Jump to content


Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About LukeR

  • Rank
    Established Member
  1. Hi, As Jeremey and others have said, it looks as though the law is very differnent between juresdictions. Which is confusing for all of us. Obviously, the law where YOU live is the most applicable. The US and Canadian system is obviously very differnt to Australian law on this point. Which makes life fun on an international forum. Not posting this to stir up the flames; just trying to correct inincorrect information- One final note- in regards to copyright in Australia (garagerocker), that entire qoute is from the text. If you doubt its validity, you should talk to them. In regards to caselaw, there is a multitude of Australian cases- anyone interested (with nothing better to do) give me a PM and Ill point you in the right direction. Not posting this to stir up the flames; just trying to correct inincorrect information. NB- this is AUSTRALIAN information. Cheers, Luke
  2. Oh god, not again.... 1. Lets not get into name calling. 2. I am trying to help, not cause people to to egt upset 3. Just to clarify, this is an extract from an Australian text; were both Perry and I live 4. Please read the final sentence in my quote -'even if the item in question is not in itself an artistic work'
  3. Kevan- I know- thats why I put it in. I thought thats what you wanted? Thats why I included the refernce. Do you want it done like you have done it next time?
  4. Found it: "An important provision in this regard is s 21(3) CA, which provides that the production of a thyree dimensional version of a two dimensional artistic work is deemed to be a reproduction of that work (and vice versa, where a two dimensional version is produced of a three dimensional work). This means that copyright in drawings or plans may be infringed by the creatyion of the item shown in those drawings or plans - even if the item in question is not in itself an artistic work." Intellectual Property in Austr, 3rd ed, 2004, p 225
  5. Hi everyone; Wow! Made a few enemys, havent I? YES, trademarks and patents are, of course, the most obvious issues to deal with, however, I stand behind my comments about copyright. The 'authorship' element is in the DESIGN of the instrument (the drawings of the plans). Rights DO accrue to these as well- THIS is how scupltues (as Perry has said correctly said), and aretecture are protected. think about it- patents couldnt apply, TMs couldnt apply to protect these works? In the US there is a such thing as "fair use." Fair use basically says that there are situations where you are technically breaking the copyright/patent/trademark, but it has been determined that you don't significantly injure the copyright owner. Examples of fair use: Taping television shows Making a photocopy of a couple of pages in a book. Making a backup copy of a CD
  6. Another important point to make is in relation to building copies of existing guitars. This, too, is illegal (even if you dont add any decal). It does not matter if you sell it, or if its just for your own use. Let me explain... By making a copy of a guitar, you are breaking the copyright ownership of the guitar's designer (or their assignee) in relation to the design or blueprint of the guitar. It doesnt matter that you dont actually use the physical plans that they used- it is still a breach. This is used in relation to archetecture, generally- to stop people 'copying' houses, monuments, etc. The copyright in the original design. However, this is FURTHER confused by the fact that copyright must be registered in the US (I think (?)- I know it is in some juresdictions). Therfore, in order to estopp someone from copying their guitars (breaching the copyright attached to the blueprints) the blueprints must first be registered. I would be willing to bet that most manufactuers do that now, but back in the old days.... Anyway, the copyright protection lasts for (in the US [and in Aust, if/when the free trade agreement goes through]) the life of the designer, + 70 years (50 at the moment in Aust). Even more interetsting in australia is 'moral rights' these are inalieable rights belonging to the creator of a work to not have their work degredated or diminished. Therefore, if you made, say, a Les Paul derivitive instrument with, say, an elongated cutaway (and are correctly lisenced to use Les Paul's blueprints) the designer of the original guitar (Les Paul) could claim that the new model is offensive and derogatory to the initial 'artwork' that he designed. He could then apply for an injunction to estopp production of the guitar and/or damages (This is a REAL, REAL, REAL hypothetical though!) Cheers, Luke
  7. This is my home away from home: http://www.wipo.int/ I mentioned it before- VERY important site. Please, all, have a look at it. It should clear up alot of things. This is the international site. Cheers, luke
  8. Hi everyone, Honestly, I am not trying to start any problems here, but it can be very dangerous compiling what is/isnt legal on this forum. We all live in different parts of the world- whilst the same principles apply (in Western style countries) there are important, if subtle differnces between juresdictions. Besides legislation, I guess an important aspect is the 'springboard' doctrine. Basically, you should not use another's ideas (actually, not ideas per se, but intellectual property) to 'springboard' your own ideas. (this is the theory, but in real life, it works on how much 'springboarding' is involved). Doing so is bad. In Australia, we also have the Designs Act 2003 (Cth), under which you can register the design of your guitar (well, specific parts, such as headstock, body shape, etc). I must confess, there isnt alot of case law on this act, and it is significantly different to its predesessor Act. THere is also the 'deep pockets' angle to consider. Basically Gibson et al would not really bother to sue you for making copies guitars (you will still get a nice letter though- and it will be a NICE letter if you live in Australia- it is an offence to make arbitrary threats of litigation in the areas of IP law in Australia). Basically, it is not worth the cost to sue you personally- it IS worth the cost to go after PRS, because they have the 'deep pockets'. If anyone is interested in IP law, I would suggest checking out the WIPO website. It has alot of good information and journal articles. Just for the record, IP law is one of my majors- I have complteted all nessesary courses to practice in the area of IP law in Australia. I was also just appointed as a teacher of the Diploma of Justice at TAFE. For those (Aussies) who are interested, I have read hundreds of books on IP law, and I think the best one I have come across is 'Intellectual Property in Australia '(3rd ed) McKeough, Stewart, Griffith; published by Butterworths. It is a very good survey text, and should give you a good insight into what is going on. Cheers, Luke
  9. Does anyone remeber those kits you could buy YEARS ago- I think it was a Rolls Royce grill for minis? That would be pretty funny to get, if you ask me. I think it was meant to be comical, not serious.
  10. No worries man- Ill PM you the website. Luke
  11. Hi man, welcome aboard. Another idea might be to try using Rustins Plastic coat. It is a clear VERY hard finish. You can brush it on- I imagine if you did several coats, sanding in between obviously, you could get a comprable fingerboard finish. A guy here called Setch has used this product to finish his guitar, with stunning results. Brian May also used this to finish his Red Special. Hope thats some more food for thought. Luke
  • Create New...