LukeR

Sorry to hear of your misfortune matt. Hope it resolves well for you. Luke

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?

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

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

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

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

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

There is also Queensland maple- its a mahogany substitute, and the Australian maker Maton swears by it. In Australia, it is dirt cheap- it may be worthwhile to consider that. Luke

Cool! Glad to help man! Luke

Hi, Sorry to ask, but what is 'salvaged' maple? THanks guys, Luke

Hi man, I may be wrong, but the knot in the neck sounds like a really serious flaw. As I am sure you know, you really want the neck to be as strong and sturdy as possible. I dont really think it will ever be stable, even with the mod you describe. I really think you may be better off with a new neck. Sorry man, Luke

Hi tony, it is ground through the stop bar. there is a wire that goes from the height adjusting bolt (that raises the treble side of the stop bar) to the controll cavity. The wire is attached to the bottom of the stud insert (the threaded socket that the height adjusting bolt resides in) and goes through the body into the control cavity. It is then grounded as per usual. Hope thats some help, Luke

Embarrisng as it is, I must confess... Last week or so, I was watching Oprah one afternoon. Stevie Wonder was on it, playing his keyboard and singing. On top of his keyboard, he had the Boss Bass synth pedal. I recognised it sratit away by its colour and shape (and its sound) (my brother has one). It sounded good for Stevie's synth, and it sounds pretty cool with guitar as well. There! Ive confessed! I watch Oprah occasionally. Happy now? Luke

Hi man, I have heard that there is a really good book on archtop building- sorry, i cant recall its name at present- I believe Perry sells it- you may want to shoot him a PM. Sorry I cant remeber the title off hand, but its supposed to be really good. Luke

One real problem for legalization is in regards to driving. I mean, you get breath tested to see if you are drunk- you cant be tested to see if you are stoned. I mean, they can tell that you have smoked marijuana in the past 3 months (or is it 2 weeks (?) ) but not HOW stoned you are. I think thats a problem; I think we all agree that driving when drunk or stoned is a bad thing. (this assumes, of course, that more people will smoke and drive if pot is legalised) People have raised some really interesting points here though! Take care all, Luke

Hi man, That looks really cool! Congrats on such a fine 1st guitar! Luke

No thank you, Im not going to bite.Although, the above does remind meof that Malmsteen incident on the aeroplane- "You have released released the f___ n' fury!", haha And what, do you propose, will be your Cause of Action? You DO know its illegal to make threats of litigation whithout any basis, do you? Of course you do, what with 15 years of practice behind you... Have a nice life! Luke (Wes, maybe be this thread could be closed?)

No you are NOT. ANY person with even the most MINIMAL legal training and experience would be aware of the most BASIC principles of fraudulent mis-rep. 15 years of practice without even haveing a BASIC concept of such things? Like a policeman who doesnt know what handcuffs are. I fell the need to justify how/why/ what my legal background is- most people I know around here know it anyway If you interpretted my post as an insult, or flame bait, then I appologise. Maybe i should have said it in a PM. As I stated 'I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU' - Im actually tring to help YOU out- its neither here nor there to me. Thats just being plain offensive. Maybe you should also READ THE RULES ABOUT POSTING before you go about insulting people. Anyway, enough of this rubbish (sorry for venting guys) Luke

I would like to remind you that civil liability is on the balance of probabilities, NOT beyond reasonable doubt. Luke

Really not good, man. You are in Australia- the Fair Trading Act applies to individuals here. 'A PERSON shall not engage in trade or commerce that is misleading or decieving, or likely to decieve or mislead'. Seriosly man, a lot of nasty things can happen over that. If I were you, I would remove the words Washburn, N2, etc from your ad. Also saying in the title 'not Ibanez' etc is pretty misleading too. You used those trademarks to gain 'hits' during searches (so when some one searches Ibanez, THIS auction turns up). I think this detracts from your credibility in realation to 'inocently' stuffing up the description. I think we can all draw our own conclussions here. Luke

Hi man, Well, I would recomend the hiscock book. Between this forum and the book, you shouldnt have too many probs. Obviosly, there are many differences between a guitar and a bass guitar, but fretted bass guitars and elecric guitars are very similar- the construction techniques used (in a general sense) are bassically the same - granted, there are differnt aspects such as neck width, scale legnth and a multitude of others- I guess what I am trying to say is that alot of the skills needed to build a guitar are transferable to a bass guitar. In that sense, as the Hiscock book gives a good survey of differnt contruction techniques, I think it would certainly be worth you while purchasing one. Cheers, Luke

You know, its very difficult to tell which beatle autographs are authentic or not. Backm in the day, Mal Evans used to sign autographs for them, and hand them out. So I guess, unless you get one personally, its impossible to work out whether its authentic or not. There is a shop just off the Queen Street Mall in Brisbane that sells 2nd hand CDs, records, etc, and other memorabilia. I remeber they had a promo EVH Wolfgang cardboard poster (it was just of the guitar, no EVH on it). Anyway, it was autographed by Bon Scott, of all people! Must have been difficult to get that autograph, I bet... Luke

If you REALLY want to go for that 70's type sound, why not consider the Dimarzio Super Distortion? It was, I think, the first avalible replacement pickup, and was used most notably by Kiss. Personally, not my sound at all, but it may be worth looking into. Luke

No worries man-Its definately required reading. I got mine back in 1995, and I almost have the whole thing memorised! Its a great reference to have- well worth the money. Cheers man, Luke

Thanks everyone for the discussion! Its truely appreciated. Following all the above advice, I hope I have better sucess Thanks again guys! Luke