Copyright question

[neilli]

I may have missed something, but why do the copyright laws always seem to focus on headstock design rather than the body?

I've just been looking at the ESP site, and they have basically a Rhoads and a Starbody in the signature range - surely that's using a copyrighted design to your advantage every bit as much (if not more than) as GMW using a strat head, ESP using the Jackson head in the late 80's etc...I don't get it [img]/images/graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]

[LarryL]

Re: Copyright question

It's a trademark as opposed to copyright. You should do a search, this is a big issue at the moment (sorry I don't have any of the stuff bookmarked). Basically the big companies are starting to try to enforce trademarks on their body shapes. Most of these were not officially registered - their success will depend on the amount of time and money smaller companies have to fight lawsuits. Many small builders are agreeing to drop / change their Strat and LP shaped guitars.

[RR05xx]

Re: Copyright question

I think that another factor is that for whatever reason, fender was always very protective of the headstock, but until recently, did not focus on the body and this leads to a legal defense called waiver (I am sure there is another term, but its been a long week). Bottem line is that people have been copying the strat shape for more than 30 years unchecked and legally that puts fender on some weak ground to suddenly try to enforce "rights" which it has ignored for so long. Gibson, on the otherhand has been more protective of certain body shapes (thus lawsuit explorers etc.), but I think that Gibson may have the same problem with the LP shape as fender has with the strat.

I beleive that Jackson was fairly viligent concerning headstock protection as concern large competitors (like ESPee), but has traditionally left the little guy alone (thus certain small shops out west who shall remain nameless made non-logoed jackson style "pointy" headstock guitars for years while actually being a Jackson dealer with no hastles. It was not until fender took over that this was stopped.

[HuntinDoug]

Re: Copyright question

“Intellectual property” is the issue here. If the consumer’s eye sees a design, and it reminds them of another product or company, then there is a problem. In this case, the shape of a srat headstock. I have a few copyrights on designs I have done over the past 10 years. What I have found is quite simply that copyright lawyers are the ones who ultimately benefit finacially. A few years ago I got drained for a few grand by my lawyer in a failed attempt to stop an infringement on my design. Only to find out AFTER I contributed to my lawers bank account, that to proceed, I would need a “cross-license” from another copyright holder, because a portion of my design could reflect a certain product in the consumers eye. He (my ex-lawyer) soaked me for as much as he could before giving me the entire scoop. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

In the end the person infringing on my design got nailed by the “other” company. I walked away with an unuseable design, and expensive lesson learned.

[neilli]

Re: Copyright question

Thanks for the info guys - I guess I'm still surprised that Jackson (FMIC) don't go after ESP over the star body, as that's seems a direct copy which could affect C/J sales, but I'm sure they know what they're doing!

[Zerberus]

Re: Copyright question

ESP doesn´t sell most of their blatant ripoffs in teh US, making them "immune" to prosecution in a US court of law [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I think that´s where the bisggest problem lies...If ESP were to import its ripoffs to the US, JCMI/FMIC/Gibson would probably ream their ass until they see the stomach [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[markD]

Re: Copyright question

yep.. that's why i can't get an ESP kai hansen model unless it comes from japan or europe.

[noodlesatf]

Re: Copyright question

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Gibson may have the same problem with the LP shape as fender has with the strat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. PRS doesn't make the singlecut anymore because of a Gibson lawsuit, which opened the door for Gibson to start squashing people like ESP next.

[Jim Shine]

Re: Copyright question

Fender hasn't always been protective of its headstock. There were forgeries of Fenders that date back to the early 60's. When Forrest White (plant manager of Fender at the time) asked Leo why he wasn't doing anything to stop these guys, Leo said along the lines of 'Because these people make money from the guitars they sell and that money feeds their kids and pays their bills. Who am I to take that away?'. It was CBS that really enforced this stuff. The first thing they protected was the off set contour body patent which they alleged Gibson stole for their Firebird design (and won so Gibson had to change the shape). It wasn't until the boom in the late 70's and early 80's where almost every manufacturer was using a direct copy Fender headstock shape that they took action on those shapes. I really feel they noticed the numbers by the late 70's, started quietly renewing expired patents and regestering trademarks and after a few years when all the paper work came through, they cleaned house.

[Soap]

Re: Copyright question

Its more than protecting their product, investment, being innovative. The bigger picture is "Greed".

[Zerberus]

Re: Copyright question

Soap, try think of it this way: Someone has a great idea starts a business (ALWAYS for money)...someone Buys that business (for money, to earn money with it), the original idea and product are still what "defines" the company, and they fuck it up....someone else buys it (for understandings sake, we´ll assume it´s you or me, because that doesn´t matter), REBUILDS IT, and now wants to get back what they originally invested, and hopefully a bit more....Again, think of yourself as owner Nr. 3.....Still think it´s only "greed"? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

To put it bluntly: If you (or you father, who you inherited the business from) designed something, and you made your living off of it, and I were to steal the idea, most of the cosmetics, and essentially everything that defines the product, costing you sales (money, for your rent, your food, your workspace rent, the investments on tools and a new Truck, would you be "greedy" for trying to stop me?

Because that´s what it is, just on a larger scale. It´s just not 2 single people but corporations that have dozens to hundreds of employees to feed (that incidentally all constantly want a pay raise or more free time [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ).... :beerchug:

[markD]

Re: Copyright question

i think you hit it. that's what people forget. people actually make these products and have to get paid. the corp. doesn't just spit out a guitar.

[SeventhSon]

Re: Copyright question

[ QUOTE ]
“Intellectual property” is the issue here. If the consumer’s eye sees a design, and it reminds them of another product or company, then there is a problem. In this case, the shape of a srat headstock. I have a few copyrights on designs I have done over the past 10 years. What I have found is quite simply that copyright lawyers are the ones who ultimately benefit finacially. A few years ago I got drained for a few grand by my lawyer in a failed attempt to stop an infringement on my design. Only to find out AFTER I contributed to my lawers bank account, that to proceed, I would need a “cross-license” from another copyright holder, because a portion of my design could reflect a certain product in the consumers eye. He (my ex-lawyer) soaked me for as much as he could before giving me the entire scoop. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

In the end the person infringing on my design got nailed by the “other” company. I walked away with an unuseable design, and expensive lesson learned.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's such a dog-eat-dog world out there these days, I think it makes sense for family units to groom the smart kid of the bunch to become a lawyer.

[hippietim]

Re: Copyright question

[ QUOTE ]
Its more than protecting their product, investment, being innovative. The bigger picture is "Greed".

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/brow.gif[/img]

Why should companies be able to rip off Fender's designs? Why can't they create their own?

Even with Fender and Gibson trying to protect their headstock and body designs, they have both given plenty of innovations away (pickups, bridges, etc).

The Dimarzio dual-cream humbucker rule - that's just stupid. I can't of any situations where color combinations should be protected for a commodity item.

[xenophobe]

Re: Copyright question

[ QUOTE ]
Its more than protecting their product, investment, being innovative. The bigger picture is "Greed".

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if I were to come up to you and try to take money out of your wallet without your permission, you wouldn't let me, because you're greedy? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]