Electric Guitars And Trademark Infringement
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 дек 2024
- In this video, I will try to explain what trademark infringement is such a big deal for guitar makers.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @highlineguitars
Links to my guitar plans and merchandise
www.eguitarplan...
/ highlineguitars
I was one of the ones who commented that the Les Paul body shape wasn't trademarked and that the headstock design was different on the MAGA guitar. Doing some quick research immediately after posting, though, I came across the chart of Gibson trademarks that you have included in your video, realized I was in over my head, and removed my post. I just wanted to apologize if you did end up reading my comment.
Hey man, no worries. It's a complicated situation that even the lawyers can't seem to figure out.
Well done, well done! I don't know you but you just earned my respect. I thought the same thing as well.
Hi Chris I was a comenter too but I have been doing research too as many other channels have been looking at this and commenting let's say in this case it's defenetely copyright infringement and normally I am on the side of the guitar manufacture or luthier that Gibson is going after, but in this case I am on Gibsons side.
And not only that those guitar kits are most likely leo James kits that you can get off of Amazon for less than 200 dollars which are Chinese knockoffs and one other thing one of the maga les Pauls has a bolt on neck and while I would love to do a bolt on neck for a les Paul amc would be one of my design fixes that's for my own enjoyment not to mark up a guitar 13 hundred dollars you did not even build yourself just to make a quick buck that's not right at all.
Justy thoughts Chris and thank you for catching this early. @@HighlineGuitars
Thanks for this video. I've been subscribed to your channel for years, but this is a topic I never considered needing to watch. Thank you.
I think most people are too lazy to do their own research. This is why we live in a world of copies of copies of copies! I wonder if Gibson will trademark the broken headstock?
Sounds like you may have owned an SG 😀
Haha !
Yes, hahaha!
It's hilarious to me that Gibson trademarks their headstock design - when Heritage had to come up with a new one to keep building Les Paul-style guitars at least they were smart enough to design one that results in way better tuning stability!
Turns out you were right Gibson hit that fool with a cease and desist this afternoon
Nah, I disagree....
Make that open book headstock.
Become ungovernable.
I'm going to build a Gibson Les Paul and put a Fender Stratocaster logo on the headstock.
Imagine the automotive industry trademarking today's car and suv shapes.
I’ve always thought you did a great job of doing your own thing with your headstocks. There aren’t very many options but yours are different enough and still aesthetically pleasing
Thanks! I really appreciate the support. Especially after the last few days of getting hammered in the comments of my recent video.
@ I bet! 😂 I respect the heck out of that move also. You’re one of very few who stepped into the chaos for the sake of the conversation and that takes some nuts right now!
As always, an interesting video.
I know it's hard to feel sympathy when corporate muscle is applied but it is worth considering the other side of the argument.
This is all about intellectual property -any idea or design that you have developed that is unique to you and you want to benefit from commercially. It could be an invention or a design that has cost you a lot to develop in terms of money, career, family etc. The last thing you want is somebody stepping in, copying it and taking your market away. Especially if they pretend that it is yours and then compromise your reputation with poor quality.
This is protected by intellectual property rights that cover trademarks, branding, inventions (patents), music, and even RUclips content.
If you are making a guitar for yourself and not selling it, it doesn't apply to you. Borrow a Les Paul and copy it to the absolute finest detail and it won't be a problem if you don't try to sell it.
If you decide to make and sell something that is similar to a product that a person or corporation has registered part of, you run the risk of them protecting themselves. It can be an honest mistake, in which case you get a 'cease and desist', do just that, and move on. No big deal.
If you do it on a larger scale, invest significant funds in materials or equipment to produce it and expect a return on that investment, then maybe you should think about whose toes you might be treading on before spending that money.
One thing I don't think most people consider re the Trump guitars. They are a limited run. From what I can tell, they have already sold out. So, when the company get Gibson's cease and desist letter, all they have to do is say that they will comply. Gibson is widely known for going after any, and everyone they even think might be violating their I.P. They went after PRS and were laughed out of court.
I don't know if they are actually sold out or if that was done in an effort to stop people from ordering due to the C&D letter.
@@HighlineGuitars do you have any videos on guitars and doing an engravement in the body and filling it with epoxy
@@HighlineGuitars Only the signed and graphic flag guitars are sold out. The acoustics, and the solid color guitars are not sold out
@@tyleryoutube224 I don't think I do. I usually use CA glue.
That is a really nice take on the telecaster you've got there. It has a really pleasing natural rhythm to the curves
Historically, the companies have been successful in protecting the trademark in the headstock but not in the body. It makes sense from a common sense/legal perspective, keeping in mind the general public and the lawyers and judges aren't guitarists. The logo is always found on the headstock and so the shape is associated with the brand name (like the Nike Swoosh or the Addidas 3 stripes). The public looks for that information on the headstock.
It's hard to trademark a guitar based on a traditional shape that's hundreds of years old. Single cut, double cut, no cut... it's all more or less just shaped like a traditional acoustic unless you're talking about a V or an Explorer, something like that.
For a one man in a shed type setup, instructing a lawyer seems like overkill, especially if you make one guitar at a time and sell it before you start the next one.
If you do get a C&D, the most you'll lose is the guitar you're currently building; and you'll have to speak to any clients with future orders about a redesign, and at worst return their deposit.
What if I make a Fender-style guitar and it coincidentally infringes on the trademarks of another company like Ibañez?
How does it work with a similar design in shape? American companies like PRS & Michael Kelly have LP style guitars, but they aren't an exact copy. How far does one have to stray from a design to not infringe on a trademark?
That's what a trademark attorney can tell you. Of course every attorney will probably have a different opinion.
As always, excellent commentary. Invites everyone to imagine (or ignore) where they exist in the "Instrument Building Economy." This is just the latest eruption -- admittedly, very high-profile -- of an instance where a major manufacturer went after someone "ripping off" their trademark designs. I need to think more on this topic. Seems totally excessive that Gibson goes after some dude making six or seven "Flying V" analogues. But is THIS latest thing something different? If so, Why? Because it's under the imprimatur of a major nation-state? Don't know what to think of this. Still trying to process it. ABSENT any political element. Like, What would I do if I were Gibson?
A great example is Fender suing G&L for the headstock similarity. G&L Changed the headstock design.
Interestingly, Fender has the names and headstock shapes registered, but not the bodies.
Thanks for explaining
Gibson also tends to BULLY smaller guitar makers when it comes to their trademarks and patents. Why? Because they know bigger companies (or smaller brands owned by bigger companies) can actually afford to fight their claims and have a chance of winning against Gibson. The small guy doesnt stand a chance because Gibson can afford to drag things out in court while the small guy can't. Lawyers cost money... And the longer you need to keep that lawyer working for you, the more $$$ it costs you, that more than likely, you dont have. (Some actually have won against Gibson's claims. Some went bankrupt fighting them.)
So you either make and sell until Gibson serves you that cease and desist notice, don't make them at all, or you find a good trademark/patent attourney that doesn't bankrupt you to find out if Gibson already lost a case regarding your design and theirs.
Fender's body designs were never really enforced if any trademarks existed, and so many copies that have existed for so long now that there's nothing Fender can do about it.
This is interesting. The same debate erupted in a Stratocaster forum. Laws vary by country. In one country, the use of a Fender logo was in itself a trademark infringement whether or not a guitar using bearing that logo was for sale. My understanding, as you carefully explained, is trademarks have to be registered and for an infringement claim to be tested, the item alleged to be in violation of a registered trademark must be intended for sale. Is this your understanding too?
It has to be registered and protected.
Slapping, say Fender's logo onto a strat clone puts you into counterfeit territory. That's different than just copying a body style. Counterfeiting is a different crime/violation than trademark or patent infringement. Don't quote me, as I'm not a lawyer, but counterfeiting is probably more severe than cloning with your name on it.
I wouldn't be surprised if counterfeit is a criminal matter whereas trademark infringement is civil. I don't know either way, but anecdotally I do know people who counterfeit antiques can go to jail.
@ trademark infringement cases are civil. Counterfeiting is a crime when it involves intent to defraud a purchaser or if it involves currency, for instance.
@@Mikey__R All trademark cases have to go through a Federal court. And it's expensive.
Thanks Chris. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.
Same to you!
An order to cease is just a bs attempt to stop 🛑 the action. Next is Court With the trump guitar.. there's tons of guitard that are close to Gibson. Change the horns a bit. Change the head stock. Change the neck ie bolt on vs set neck or neck thru. Close is not an infringement....
Personally I would never pay $10,000 for a guitar 🎸 next I would not buy a guitar 🎸 that I would not play... No way GIBSON WOULD Go AFTER A CHINESE COMPANY THEY ARE ACTUALLY PART STATE OWNED THINK YOU HAVE MORE MONEY THAN A GOVERNMENT THAT CAN PRINT MONEY.. OR HAS A MILITARY???
Leo never really trademarked his body shapes. Leo went for trademarks on his Strat vibrato and his pickups. He might have trademarked the off-set body shapes. When CBS bought out Fender they trademarked a lot of stuff. But I don't think they kept them up or went after anyone. I guess Martin didn't protect their shapes either. The Fender Stratocaster and the Martin Dreadnought are the most copied guitars in the world today!
I personally don’t understand why so many builders copy shapes. I like the freedom to create something unique. Why would I copy something if I can create something that is my own? If you spend so many hours in building an instrument, why not make it your own?
Agreed!! Your "unique" may just be the next guitar everyone wants. You build one, and a friend says, "That's cool! Build me one!"......and it starts....
Sometimes you have to give the people what they want, which is why I only build my designs these days.
@@l.e.bassdesign I like things that are unique but the guitar buying market does not. The vast majority of guitars sold are 4 body shapes. If you list out all the features you want in a guitar, your options on body shapes are pretty limited.
I do wonder if there'll be a retaliation against Gibson in January. I don't like how Gibson do business, but I do very much acknowledge their contribution to the history and development of the electric guitar.
I wonder that too. Cancel culture is very big on the right.
and if there is retaliation how many Americans will be out of a job?
@@HighlineGuitarsIn an effort to maintain neutrality, in as much as it's possible, it should be noted that cancel culture from the left has long been fairly robust as well. Have a happy Thanksgiving Chris
@ 🙄
100% they will.
It's only illegal if you want to sell it... dont sell it, TRADE it.
Right, you can trade it against, let's say, a teddy bear, and the guy buys the teddy bear back for the value of that guitar. - Or - Just sell super expensive teddy bears with a guitar attached as a gift. Would that be legal ?
so can you register a telecaster shape as yours?)
No.
Been copied for too long... AND it didn't start with you... So... No.
@@HighlineGuitars in the jargon referred to as "prior art"
Michigan here. I have a business where I buy used guitars that are broken, abused or just neglected and I fix them up and resell them for a hobby that I am growing into something I can do in retirement for extra income. What thoughts do you have on if I was to keep the manufacture branding on the headstocks but gave them a rebranded name from my business for ones that I needed to repaint the bodies on?
You sell those as "modded" guitars. You can put a little logo or stick that says "modded by..."
there's one d-bag right now on eBay selling Firefly guitars that he sands off the logo and puts his on and they are junk.
i do the same. bring on the frivolous cases....
I’d find a way to add your branding to things like neck plates and control cavity covers.
There’s nothing wrong with promoting yourself and your work; you just want to make sure it doesn’t look like you’re slapping your name on another guitar and trying your pass it off as something you made.
Frankly that’s why I just don’t put anything on the headstocks for parts and kit guitars I put together.
You'll have to consult with an attorney. I can't give specific legal advice.
You could add something like _"restored (or modded) by hodaboy guitars",_ but it's probably a good idea to put it on the back of the headstock.
why even copy a shape when there's so much you can do with your imagination..... seriously.
I do that on almost every guitar I make. Unfortunately, as one of my college professors told me, originality is dead. On the other hand, why can’t I make a shape I love?
I am a hobbist and I build basses and guitars for myself just for fun (very few tbh), I always made my own designs but lately I grown a desire to make some reproduction... I admit I feel a little uncomfortable as intellectual property for me is sacred (I am a professional graphic designer) but as I obtain no profit out of it I guess it is a little more forgivable... I won't ever make a reproduction using the original brand logo, though!
Good video
Is a registered trademark different from a patent? I see today that Gibson has issued a cease and desist for the Trump guitars.
You do realize the trademark war is a not about the trademark.
It is because of two things.
1. Gibson raised prices on Epiphone from a high of $500 to over $1500.
When Gibson did that China raised the price of the guitars they produced which was not the plan Gibson had for profits. So Gibson went to another third world country and cut production with China.
2. China was unhappy with that decision and to keep people working retaliated with the Chibson guitars that equal or best the quality of the 1970’s Gibson guitars that were sold as seconds and stamped with a number two.
They priced them at the Epiphone retail. You have to remember that China keeps prices at communist government levels to control its workers and its oligarchs from achieving too much power. So the Chinese retaliation is American corporations must share any raise in prices with China. Since China is a world distributor and they feel cheated saw no problem in cheating the American Companies. They kept their workers happy and have sent these products around the world to maintain their GDP and said so what you can’t sue us. Now the Chibsons have been around long enough and Americans have access to purchasing direct from China and Chibson are entering the country and Gibson is upset because thousand percent profit is now normal here so people can earn and live on dividends and not work a day in their lives. Gibson is not the only corporation that has incurred the China wrath. Automotive parts and even small vehicles as well as have been retaliated by China. Sure a tariff will add 30% to the cost for Americans but not a dime to China when they distribute Chibsons and other products to the rest of the world until guess what? The American companies will be forced out of business because Gibson’s will end up with becoming a little company because the world can get the same CNC quality instruments at a much lesser price. Never forget that Nixon and Ambassador George H. Bush stated trade with a country that had far too many people and no work. We made the China country and economy and the patent Chinese government has used use to build us to gain access and control of the world’s economy.
Prove me wrong. This was seen coming by my economics professor in 1976.
Walmart helped considerably with the "made in China" deal... After Sam passed and they got greedy.
Stay classy brother!!
Thanks, you too!
Hope no one copies my % shaped bass guitar body O_O
Just another reason not to buy from gibson guitars. Petty. Especially how they dealt with Dean guitars.
I'll stick with my Dean's and Ibanez's.
I hope Gibson has their books in order. Because you know Trump’s DOJ will come after them.
Don't preach to us, tell Trump!
I don’t want others to be tempted to break the law.
You're assuming Trump listens, or even cares?
I saw Trump holding a Les Paul copy, so I emailed the most litigious company in the music industry to ask them if they were aware of it. Nice.
That's not what happened. Stop lying to promote your agenda. I asked them if they were making the guitars in an effort to get my facts straight.
@@HighlineGuitars did you REALLY think gibson were making guitars for Donald trump?🤣
Come on now.......
@ Before I could publish this video, I had to confirm the facts. It would have been irresponsible not to.
@@HighlineGuitars that info could easily been garnered by calling the company SELLING the guitars..... not calling the company you THINK is making the guitars.
Or maybe you did, in which case .....well, I'm still confused why you contacted gibson.
Not saying it was necessarily bad you did. Honestly, I find it all very amusing.
@ Oh for the love of God! Why is this so hard to understand? How could I contact the other company if I didn’t know who they were? I contacted Gibson because the electric guitar on the Trump guitar’s website looks like a Gibson Les Paul.
In 2016 Gibson lost a case in the EU to Warwick guitars over the V Shape. Wonder how that will impact that small V builder Glen at Specter Sound knows?
whats good in Europe does not necessarily apply anywhere else
@@Bristolcentaurus In this case it might since the small V company is located in Canada I believe.
@@SupaFUZZZZZZ EU law is not directly transferable to any country outside the EU you would have to run the argument and see whether the court was prepared to adopt the EU ruling
@ I’m not saying it is counselor. I’m saying it’s been beat before and could happen again. Nuff said.
The courts reviewed the case on Dean and rescinded Gibson's claim. So that is going back to court.
The ultimate stupid trademark by far is MusicMans claimed original 4-2, etc tuning peg layout.
How can you protect something this obvious? There are only so many options 🤷🏼♂️