Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Reds snuck a new toy without telling us!!
- Thread starter Scott Miller
- Start date
- Moderator
- #2
Jeff Kilgroe
Well-known member
Wow... Potential trademark rape going on right there.
- Thread starter
- #3
Scott Miller
Well-known member
And targeted on Fb as well 
At least I now know that I am getting the Epic-X Amateur......
At least I now know that I am getting the Epic-X Amateur......
Ketch Rossi
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,041
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Sardinia, Italy
- Website
- www.afroditefilms.com
Yeah this was discussed long time ago, tested and used one f this, actually very good for Mega Pixel pictures, that of Dubai was really great one.
Andrew McCarrick
Well-known member
Epic for Red is trademarked as "RED Epic" if I'm not mistaken. Epic is too common of a word to trademark.
Erik Franzén
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 507
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Tell that to Tim Langdell.
Anyways, don't really think RED is too upset over any confusion this might create - they are hardly in the same class after all
Paul Hudson
Well-known member
You would be hard pressed to convince a civil judge or jury that you own the word "Epic". Facebook tried it with "book" and failed totally.
Meryem Ersoz
Well-known member
I would not jump to conclusions - a) it's a robotic head, not a camera and b) it has been in release since 2010, the company was formed roughly around the same time as RED and is using technology patents which pre-date RED....
EPIC is also a trade name for medical imaging equipment...as long as there is clear differentiation in the market and the product, products can share names.
I don't think RED is worried about these guys - they aren't infringing on what RED is doing...nor is Gigapan Systems trying to sell their product through an affiliation.
But I know some very sophisticated shooters who have produced for 8K fulldome using these heads, so I think the comment that "they are hardly in the same class" is actually a little ignorant - gigapan megapixel shooting can produce higher resolution moving images than an EPIC - I've seen them projected on a dome, and they're beautiful and awe-inspiring.
It takes a crapload of time and rendering to stitch and create them, though. I'd rather be shooting my "low-rez" EPIC-M than rendering thousands of stills....
EPIC is also a trade name for medical imaging equipment...as long as there is clear differentiation in the market and the product, products can share names.
I don't think RED is worried about these guys - they aren't infringing on what RED is doing...nor is Gigapan Systems trying to sell their product through an affiliation.
But I know some very sophisticated shooters who have produced for 8K fulldome using these heads, so I think the comment that "they are hardly in the same class" is actually a little ignorant - gigapan megapixel shooting can produce higher resolution moving images than an EPIC - I've seen them projected on a dome, and they're beautiful and awe-inspiring.
It takes a crapload of time and rendering to stitch and create them, though. I'd rather be shooting my "low-rez" EPIC-M than rendering thousands of stills....
- Moderator
- #9
Jeff Kilgroe
Well-known member
Trademarks are a funny thing... I admit I didn't look into this very far or who had what trademark first. Point being, if RED owns a trademark on a camera or a broad-sweeping trademark on camera equipment with the mark "EPIC", then they could most certainly put a stop to this. OTOH, if the others have the EPIC trademark already granted for their product, then they're fine. It makes no difference which company existed first or which product existed first. It's all about the trademark filing and what that filing covers and what the mark identifies.
Saying that "EPIC" is too broad a term doesn't mean anything. That's the same as saying that "RED" is to general of a word. In a way, true, it is. But that's the way trademarks work. They are often specific and narrowly focused. Or at least they must be if you want to be able to protect them. RED, or more specifically RED.COM, Inc.; DBA RED DIGITAL CINEMA, owns a trademark on "RED" as it pertains to cameras, image capture, imaging technology, image display techniques, display and projection technology, etc.. They have a very long list of what it covers, same thing with the term "SCARLET". In case you guys forgot, LG had an ad campaign about 2 years ago with a super-expensive action-movie looking commercial to introduce "SCARLET", their new series of displays. RED shut that down. Hehe.
For what it's worth, I think Andrew is right and RED had to settle for "RED EPIC" for the trademark on the camera brain as there were already a multitude of "EPIC" trademarks in existence that infringed into their desired territory. Common term and all that... Especially with "EPIC" being a trending word of choice for the past several years. These days, so many things are "EPIC", it's like nothing really is... With the exception of my EPIC-M (and soon EPIC-X). OMG... Still the best camera ever.
Saying that "EPIC" is too broad a term doesn't mean anything. That's the same as saying that "RED" is to general of a word. In a way, true, it is. But that's the way trademarks work. They are often specific and narrowly focused. Or at least they must be if you want to be able to protect them. RED, or more specifically RED.COM, Inc.; DBA RED DIGITAL CINEMA, owns a trademark on "RED" as it pertains to cameras, image capture, imaging technology, image display techniques, display and projection technology, etc.. They have a very long list of what it covers, same thing with the term "SCARLET". In case you guys forgot, LG had an ad campaign about 2 years ago with a super-expensive action-movie looking commercial to introduce "SCARLET", their new series of displays. RED shut that down. Hehe.
For what it's worth, I think Andrew is right and RED had to settle for "RED EPIC" for the trademark on the camera brain as there were already a multitude of "EPIC" trademarks in existence that infringed into their desired territory. Common term and all that... Especially with "EPIC" being a trending word of choice for the past several years. These days, so many things are "EPIC", it's like nothing really is... With the exception of my EPIC-M (and soon EPIC-X). OMG... Still the best camera ever.
Paul Hudson
Well-known member
Trademarks are a funny thing... I admit I didn't look into this very far or who had what trademark first. Point being, if RED owns a trademark on a camera or a broad-sweeping trademark on camera equipment with the mark "EPIC", then they could most certainly put a stop to this. OTOH, if the others have the EPIC trademark already granted for their product, then they're fine. It makes no difference which company existed first or which product existed first. It's all about the trademark filing and what that filing covers and what the mark identifies.
Saying that "EPIC" is too broad a term doesn't mean anything. That's the same as saying that "RED" is to general of a word. In a way, true, it is. But that's the way trademarks work. They are often specific and narrowly focused. Or at least they must be if you want to be able to protect them. RED, or more specifically RED.COM, Inc.; DBA RED DIGITAL CINEMA, owns a trademark on "RED" as it pertains to cameras, image capture, imaging technology, image display techniques, display and projection technology, etc.. They have a very long list of what it covers, same thing with the term "SCARLET". In case you guys forgot, LG had an ad campaign about 2 years ago with a super-expensive action-movie looking commercial to introduce "SCARLET", their new series of displays. RED shut that down. Hehe.
For what it's worth, I think Andrew is right and RED had to settle for "RED EPIC" for the trademark on the camera brain as there were already a multitude of "EPIC" trademarks in existence that infringed into their desired territory. Common term and all that... Especially with "EPIC" being a trending word of choice for the past several years. These days, so many things are "EPIC", it's like nothing really is... With the exception of my EPIC-M (and soon EPIC-X). OMG... Still the best camera ever.
Exactly. If this were a camera there would be cause for action for trademark infringement but it is not. For example, a company could start making a cola called Epic and it would be fine. Now, they could not call it "RED EPIC" as that is clearly trademarked. Companies like Kleenex are fortunate as their name is unique and has become the general term used for tissues but no one call their tissue Kleenex nor can any other product be labeled Kleenex.