Red Restrictions #5

[David Kuhn]

So you're happy to give up your freedoms as long as a privately held company gets to benefit? People just confuse me, it's like nobody cares about freedom anymore.

I find the whole 'freedom' question interesting - to me it seems like we all were completely free to decide not to buy a Red if we found their T&C's overly obnoxious, or you could have negotiated on the T&C's with Red (the legal department in my company spent a couple months debating specific items in the T&C's with Red Attorneys... very annoying for me). Anytime two people make a contractual agreement it amounts to each giving up some of their freedom in order to gain some benefit... the question REALLY is (in my mind) - "am I getting enough out of this agreement to make it worth participating". I'd say if my plan was to open a Red repair business then the answer would be 'No', luckily I just want to take terrabytes of high quality images and video - and the Epic does an amazing job at that.

 

[Scott Crawley]

If you have questions about a legal agreement you could inquire with the author with reards to their intent, but seek out the advise of counsel if you have real concerns.

I also think you are misinterpreting several points in the clause, particularly those involving patents and copyrights.

 

[Rob Anderson]

Someone I have long admired once said to me, "Rules are for jerks." Meaning, most rules are on the books and in the contracts so that we have options with how to deal with the occasional jerk. I wish this was still more true today. Sadly I see more and more rules being applied whenever possible and without a more meaningful consideration of humanity. But alas...

Thinking specifically of how I believe RED would apply this policy... I think it's intended for the jerks and nuisances only.

 

[George Butterfield]

Yo KETCH, next time be more specific and use the word "China" instead of Chinese. I know it's confusing cause Chinese is a nationality and a race.
Chill!
:smilewinkgrin:

Ya gotta cut Ketch a little slack as English is not his first language, but you make an excellent point.

 

[Michael Dalton]

Weird Mark. You've been a board member since 2006 and this has been Red's mindset for a while. In my opinion you are reading a bit hard into it.

Most of the limitations regarding the name are there to protect the trademark and differentiate companies, business, projects, etc....

For instance I've seen folks use Red camera and sensor names in their business name, which is moderately misleading as that entity likely has no affiliation with Red. This can actually potentially damage Red's image if that entity falsely represents themselves.

Red is mostly protecting themselves and their brand. They are a good company and won't chase you if your motion picture title is "Red Rum Rumble" if there's a purpose. In a world where "Epic Movie" and "Red 2" exist it should be a given that RED's intent with that wording isn't malicious.

In terms of protecting the technology, I mean, that's a given.

If there's interest in creation applications or software however to work with say .R3Ds there's a simple approval process to go through. It's actually similar to other companies really. Don't know what the gruff is about really.

If you think Red's going to come after you for using a anybody's tripod and considering how good the company's reputation is, I'd say that's just a bit paranoid. That's not with this is about. Protecting brand and technology however is what it's about.

There is some good clarification here. It's where the word related to Red as a camera or technology, kinda like if you wanted to use the name Apple store, which is fine if your selling apples to eat, but not if your selling apple computers. I'm sure red won't like it if a client of theirs uses branding but these think are limited to where the company is trademarked. So a company called Red Imaging is not allowed, but something like 4k Ninja's is. In the long run, it's somewhat of a bad idea to tie your company name or services to a camera anyway. DV productions is probably not that cool today as a name as it was 10 years ago.

I had someone once get angry with me because a series I did had the same title as this guys safari business in the US. The show was shot in Africa, was aired on TV in Canada on Animal Planet, and the rest of the world on Nat Geo, and he wanted me to change the name. Legally he had no right because we were not selling safaris under that name. So Nat Geo didn't mind.

 

[Matt Gerard]

Ya gotta cut Ketch a little slack as English is not his first language, but you make an excellent point.

I think his use of the language was accurate, seems ketch was using the word "Chinese" as a verb, not a noun, referencing the tendency for many new products to be introduced and immediately shipped to china to have it reversed engineered and manufactured at sub par quality at a cheaper price. Also, I've heard the term used by some old timers in the biz as a verb "Hey go chinese that light stand for me" meaning, go hold onto it and make sure it doesn't fall down. I''m to young to know exactly where this came from but it seems to be when Chinese immigrants were hired cheaply to help around film sets. Don't quote me on that, though.

At any rate, I thought it was a bit of a tasteless comment anyway. Its long been taboo to use a nationality to force a negative connotation to an action. I'm part native indian and I still hear the jokes about not being able to hold my "firewater". I don't drink anyway, but that's besides the point

As far as the OP is concerned, I can totally see where he is coming from. I'm very impressed that someone has actually read the TOS! Bravo for that. I think more people would be amazed at the audacity that some companies have when they write them, its almost as if they try to push the claims farther and farther until they are called on it for some ludicrous claim in it. Ever read the TOS for your free gmail account? NSA spying doesn't seem too out of line after reading that.

So yes, in theory, RED can basically dictate exactly how you use your camera, as the OP said. Yes, its in the text, so yes you could theoretically be sued for putting your camera on a park bench instead of a RED approved horizontal support device. Is it unnerving that RED can make these statement? Yes, but in light of the current litigation atmosphere (people will sue for ANYTHING, at least in the US), they are protecting themselves from frivolous lawsuits by putting frivolous requirements in the TOS. Its the start of their defense. So, can you blame them?

I do operator training videos for turf care equipment, fairway mowers, large area mowers, etc. You wouldn't believe the stuff they are required by the legal dept to put in the manuals. Don't use the mowers to herd animals out of the mowing area, don't test the sharpness of the blades with your fingers WHILE THE BLADES ARE MOVING, don't use the mower to cut anything but grass (I've seen the videos and lawsuits pertaining to this one) and my favorite, be sure to use some sort of support device when unloading from a utility trailer. In other words, don't try to drive the 4000 lb mower off the edge of a 3 ft high trailer and expect it to just float down like a feather.

I find TOS's a bit amusing to read, I like to think that this is the only fun that lawyers get to have is writing these.

Heh, just looked at my avatar, and I doubt the red lawyers would be amused at the non-approved support device for my non-approved sachler sticks...

 

[Scott Crawley]

So yes, in theory, RED can basically dictate exactly how you use your camera, as the OP said. Yes, its in the text, so yes you could theoretically be sued for putting your camera on a park bench instead of a RED approved horizontal support device. Is it unnerving that RED can make these statement? Yes, but in light of the current litigation atmosphere (people will sue for ANYTHING, at least in the US), they are protecting themselves from frivolous lawsuits by putting frivolous requirements in the TOS. Its the start of their defense. So, can you blame them?

I'm far from a crack legal mind but I think you are missing the mark. While it is possible for just about anyone to file a legal complaint against anyone else, that language does not enable Red to prevent you from putting your camera on an un-sanctioned or unconventional support. What it does do in part, is limit Red's liability should your camera come crashing down on the ground in the process.

I think you will find that in a U.S. court your right to use your camera in a method of your choosing supersedes any right Red might assert in attempt to limit you as a consumer, but again I am not a barrister.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

"Roger?

Roger Valdes?

You still there?"

A long pause. He hangs up the phone.

"That's funny. Roger Valdes was bragging about being able to reverse engineer the Dragon sensor one minute, and the next minute I heard a strange gurgling sound and then the phone hit the floor."

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm surprised, with all his scrutiny, Mark B. missed the part of the agreement where it says those caught pixel peeping an R3D image will be forcibly detained and subjected to anal probes and obscure color science experiments.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'm surprised, with all his scrutiny, Mark B. missed the part of the agreement where it says those caught pixel peeping an R3D image will be forcibly detained and subjected to anal probes and obscure color science experiments.

Would that that constitute anal calibration? Is THAT what is needed here? ;-)

 

[Jamil Yosufi]

You are going to far Mark, don't get it to hard. as am thinking you can use your name for your website, If anyone uses RED Blah blah at anything it doesn't mean that RED will caught you for using it. Simply RED is just a "word" & red camera company doesn't discovered it. by the way if your chosen name is more important & RED doesn't allow you to use that name, Than shoot with other camera or change it to "ORANGEMADE" :glare:

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

"RED" is a registered trademark as it pertains to cameras, camera lighting, camera accessories, imaging, video, image capture, blah, blah, blah... You don't want to infringe on their trademark, however it is a ubiquitous word that can pertain to anything. If there is any question, it is the responsibility of those seeking to use the potentially infringing word to contact current trademark holders. So you would contact RED and ask if they would have a problem with you using it. Now when it comes to film titles or descriptive uses, or even uses not pertaining to areas that RED participates or competes in, then you're just fine -- in most reasonable situations.

"RED" is also a registered trademark of the charitable organization and they have their "product (RED)"[TM] stuff they sell that others can license and participate in. As many electronics and clothing manufacturers, etc.. do. And I know of at least one other "RED" trademark out there that pertains to machine tool coatings and I'm sure there are more.

Don't read too much into it. It's not really a question of what common words you may use, because more words out there have a trademark associated with them than not. It's all about how you use them and in what context. Your film can be called "REDMAID", " RED MAID" or whatever. Such as Ketch Rossi's "The Red Dress" that he's been promoting like crazy around here lately. OTOH, if your production company is called "RED MAIDS" and you have a bunch of sexy female camera operators, you would have a problem as you can be seen as aligning yourself with "RED" in relation to cameras and services. That's great and all and they may even appreciate your efforts, but to protect their own interests, they would have to ask you to stop. This happened to a the group of Red Users around here known as the "4K Ninjas". They were the "Red Ninjas" in the beginning and they had to change it. Now if you were to make a martial arts film titled "Red Ninjas", you're alright... As long as it's not about a bunch of camera technicians or something. Even then you could probably get away with it.

My answers are simplistic and generalized. The best thing to do is to seek clarification. Contact RED and ask to be put in touch with their legal representative if you have any questions. They will be happy to answer any questions or to help. They don't want to send out nasty letters telling people to stop what they're doing. But they will take measures to stop you, if they have to in order to protect what is theirs. And it doesn't matter if you're just the little guy working out of his bedroom or the big guy with a 9-digit studio budget.

 

[Matt Gerard]

I'm far from a crack legal mind but I think you are missing the mark. While it is possible for just about anyone to file a legal complaint against anyone else, that language does not enable Red to prevent you from putting your camera on an un-sanctioned or unconventional support. What it does do in part, is limit Red's liability should your camera come crashing down on the ground in the process.

I think you will find that in a U.S. court your right to use your camera in a method of your choosing supersedes any right Red might assert in attempt to limit you as a consumer, but again I am not a barrister.

I think you are correct, I never thought of it that way. RED is limit their liability in case something happens, not your use of the equipment. RED (legal) probably could give 2 shats if you decided to use it as a hat. They just aren't liable for the damage it does when it falls off your head and onto your foot.

Good way of looking at it. Much more sane.