54 PM

Sorry bout that... i'll stay in "35mm land" from now on...

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-01-2004 12:25 PM

I'm amazed that Dolby hasn't sued Imax for the use of its trademakr "SR" name. It shoulda been called "CR" for certainly rediclous.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 08-01-2004 10:25 PM

SR means Small Rotor and has nothing to do with sound equipment. Doy.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-01-2004 10:52 PM

I'm well aware of what it means but it just amazes me they have not been sued. SR is a Dolby trademark and well registered.
Still the SR projector is way too underpowered in the light department and that is my main gripe about it.
Mark

| IP: Logged

Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Film God

Posts: 3977
From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from)
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 08-02-2004 12:01 AM

Well registered? Sure, but not by Dolby Laboratories. There are lots of SR word mark registratioins, but none (that I can remember ever seeing or able to find) by Dolby Laboratories.

Dolby, Pro Logic, Pro Logic II, Dolby Digital EX, Dolby Digital Surround EX, EQ Assist, MLP Lossless, Auto EQ, Signature Microphone, DMA, Digital Media Adapter, and Auditorium Assist are, according to Dolby.com, registered word marks of Dolby Laboratories, SR isn't one of them. According to the USPTO, though, Dolby SR is one (#1683610) and was registered in 1992.

SPECTRAL RECORDING DD DOLBY STEREO SR (#1682698) was registered in 1992 but was cancelled in 1998.

If you search the trademark database at www.uspto.gov using a structured search using "Dolby" in the "owner" field, there are 108 registrations, a good number of which are dead.

More Dolby Laboratories trademark info at: http://www.dolby.com/tm/

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-02-2004 01:14 AM

Even if Dolby were to be given a tradmark on the letters of SR...it would only apply to their field. The SR of IMAX has nothing to do with sound and can not be confused with a Dolby process. There are a lot of people around the world that have SR after their name.

Heck, if there is a Mr. Dolby out there (even if it isn't Ray himself) and they name their son the same name, you would create a Dolby SR/Dolby JR...again hard to enforce a tradmark in that usage.

Then there is Apple's iMac versus IMAX...pretty darn close sounding. However Apple Computer did cross the line when they tampered in the music business with Apple Corp. since Apple Corp. was a music publisher (The Beatles company).

Steve

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-03-2004 09:13 PM

Of course Warner Brothers tried to own Casablanca until Groucho Marx settled all that for them and spent a "Night In Casablanca".
I think he hired the law firm of Hungadunga Hungadunga and McCormick.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 08-05-2004 09:13 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
Even if Dolby were to be given a tradmark on the letters of SR...it would only apply to their field. The SR of IMAX has nothing to do with sound and can not be confused with a Dolby process. There are a lot of people around the world that have SR after their name.

Not confusing? It was confused on this Board and we're supposed to be professionals. If Dolby had the trademark, they would definitely win such a case.

quote: Steve Guttag

Heck, if there is a Mr. Dolby out there (even if it isn't Ray himself) and they name their son the same name, you would create a Dolby SR/Dolby JR...again hard to enforce a tradmark in that usage.

Nothing to do with it. If Irving Dolby had a son and named the son Irving Dolby, Jr, so Mr Dolby became Irving Dolby, Sr. and DOLBY did have the TM, they could stop Irving from going into an audio, theatrical or video business under the name Dolby SR. A guy named McDonald was forced to change the name of his burger restaurant even though he existed before McDonalds.

quote: Steve Guttag

Then there is Apple's iMac versus IMAX...pretty darn close sounding. However Apple Computer did cross the line when they tampered in the music business with Apple Corp. since Apple Corp. was a music publisher (The Beatles company).

That's based on a contract, not on trademark law. Jobs licensed the name from the Beatles company and the limitation on being in the music business was a contractual clause. I happen to think the Beatles lawyers are in the wrong on this issue because for all practical purposes, their Apple is a dormant company. And Apple the computer company is much more recognized than the Beatles' Apple. Do you think there's anyone out there who thinks the Beatles have anything to do with Apple or vice-versa? (Aside from John & Yoko being in the "Think Different" ad campaign).

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-06-2004 08:14 AM

Trademark and patent law are kinda the family business...

As to your first point...I wouldn't want to take on the Dolby SR verus IMAX SR case. There is no confusion there...one is a projector model, the other is a sound treatment. The only confusion I've read on this forum between the two are by persons not familiar (i.e. not professional) with Large Format or vice-versa. Is there any IMAX operator out there that thinks IMAX's SR projector has any relation to Dolby SR?

Dolby SR is a marketing item to the public (that also has no idea what Dolby SR is)...I'd doubt you'd see on the Marquee IMAX SR whereas it is their econo system. For if IMAX did, it would portray different quality levels of IMAX which would hurt their business.

In reference to the names...you read too much into it....One can name their child what ever they choose...Dolby can't own the name. Heck there is a Thomas Dolby and then there is Dolby Labs...both have a relation in music industry. There can be confusion there as I know when Thomas Dolby was popular many people thought the two Dolbys where indeed the same. But back to the topic...I never claimed that one could use their name for business such that it would cause confusion or otherwise infringe on a tradmark. Just that having the name does not in of itself infringe on the trademark...how the name is used also counts.

As to Apple computer and Beatles...depending on yor age...Apple Corp. is permanently etched as a record label, no matter how dorment...even the reissue of albums on CDs used the Apple logo as did the videos for the Anthology.

However, that would be a court thing to truely sort out...Apple computer does not make music as much as the technology to store and reproduce it. Apple Corp was a publishing firm with a record label. Both used an apple in their logos though apple computer had a bite taken out of theirs (and multicolor) where as Apple Corp used their apple as whole and cut in half. This would definatley tread a fine line and could go either way in the court system.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Liam Utley
Film Handler

Posts: 42
From: Australia
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 08-09-2004 07:11 AM

So... what plates are you using?

| IP: Logged

Bob Brown
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 146
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 08-09-2004 07:56 PM

Parts one and two will fit on the regular 60 min plates.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.