Waves ClarityVx DeReverb and Pro

[Larry Shelby]

Standard $29.99 intro price (go figure)

https://www.waves.com/plugins/clarity-vx-dereverb

Pro is $99 intro price

https://www.waves.com/plugins/clarity-vx-dereverb-pro

Edited May 31, 2023 by cclarry

[Bapu]

Included in Mercury, so...... Installed!

[Eusebio Rufian-Zilbermann]

Nice! unlike the "no surname" ClarityVx, this time the Pro is also in Mercury!

[PavlovsCat]

It's a pretty bold move by Waves to get into the realm of trademark infringement with SPL (De-Verb). That aside, I wonder if the AI technology leads to the Waves plugin doing a more thorough job? It would be interesting to see a head to head comparison. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[Bapu]

1 hour ago, PavlovsCat said:

It's a pretty bold move by Waves to get into the realm of trademark infringement with SPL (De-Verb). That aside, I wonder if the AI technology leads to the Waves plugin doing a more thorough job? It would be interesting to see a head to head comparison. 

Since I own both I may try to find a snippet that could benefit from that comparison. ? 

[kitekrazy1]

I still haven't left the  FU Waves tour.

[Brian Walton]

7 hours ago, PavlovsCat said:

It's a pretty bold move by Waves to get into the realm of trademark infringement with SPL (De-Verb). That aside, I wonder if the AI technology leads to the Waves plugin doing a more thorough job? It would be interesting to see a head to head comparison. 

Without even trying it Id assume the WAVES one does a better job based on the clarityvx vocal tech.  But the question is it worth dealing with the company again to find out.  I'm not so sure.

Given the different name honestly SPL would not have a case at all .   iZotope has far more grounds to call waves into question given how close the name is there.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Brian Walton

[Larry Shelby]

Just FYI you can get DeVerb Plus at PA right now....for $4.99 with the Voucher

https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/products/spl_de-verb_plus.html

Edited May 31, 2023 by cclarry

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

7 hours ago, PavlovsCat said:

It's a pretty bold move by Waves to get into the realm of trademark infringement with SPL (De-Verb). That aside, I wonder if the AI technology leads to the Waves plugin doing a more thorough job? It would be interesting to see a head to head comparison. 

Sadly, there's no trademark infringement, as the Waves plugin is not just called "De-Verb," but "ClarityVx DeReverb."

 

 

[PavlovsCat]

I actually know a good deal about global trademark law to the point Interpol quotes me in their documentation. To infringe on a trademark you don't have to use identical words. It just has to be close.  De-Reverb is very much in the realm of trademark infringement for De-Verb; infringement is not merely about the exact term, but when a party uses something close enough to cause marketplace confusion.  And trademark laws, in this regard, are fairly similar in most developed nations including Israel, most of Europe and NA). 

My guess is that Waves didn't consult a trademark attorney before naming the product or they didn't listen to the advice  of attorney when choosing the name (they are technically a small business, so my guess is that they didn't consult a trademark attorney before finalizing the product name).  My guess is that (erroneously) thought de-reverb is a generic description and hence makes SPL's trademark less easy to defend in courts. However,  if SPL's attorneys send them a cease and desist letter, which I would do in this case, they'd be wise to change the name.  

Edited June 1, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

10 minutes ago, PavlovsCat said:

To infringe on a trademark you don't have to use identical words. It just has to be close.

And you'd be hard pressed to find a person who's gonna confuse "De-Verb Pro" with "ClarityVx DeReverb." While Waves might be author of several questionable decisions, I don't think a company this old would be this stupid. They're not Unison Audio.

[Brian Walton]

14 minutes ago, PavlovsCat said:

I actually know a good deal about global trademark law to the point Interpol quotes me in their documentation. To infringe on a trademark you don't have to use identical words. It just has to be close.  De-Reverb is very much in the realm of trademark infringement for De-Verb; infringement is not merely about the exact term, but when a party uses something close enough to cause marketplace confusion.  And trademark laws, in this regard, are fairly similar in most developed nations including Israel, most of Europe and NA). 

My guess is that Waves didn't consult a trademark attorney before naming the product or they didn't listen to the advice  of attorney when choosing the name (they are technically a small business, so my guess is that they didn't consult a trademark attorney before finalizing the product name).  My guess is that (erroneously) thought de-reverb is a generic description and hence makes SPL's trademark less easy to defend in courts. However,  if SPL's attorneys send them a cease and desist letter, which I would do in this case, they'd be wise to change the name.  But from my perspective,, I don't hold companies that engage in intellectual property infringement in high regard. It's the low road in business.  

It is a bit different here because de-reverb or de-verb is a category of effect type.  It describes what the effect does.  It isn't some random name.  iZotope already has a tool called de-reverb.  

De-reverb is a generic term, IMO and it would seem others agree:

 

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/5-of-the-most-popular-de-reverb-plugins-take-our-listening-test

[PavlovsCat]

People or companies using a slight variation of the term descriptively wouldn't preclude it from being infringement. However,  if de-reverb as a descriptive term pre-dates the De-Verb product name (a sub-brand,  if we're being technical), then it wouldn't be infringement.  I knew that people often use the term, but didn't realize that other brands were using it in product naming.  So I'm guessing the term de-reverb could predate De-Verb or SPL simply never bothered to defend their trademark and, unchallenged,  it became very commonly used. Oh well,  sorry for the trademark discussion, I realize it's uninteresting to 99% of our group. I'll try to post something helpful or funny to make up for it in the near future!

Edited June 1, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

1 hour ago, PavlovsCat said:

People or companies using a slight variation of the term descriptively wouldn't preclude it from being infringement. However,  if de-reverb as a descriptive term pre-dates the De-Verb product name (a sub-brand,  if we're being technical), then it wouldn't be infringement.  I knew that people often use the term, but didn't realize that other brands were using it in product naming.  So I'm guessing the term de-reverb could predate De-Verb or SPL simply never bothered to defend their trademark and, unchallenged,  it became very commonly used. Oh well,  sorry for the trademark discussion, I realize it's uninteresting to 99% of our group. I'll try to post something helpful or funny to make up for it in the near future!

The only company which would have a case against Waves is not SPL, but iZotope, since they do have a plugin/tool which is called DeReverb as part of RX and had it for quite a while, since RX predates the Clarity series of plugins.

[PavlovsCat]

9 minutes ago, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

The only company which would have a case against Waves is not SPL, but iZotope, since they do have a plugin/tool which is called DeReverb as part of RX and had it for quite a while, since RX predates the Clarity series of plugins.

As you probably figured out, I thought that SPL's De-Verb created the category with their product and created the term with their De-Verb.  So, you're saying that Izotope actually had their product out first? 

Again, apologies to those bored to death by this stuff, but most of us enjoy tangents here, me included! And I accidentally ended up learning more about the history of this category. 

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

2 minutes ago, PavlovsCat said:

As you probably figured out, I thought that SPL's De-Verb created the category with their product and created the term with their De-Verb.  So, you're saying that Izotope actually had their product out first? 

The first version of RX to include DeReverb was RX3 Advanced, which came out in 2014. The Waves ClarityVx plugin series was first introduced last year, with this DeReverb one being brand new.

[PavlovsCat]

1 hour ago, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

The first version of RX to include DeReverb was RX3 Advanced, which came out in 2014. The Waves ClarityVx plugin series was first introduced last year, with this DeReverb one being brand new.

But didn't SPL create the category long before that? If they created the category of products we call de-reverbs, which is a variation of their trademark name, they have something they can defend. However, if the term fell into wide use and was never defended by a trademark owner, it's going to be hard to defend and I would find that anyone using De-Reverb is going to have a hard time defending it as a trademark.  

That is, if de-reverb was a descriptive term in use before a product name was used, it really isn't an easily defended trademark (its not worth registering). This gets a bit technical. For example,  the 7Up company has a trademark "The Uncola" they used in advertising and packaging for decades.  The name, while close to the generic term cola is still a good, easily defended trademark,  because there's no history of carbonated non-cola sodas generically being called uncolas. Whereas,  if the term existed prior to 7Up using it as a generic term for that type of soda, it would be difficult to defend the trademark. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by PavlovsCat

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

1 hour ago, PavlovsCat said:

But didn't SPL create the category long before that? If they created the category of products we call de-reverbs, which is a variation of their trademark name, they have something they can defend. However, if the term fell into wide use and was never defended by a trademark owner, it's going to be hard to defend and I would find that anyone using De-Reverb is going to have a hard time defending it as a trademark.  

The problem is that the word "De-Reverb" or "De-Verb" would be a generic term to refer to something that removes reverb, much like "De-Esser" is a generic term for a single band compressor meant to remove sibilance from vocals.

[GTsongwriter]

12 hours ago, cclarry said:

Just FYI you can get DeVerb Plus at PA right now....for $4.99 with the Voucher

https://www.plugin-alliance.com/en/products/spl_de-verb_plus.html

What voucher?

[Larry Shelby]

10 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

What voucher?

The one that was $20 off...