This Guitar Looks Familiar

[spazzyone]

not to be the d@#k the spoils all the fun but wouldn't sharks tooth inlays fall into this category?

Edited June 21, 2007 by spazzyone

[Logical Frank]

not to be the d@#k the spoils all the fun but wouldn't sharks tooth inlays fall into this category?

Those would be a trademark, if anything.

Anyway, it would not be a copyright issue w/ this guitar when push comes to shove--however it might seem from that Wikipedia article. (I love the Wikipedia but it is not the best place to quote from in this instance, especially since you can quote directly from the U.S. Copyright Office's website w/ about the same amount of effort.)

I guess you could potentially say the pattern is a copyrightable feature on a useful article. (The rules are different for useful articles. You definitely aren't going to be able to copyright the whole guitar for all intents and purposes.) But then you would be trying to copyright camouflage and painting things to look like metal plating, which makes about as much sense as copyrighting plaid. The only issue here is that exact design being copied, which if you could argue was distinctive enough would qualify as a trademark, something like Burberry plaid to stick w/ that theme.

It is a fine line, I understand, and I kind of whish you could copyright it. As much as I believe a well-made guitar w/ a fantastic paint job is a work of art, legally it is simply does not get the same kind of consideration as a painting or a sculpture.

Edit: And while it is not much of a legal issue, it is still fully lame to have ripped off the design so thoroughly.

[rhoads56]

Its tricky. The shark fins would be more of a trademark, than copyright. Unfortunately for Jackson, they dont own the trademark. Same as Gibson doesnt own a trademark on block inlays. Coke owns the trademark on a curved bottle so you cant produce a drink bottle that is simular.

[Logical Frank]

Actually, reading through the copyright office's website I get this under examples of copyrightable material: "Weaving designs, lace designs, tapestries" I don't really see how that is much different than a distinctive paint job so maybe you can copyright it after all. Still--I kind of think it's by nature a trademark like Eddie's stripes or Zachckkkchk's bullseye. But that might be not legal.

Quick, fetch me a lawyer! We'll straighten this out....

(And you're from Australia. Man, my head really wasn't in this discussion.)

[rhoads56]

Trademarks are generally something used regularly, like a ZW bullseye... something that identifies a design or shape, to a company or person. Nike swish, Coke ribbon...

Copyright, is an original form or art, music, layout, etc etc.

[ihocky2]

Well since it was already mentioned, I want to pick Perry's brain a little. Who does own the sharkfin trademark? Have they ever persued anyone about using the design? How much of a change would negate the trademark? Would reversing them or placing them upside down or both be enough, or would you need to make a change to the shape. I've seen a number of companies sell the sharkfins in pre-cut inlays, so I would imagine that design is not one that is an issue.

[rhoads56]

Ok, a trademark is only a trademark AFTER it can be classed as something which is readily recognisable, as a particular companies design, logo, etc. EG: The McDonalds golden arches. They had to use the arches first, THEN they could have it trademarked.

For example, my headstock was covered under copyright, until such time as it was recognisable as one of my designs, 'by peers'. That only came after numerous years of using the same design. The trademarks body decide when and if you can register the trademark.

The shark fins COULD be a trademark of Jackson, BUT they never took the steps to register it. Then when others used the same design, Jackson didnt stop them. Hence others are now free to use it. On the other hand, if Jackson had taken legal action against people with the same design, none of us could use that inlay now (example: PRS birds, Fender strat headstock, etc). PRS have done it right, even their logo has the 'tm' symbol inlaid alongside.

Now, this is a real rough, condensed version of trademarks, and there is a lot more to it than what i could add here. There are also trademarks, and registered trademarks. One costs a lot more, and gives a lot more protection too.

[ToneMonkey]

So what's your actual view on this Perry, as it is your guitar that's been copied.

You miffed, or couldn't really care. Obviously if it had an Ormsby logo or if they were being sold with the same paint job then you'd have grounds to be very annoyed indeed, but as it's a private guitar what's your view?

[rhoads56]

Personally, id like credit where credit is due, and it made quite clear it was not my work (and a link to my site, for people to see the original WOMD).

The guy originally asked me to quote on building him a guitar, of a different design (see the 'horrendous act' thread), and i pointed him to this guitar in my diary. Without asking, he has gone off an blatantly copied my design. If he had used it as inspiration, then thats fine, but he went as far as copying a bunch of things that i had never seen previously (bolted steel AND camo, warning stripes, clear covers). If he had left off even just the warning stripes, this thread would have never been started. If he had used a different camo pattern, we could assume it was just a co-incidence.

Is it as bad as forging a logo on a headstock? No

Is it worse than copying a body shape? For sure.

What happens if someone has been following my work, and then sees this guys guitar? Lets assume they didnt realise i didnt build it. Maybe they remember the guitar, but not my brand? I can assure you that happens. Lets assume a deal gets made to paint a guitar... the owner thinking he is contracting someone who's work he has seen around the place. Maybe they couldnt remember my name, but remembered the WOMD. Maybe they might contact this eric guy for a 'quote'. Maybe they might just be ripped off because this guy wants to paint guitars, and a bit of cash would be handy too while he 'learns'. Anyone who has been on this forum for a while has seen this sort of thing happen (eg: newbs taking on paid work). Maybe he is an expert at painting. Maybe he isnt.

How likely is that to happen? Well, i get an email EVERY MONTH, without fail, from one of my clients. He plays between three and six shows a month. Has one of my guitars that is quite unique, but does not have my logo on it (i did write my name inside the 'f-hole' in small text). On the website, there are only a handful of photos of the guitar. Despite this, he reckons on average, every second gig he has someone approach him about the guitar, to ask if it's one of mine. Awesome "advertising". I get a third of my jobs from repeat customers, a third from referrals and the remained because they saw my work at a gig/website/advert. A THIRD of my income relies on people seeing my guitars at gigs, and approaching the owners. Imagine an "imposter" out there doing the rounds (we have no idea what is on the headstock of the guitar in question) that is substandard, chinese 'copy strat' quality.

Maybe, just maybe, he might play that guitar at a gig. Maybe, someone might have seen MY photos, and assumed he owned the 'real' guitar. Maybe they take a closer look, and its a piece of rubbish up close (maybe it isnt) ... maybe they even get to play it and it doesnt feel right, wont stay in tune, and frets out. Maybe it was based on a chinese squire, and just has a nice paint job. Maybe, they might walk away thinking it was my work, or tell someone it was mine. Maybe, one day when they, or their friends are chatting about cool guitars, they discuss how crappy MY (his) guitar was when they saw it up close. I want to be the only person responsible for my own reputation, based on my work, not someone elses work, mistakenly referred to as mine.

For the record, ive now had at least three designs stolen. One ended up as a NAMM showpiece for a certain other company. They actually approached someone who had posted on a public forum about a pending order with me. He had posted up the rough sketches i had sent him, and was then approached with a deal he couldnt refuse (half price, much less waiting list, and a "NAMM" guitar) from another company. Nothing i can do about it, other than cite copyright. Unfortunately, when i build my own design, im now the guy who 'copied' the big boys as far as everyone is concerned.

I now only discuss my half decent ideas with clients who have deposits down. Ive got way too many ideas, and not enough time to execute them, but that doesnt mean i should share them.

Then there is the clown who decided my articles for Australian Guitar magazine were worth posting on some stupid website. I honestly dont know how i stumbled across them, but i did. This guy wasn't passing the articles off as his, but more as a 'get it for free, so we dont have to pay' kinda vibe. Even argued when i asked for them to be removed. These guys think they are helping people, but they arent. They dont see it as harmful, because no one is paying for it. I nearly lost the contract, because the guy putting up the scans claimed to be a close friend of mine, with permission to do so. You can imagine what the publishers/editors thought about it. Imagine if those publishers ran the only guitar magazine i want to advertise in (or the only one in the country), and they dont want my advertising business because i had supposedly authorised to have the articles from their magazine, which they derive an income from, posted up for free?

Oh, and not to forget the guy who was selling plans of one of my customs... but he didnt last long at all

[mattharris75]

You know, the thing I don't get is this. If your intent is to only build a guitar for yourself, and your inspiration for the guitar is that of a professional who maintains an obvious online presence and is easy to contact, (Not a large Fender/Gibson style corp, but a small shop) Then why not just ask?... I mean, what are the odds someone would say no if you make it clear what your plan and purposes are?

That's what I did before starting my build patterned after Alan from AC Guitars 'Skelf' design, and he was more than happy to let me use his body shape.

It's just so easy and takes so little time. If nothing else, it should be common courtesy.

[rhoads56]

Matt has it in one. Ive even gone as far as sending some templates to guys to help them out, or 'tips' (like getting the 'dirt' on WOMD to actually look like dirt and not just black spray) when they have contacted me. An email can avoid a whole lot of trouble. My lawyer mate wants to rip this guy a new one, i just cant be bothered.

[spazzyone]

Jackson did and now fender owns the sharkfin inlay neck (note how the few licensed companies can legally produce it)

Ibanez found that out the hard way (remember their original sharkies?)

thats why they had to switch to the double cut design

dont get me wrong Perry's W.O.M.D is unique and Perry you know i highly respect your work and talent. and i agree its just not worth the time and money to go after this one.

the reason people can sell just the inlays is just that they are not installed on a neck

lets face it what ground would Jackson have if they were installed on a humidor or a hockey stick(none)its not a guitar

its not that they own the actual inlay but like their headstock design it says Jackson.

a strat body can me massed produced but not the headstock (who knows why). yet an RR can't be legally done without a mod (Alexi model ESP) yet Kramer did it. how about the Charvel Star? ESP again

but without a mod (the 80's)

if someone did not know Perry and seen that guitar they would think its still awsome and yes Perry would lose out which is a shame. but the fact is its still a cheap copy those on this post have seen the original and it did not take long to find a cheap imitation. the details are in the artist and his vision and no matter what Perry knows what he has done and no one can take that from him period.

one hell of a luthier and one hell of a talent. so Perry if i may say so(F@#K that Asshole wanabee)

Edited June 23, 2007 by spazzyone

[rhoads56]

Actually Spazzy, Jackson/Fender doesnt own the trademark on the sharkfin, or the RR shape. They could have, but let it slip many many years ago.

[MiKro]

Actually Spazzy, Jackson/Fender doesnt own the trademark on the sharkfin, or the RR shape. They could have, but let it slip many many years ago.

And I get questioned on my radius jig that is like the Grizzly?????? Well the prototype is very similar but not limited to one sanding unit, it was designed for a router table, but could be modified to use on any belt sander as well or even a Table saw if you were so inclined( NOT RECOMMENDED similar use as doing a cove cut). Also I have made the prototype public, as my changes for other uses and profiles make it unique and my intelectuall property. Therefore my choice to persue the direction I am going with it. It may pan out or not. I feel for you Perry. As I feel you are getting ripped off, as well as beleive that you have legal recourse and should seek it. Unless people stand up for what's right, all will lose. Just my .02cents

MK

[MiKro]

And I get questioned on my radius jig that is like the Grizzly?????? Well the prototype is very similar but not limited to one sanding unit, it was designed for a router table, but could be modified to use on any belt sander as well or even a Table saw if you were so inclined( NOT RECOMMENDED similar use as doing a cove cut). Also I have made the prototype public, as my changes for other uses and profiles make it unique and my intelectuall property. Therefore my choice to persue the direction I am going with it. It may pan out or not. I feel for you Perry. As I feel you are getting ripped off, as well as beleive that you have legal recourse and should seek it. Unless people stand up for what's right, all will lose. Just my .02cents

MK

Edited June 23, 2007 by MiKro

[marksound]

Yeah, so like what's up with this?