Jump to content

Entry for December 2018's Guitar Of The Month is now open
Last spot for 2018's Guitar Of The Year!

ENTER HERE!

GEdwardJones

Established Member
  • Content count

    757
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About GEdwardJones

  • Rank
    Prettier Than Wes

Recent Profile Visitors

1,402 profile views
  1. GEdwardJones

    Luther School In Ga?

    Have you checked the phone book? I know there are a couple of shops in the Lawrenceville/Lilburn/Snellville area that offer lessons. I've considered going that route myself.
  2. Uh, its trademark, or its design patent, surely. Can't copyright a guitar's shape... Sorry, its trademark. But, you know, everything else in that post still stands
  3. Given the results of Gibson's lawsuit against PRS, methinks yourcorrect. You're confusing two different things. Gibson lost its suit against Paul Reed Smith because PRS was able to show that their design was substantially different from the Gibson Les Paul. One of GIBSON'S key witnesses even admitted on the stand that you'd have to be an idiot to spend $2k on a singlecut and think it was an lp. That admission basically set up PRS to show that no reasonable person could conclude that PRS was infringing on Gibson's trademark. The other thing is this. The purpose of trademarks/patents is to allow the creator of a work to profit from it by granting the a monopoly and, basically, letting them price gouge on their product. Now, you can lose a trademark/patent if you don't protect it. For instance, the band name "Aspirin" is actually a trademark of the Bayer corporation, but since it was allowed to slip into the vernacular in the US their trademark is void. You probably didn't know that Aspirin WAS a brand name if you live in the US. Outside of the us, only Bayer can use that word on their products. The biggest threat to Gibson's Les Paul trademark isn't that PRS has a similar product out there, it's that for the better part of the life of the Les Paul other makers were able to create more or less exact duplicates without having Gibson's legal team smack them down. A builder with sufficiently deep pockets could, in fact, make a decent case out of this. Similarly, the Strat and Tele body shapes are now "generic" off the top of your head how many manufacturers currently make strat and/or tele clones? I have an easier time thinking of ones that don't. What Gibson's trying to do with the cease and desist spree it went on a couple of years ago is to show that is IS protecting its copyright and therefore it shouldn't be nullified. But Fender, fender will have a MUCH more difficult time doing that with the strat as EVEN GIBSON makes a faux strat.
  4. Writer's Digest messed up on that one. That's a clear case of prior art.
  5. To clear this up, 'cos this is a common misconception. You can NOT use a certified mail receipt as proof of the date of creation in the US. However, and this is where it gets fun, the "poor man's copyright" is a recognized part of English common law. So, if you're in the US and you try this is highly doubtful that it'll work. But if you're one of our friends from across the pond, you've got better chances. (I actually just found this out myself, I knew it wasn't valid in the US, but not that it WAS valid somewhere.)
  6. Yes, fair use is also important. Not having a go, but you arent "technically breaking the copyright/patent/trademark"- it is a licence to use SOME of the intellectual property in the said medium. I know it sounds pedantic to mention this point, but 'fair usage' trumps the ownership of the copyright/patent/trademark- you are not breaking anything. Fair usage is differs in all juresdictions, but the theory behind it is the same- in Australia, you can photocopy 10% of a book (or one chapter- whichever is greater) - you CANNOT copy a CD to tape (even if you had bought the CD), UNLESS you have prior license to do so.
  7. As far as I know all countries have fair use provisions, but they differ greatly from country to country, they even differ greatly from year to year in the same place. Fair use (at least in the US) is part of the common law, that is - AFAIK - there aren't a lot of "fair use statutes" written in law books, it's basically evolved from court rulings over time. The most famous of which (off the top of my head) was the ruling that VCRs are not, in and of themselves illegal because they can be used for more than just making bootleg videos, for instance they can be used to "timeshift" television shows so that people can watch shows they would ordinarily miss. I think the thing to do is to not trust 100% the advice of a bunch of guys (many of whom aren't even lawyers) on a guitar forum and do some quick research. Probably the easiest thing is to go to the business/law department of your local college/university and talk to the intellectual property law teacher for five minutes.
  8. I'm not going to try to pass myself off as an authority on copyright/trademark/patent law. But I do know this. This statement is flat wrong. 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 Fair use is why you can sing happy birthday to your friend, but you'll RARELY hear it sung in a resteraunt (it hasn't entered the public domain, the resteraunt has to pay the copyright owners performance rights if their staff sings it). Fair use is also why you can make any guitar you want for personal use. If you want to make an exact copy of a Les Paul, you can make an exact copy of a Les Paul. You can even put "Gibson Les Paul" on the headstock if you want to. What you can't do is sell it. You also can't make 1000 les paul copies and give them away (the patent owner could declare that this would be harmful to their business). Let's not scare people. You can make all the copies you want. Selling them is a whole 'nuther thing.
  9. That doesn't even make sense. PRS is, however, higher profile. A win against PRS is a much better PR move than a win against Rondo Music. The quality of the instrument had nothing to do with it. Didn't the Eclipse originally look exactly like the Les Paul? Didn't the EX originally look exactly like the Explorer and the V like, well, the V? I've always suspected that Gibson started sending out cease & desist orders right around the time these designs changed. Is anyone in the know around?
  10. Someone can correct me on this, but it's a finite period 15 - 25 years. The original purpose of patents was to make it economically viable to be an inventor. That is, if you invented something cool, you were given exclusive use of that thing for a period of time in order to recoup the money you spent actually inventing it. Patents eventually lapse, as do trademarks and things do eventually go into the "public domain" where anyone can do anything they want with them (useless knowledge, the original Mickey Mouse shorts were slated to go into PD last year, an event stopped by massive lobbying by companies such as Disney to extend the copyright period). Exclusivity rights must also be protected. This is why Fender's bid to patent the strat/tele/etc. shapes may be an excersize in futility. Unlike Gibson Fender has never really done much to actually discourage other people from making exact replicas of their bodies for the past 50 years. The argument would be that Fender didn't care enough to stop people from copying their designs for the past 50 years, screaming "but they're ours!" now doesn't cut it. And that's about as short as I can parse down my business law course when I'm this tired.
  11. GEdwardJones

    Chrome finishes

    Thanks, The bad thing about being an adult is that life gets in the way sometimes.
  12. GEdwardJones

    Chrome finishes

    I got that off of the forum for a car club I belong to. Apparently the car would be completely illegal in most places and was built specifically as a show car with SEMA being its first stop. I haven't seen the whole thing completed (the pictures on that forum have still having it on stock wheels), but it was something that I hadn't seen before and seemed cool nontheless
  13. GEdwardJones

    Chrome finishes

    Of course there's the obvious Extreme Application of the Process. Anyone read quebecois?
  14. I say make it for her before she beats you up.. lol Again thanks for the encouragement.. You could make it a standard Les Paul scale, but you'd have to plan ahead real good before you took that challenge on. This one is just gonna be the standard 25 1/2" scale length. I'll more than likely buy a neck from WD or Warmoth for it. One step at a time
  15. That's coming along VERY nicely. I was actually considering making a 3/4 size strat for my wife for Christmas (my wife, you see, is 3/4 sized Seriously, she likes a les paul scale and a strat body, sooooo). Your pictures are quite inspirational.
×