Thanks! This really addressed some of the guitar myths I’ve been hearing for 40 years. I start to get mad about patents, trademarks and copyrights but then I imagine someone getting rich off a song I wrote and me not even getting credit. It also reminds me that those laws promote invention and innovation. You’re not allowed to make money off someone else’s song without compensating them. The logical conclusion is to write your own song!
I saw someone say in the live chat not to do a 4:2 headstock or Musicman will destroy you. The old Gretsch Corvettes had 4:2 headstocks. They can't own that. Maybe they own the shape, but not the idea of 4 tuners on one side 2 on the other.
I'm glad the guy mentions Fender,I happen to have very thick fingers which makes fretting guitar strings on a standard width neck extremely difficult and damned near impossible so I called Fender and asked if they could make a custom stratocaster guitar neck for me with a 51mm wide guitar nut and I was told that they cannot build such a neck for me so then what in the hell does "Fender custom shop" even mean/what is it for?If these companies really gave two shits about customers they would concentrate more on customer satisfaction than on money grubbing.I asked if it was because of the virus and told the Fender customer service representative that I was willing to wait for a custom guitar neck to be built for me and I was told that was not the issue.Fuck all that.Just like Squier is supposedly licensed by Fender yet I can't find a 3 ply tremolo cover to fit a Squier stratocaster that I bought to replace the single ply tremolo cover that came on the Squier stratocaster,what in the hell kind of shit is that that Fender can't even standardize their stratocaster parts?Can you believe that Fender expected me to remain on the phone after speaking to the customer service representative to give them feedback?Of course I hung up because I seriously doubt that Fender wants to hear or even cares what customers really think and have to say about their shit service.So if I want a stratocaster that will fit my needs I have to buy a Fender stratocaster then search for a Luthier that's got the knowledge and where with all to build a stratocaster guitar neck that will fit my very thick fingers and allow me to learn to play an electric guitar?Get the f_ck outta here."Oh,well once you practice enough having very thick fingers won't be such a handicap." is what I've been told.Here's a great big "NEWS-FLASH!!!",there are people with really big hands that can play guitar because those people with really big hands have tapered finger tips which is not the case with me,my finger tips literally look like hot dog ends so how in the hell can I even begin to learn to play guitar unless I have a wide neck guitar?The widest stratocaster guitar neck that I was able to find and order was from warmoth and that guitar neck is only one and seven eighths inch wide,not 51mm (two inches) wide which I prefer and that cost me $324.00 and if I should require a refret well fuck me very much because I'll either have to pay through the nose for a refret or drop another $324.00 on a new warmoth one and seven eighths inch wide stratocaster neck.P.S.,the warmoth one and seven eighths inch wide guitar neck that I ordered is for the Squier stratocaster that I bought to see if I can finally learn to play guitar like I have been wanting to do for so long.At least I was able to buy a set of Guyker locking tuners for the warmoth stratocaster guitar neck and it only cost me $23.00 plus free shipping for the locking tuners.A mid level Fender stratocaster can cost upwards of $800.00 then I would have to drop more money for a guitar neck that will work for my thick fingers too?Fender can shove their mid level and high level guitars where they will best fit because Fender guitars are expensive as all hell and so are their replacement parts if you want Fender replacement parts.If you buy a Fender guitar the moment the guitar is unpacked the guitar is considered used and if it's not a genuine Fender with all of the original parts good luck trying to get anywhere near what you paid for the damned thing if you need to sell it.
Awesome video Dylan, I deal with intellectual property (patents, confidential info, trademarks, even plant breeders rights) on a daily basis in the science sphere. So it was great to hear the reasonings behind this in the guitar world. I didn't know pick ups were in scientific apparatus. Luckily I have good lawyers and patent attorneys to give me good advice!
But, there are all these Les Paul body shapes out there. Lots of Les Paul body shape style guitars made by lots of companies. So, are they not "legal"?
Awesome Video man!! By chance in the uncut version did the topic of Rickenbacker’s come up? Or, putting companies aside, Fender, Gibson and Rickenbacker, what if someone like myself, wants to build a pretty close “Replica” of a Les Paul, or a Rickenbacker 620. Body shape and peg head shape included for “Personal Use”. I mean, I have 6 different Ric and Gibson builds in the works, all for my own personal collection.
@@PaulCooksStuff oh, I’m sure I’ll be ok. I have no intentions on selling them, especially a Ric, they’re worse than Sears Credit back in the day, but I was just curious mainly about Rickenbacker actually since most things you see and or read pertain to Gibson it seems.
What doesn't make sense for me is that the ONLY reason I know that Dimarzio has the double cream trademark is because it came up in discussions about trademarks, not because I, or anyone I knows sees a double cream pickup and thinks, "ah, that's a dimarzio." At this point, I'd be more likely to thing, "oh, that guy winds his own pickups" because that trademark is so incredibly obnoxious.
I understand about "intellectual property rights." and the like but things have gotten totally out of control.Now even the song "Happy Birthday" is copy righted,what in the hell is going on?Many companies have infringed on and even outright stolen other peoples' concepts and ideas so why in the hell do all of these companies have their bloomers all up in bunches?Often times people pay outrageous amounts of money for things and it turns out that they pay through the nose mainly for the name brand.As a licensed locksmith I have bought lower priced lock tools that exceeded the build and quality of the more expensive lock tools,take it from me,just because something may cost you a lot more doesn't guarantee that you will get the best.Screw that crap,I'd rather have things that work as best as possible than to pay through the nose for things that cost so much more for having a name brand stamped on the thing.
Two cheers for DTT for providing this. Three cheers for Mr Bienstock for fighting the good fight. I feel like there should be term limits on what trademarks a company can own. When was the last time Gibson did something truly different with the Explorer body shape? Beside make other guitar builders match their specs.
There are a few things I just don't understand. What's the big deal about having an imitation shaped guitar? It's a MUSICAL INSTRUMENT. What matters should be, I would think, are the sound and the playability. And why are so many musicians so obsessed with meaningless trivia, like wanting DiMarzio colored pickups, but not DiMarzio pickups. Would a guitar with pickups with any other colored bobbins not sound as good? I get the impression that far too many guitarists are worried about what their guitar will look like in a music video or a CD cover and not nearly enough about what the guitar will sound like.
Man, this was really really good. I've found myself frustrated with the DiMarzio trademark in particular. Wanted to have a double-cream humbucker on a build I did to match an 80's Ibanez I had at one point, but didn't want a DiMarzio.
From Leo: Good topic and good interview. I always wondered about the Gibson ES335. There are at least 2 different shapes, maybe 3., and then there is at least a couple of scale lengths for the necks. It would be pretty hard to tell which was protected.
Interesting stuff Dyl! Did NOT know Dimarzio pick up colours were a 'trade mark'! I NEVER picked if I saw a PAF style hum bucker with 2 cream coloured bobbins, that is WAS a Dimarzio pick up! I assumed they MAY have been, as Ace Frehley used them in his axes exclusively, as Ace & Larry were school mates, so Ace often road tested his prototypes on KISS tours!
So the question I have is in regards to fender. If we are free to use the body shape then why are there ever variations? I see tele bodies all the time that are "not quite" a fender clone
? Dylan. Love your videos. I've learned so much. You made a quick reference to Bill Lawrence. I got so pumped. I have an original Billl Lawrence guitar and would like you to do a specific video on his history, with your knowledge applied to his patents, etc. I think everyone would benefit from your review of his contributions to fender and Gibson and his Wilde guitars.
@@DylanTalksTone Good luck to them then. If I'm not making money but want the look of that guitar, they can't show damages. Watched about a half dozen videos with lawyers explaining this exact topic.
I'd like to hear what Mr Bienstock has to say about Chinese manufacturers copying things. Cars, watches, guitars etc and getting away with it. And Rickenbacker, they're very hot on copies.
I wan't going to comment until at the end of your video there was a Thomann ad. Has Thomann entered agreements with all of the companies that they make inspired guitars of? I am an American living in Spain and I have a few Harley Bentons and "authentic" but not Gibson guitars. How does this work with Thomann?
Fender has a few companies that they license to use their body, neck and head stock shapes. Warmoth in Puyallup, Washington is one. This company also has all the same parts like the neck plates, pickguards, guitar strap posts, pickup switches and knobs, pickups, volume and tone controls, knobs and pots, control plate and tuners. The whole thing. A lot of people buy all the parts and build their own. They work great too. I have one that's a 72 Thin Line with PRS Humbuckers instead of the Fender Wide Range ones that were in the Fender model. I don't think Gibson would ever do that.
Personally, as a chef, there is a very strict guideline that in order for a published recipe to be YOURS, there must be 3 unique differences to all other published recipes...It could be differences in ingredients, a method used, what have you, as long as there are 3 distinct differences.... SO....back to guitar world....I've been building a lot of DIY pedals lately. I've been wondering, how many "mods" do you need to make to a specific circuit to make it "your own?" This could apply to guitars as well, but to me, pedal circuits have very specific requirements in order for it to be simply operational. In a guitar, you can change wood, color, shape, materials used, miniscule design changes, etc. But in a basic fuzz circuit, for instance, you need resistors, capacitors, a transistor, and a diode. Just about every possible value/type/quantity of each component has been tried, I'm sure....so, with about 500 different companies/individuals making/selling fuzz pedals, how do the ones that are essentially the same "get away" with it? of course, the enclosure differences are one thing, but the circuits themselves....can/should they be protected? In today's world, though, with digital effects becoming more popular, it's become much more difficult to "clone" newer pedals. Nobody can make a direct "clone" of pretty much anything that Strymon makes, simply because reverse engineering the programming in them isn't exactly the same as reverse engineering individual components that you can see on a circuit board.
As far as fuzz pedals go, it's probably the same reason why Marshall hasn't trademarked the plexi/2203/800/silver juiblee etc circuit(s), which is why there are so many clones on the market. They're now considered to be generic.
As a guitar maker myself I don’t want to copy other builders designs. I mean what’s the point? That’s like being an artist and painting the Mona Lisa every day. Sure, you might do a good job and can pat yourself on the back, but it’s just a copy and you didn’t create the original. It’s like playing in a cover band. lol. Having said that, while I have no interest in making a Flying V, Gibson did nothing while countless companies made all those shapes. I really don’t see where they get the right to get trademarks now. And those companies that objected to Fender that time make a living on making Fender copies. That brings me back to my original statement; do something original. I guess Rickenbacker had the right idea in protecting their designs. Regarding DiMarzio; I explain it exactly the way he did. It made their pickups recognizable. However DiMarzio state on their website that black is their standard color. So no longer can you spot a DiMarzio because they are double cream. Same with their bass pickups. If you saw a P bass with a cream pickup it was a DiMarzio. Now it’s just one of many colors they offer. Are all those colors their trade dress? No. This begs the question; is that not abandoning your trade dress? What if UPS started painting some of their trucks blue. Would brown still be their trademark?
That's why even Squiers always have the Fender name written on the headstock. They're afraid of losing the copyrights, if their not using it all the time.
Massively simplified... Live music at gigs generally needs no license agreement to play any song (though depending on your country and the size of the audience, the venue might need a public performance license - the songwriters get a small split of the annual performance license revenues). TH-cam is a different kettle of fish. You're distributing a recording and a video of the song and technically should've sought permission from the rights holder beforehand, and made a legal contract about how much you're paying them and who gets what split of the royalties per play. Even deeper minefield, you need an agreement for mechanical royalties for distributing the audio recording, and arguably a synchronisation license for the video footage. Legally, you're meant to get the contracts and licenses sorted before releasing songs/videos (and there are middlemen companies like distrokid who sort it all out for you for ~$15'ish a track in routine cases etc). But the rump of home TH-camrs and tiktokkers don't bother with the law, so DMCA legislation was passed so that rights holders could retrospectively catch up with license evaders. DMCA gives rights holders the choice of insisting the platform take it down (in specific countries where the rights holder has the rights), or leaving it up and claiming all ad revenue, or sharing ad revenue with the tuber/tokker. DMCA insists the platforms have a process for dealing with persistent offenders that can lead to expulsion (but doesn't tightly prescribe how many strikes in what period). Common practice seems to be 3 strikes (in 90 days maybe?) and you're out, though there's some leeway that a rights holder insisting on a takedown doesn't automatically lead to a copyright strike - it depends on the platforms judgement on your pattern of offending. Platforms are pretty much exempted from prosecution by DMCA as long as they do whatever the rights holder asks. Which is why yt will pretty much say "not our problem, go settle your dispute with the rights holder and tell us the outcome" the second anyone lodges a DMCA claim (yt don't even check the claimant has the rights to the song - DMCA law assumed honest actors, and real life didn't work that way). Confused yet? It gets even more complicated if you're a live musician livestreaming music (the live performance is mostly ok, but if your stream is available for replay like yt livestreams can be, you're in a DMCA world of pain and need mechanical licenses again). I won't even start on caveats and exemptions (fair use of short excerpts for study/critique, whole song parody etc). There are some uses that don't need a license, but because DMCA enforcement is largely done by automated audio-id bots, you'll very probably still get wrongly hit with enforcement and have to appeal your case with the rights holder. And that's hugely simplified. Are you glad you asked?
I’m still confused because Bienstock said something about putting any decals, besides copycat Fender decals, on copies of Fender style necks. I’m not clear about what he meant by that from a legal standpoint or if he was only interjecting a personal opinion about the decals, regardless of whether it’s Fender or something else… even perhaps a hand written signature. I wonder because the are plenty of Fender type guitar and bass models that have been made with a different brand/logo/decal on the headstock. Bill Nash Guitars comes to my mind foremost as a current case.
You can replicate any guitar you just cant market it as your own...an as long as you alter dementions an alter the headstock there's realy not much they can do ...they can give you a seize an resist order but likely they will not move any further
So I’ll probably need to watch the entire video to the actual answer, but my question so far becomes, how it is that PRS and Dean Zelinsky are able to use the Les Paul body shape? On Zelinskys, while the shape is there, overall design is such that it’s obviously not a Gibson, which I’m assuming is how he got around it.
That's how every copy gets around a trademark. Alter the design by enough millimetres so it falls beyond the limits of the patent. Crimson got a cease+desist from PRS in their "SRP kit". A week later it's imperceptibly changed dimensions and is back on sale. The scoop is missing on the lower horn. 5 minutes DIY with a rasp, it's back.
In a few words,you can make everything for your personal use or for your friends but you can not sell everything to global market in large scale commercial way.If a product is gaining in popularity soon or later will encounter intellectual property issues and is somehow difficult to proof that you have reinvent the wheel rather than you pay for the intellectual properties.And then the initial low cost of your product is starts to rise to the sky.
That is quite like in Germany, you have to use your brand and defend it. I can make a guitar inspired by the Gibson Explorer, I can easily shape it different enough, so no one will think it's really a Gibson Explorer. And I can as easily use a generic shape of a guitar, give it a single cutaway, and I'll say it's just a generic shape of a guitar. Look, here it's rounder than a Gibson Les Paul, here it's more flat and this, this is mush more angled and look at that! And look at this horn! Hope I don't get sued by ESP! Because that's basically the deal with the Les Paul, the shape is a generic guitar shape with a single cutaway! The exact shape may be copyrighted, but other designs of traditional guitars simply can't be sued! And that is the reason so many exist! If you know guitars, you will recognize an ESP by just the part where the switch and one of the strap buttons are!
Probably, Gibsons are set in constructions, being almost impossible to replace necks or bodies separately. Gibson users might have been fixing their guitars when it break, instead of detaching and replacing. Obviously replacing would cost more.
Trying to prevent other manufacturers from making instruments with Fender shapes sounds like a stupid move to me. Any Strat copy is a free ad for a Fender Strat isn't it?
The Fender Decision was a joke...easily the most fucked up piece of jurisprudence in the history of Intellectual Property Law. The idea that one can steal design work from a company because a 12 year old walking into Guitar center doesn't know history is criminally insane.
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks! This really addressed some of the guitar myths I’ve been hearing for 40 years.
I start to get mad about patents, trademarks and copyrights but then I imagine someone getting rich off a song I wrote and me not even getting credit.
It also reminds me that those laws promote invention and innovation. You’re not allowed to make money off someone else’s song without compensating them. The logical conclusion is to write your own song!
You can build anything you want.
You just can't sell them.
holy crap I had to set the video speed to 0.5x at 2:41 to catch all of that.
This kind of videos makes me thankfull for having internet
I saw someone say in the live chat not to do a 4:2 headstock or Musicman will destroy you. The old Gretsch Corvettes had 4:2 headstocks. They can't own that. Maybe they own the shape, but not the idea of 4 tuners on one side 2 on the other.
for real dude fuck that
I'm glad the guy mentions Fender,I happen to have very thick fingers which makes fretting guitar strings on a standard width neck extremely difficult and damned near impossible so I called Fender and asked if they could make a custom stratocaster guitar neck for me with a 51mm wide guitar nut and I was told that they cannot build such a neck for me so then what in the hell does "Fender custom shop" even mean/what is it for?If these companies really gave two shits about customers they would concentrate more on customer satisfaction than on money grubbing.I asked if it was because of the virus and told the Fender customer service representative that I was willing to wait for a custom guitar neck to be built for me and I was told that was not the issue.Fuck all that.Just like Squier is supposedly licensed by Fender yet I can't find a 3 ply tremolo cover to fit a Squier stratocaster that I bought to replace the single ply tremolo cover that came on the Squier stratocaster,what in the hell kind of shit is that that Fender can't even standardize their stratocaster parts?Can you believe that Fender expected me to remain on the phone after speaking to the customer service representative to give them feedback?Of course I hung up because I seriously doubt that Fender wants to hear or even cares what customers really think and have to say about their shit service.So if I want a stratocaster that will fit my needs I have to buy a Fender stratocaster then search for a Luthier that's got the knowledge and where with all to build a stratocaster guitar neck that will fit my very thick fingers and allow me to learn to play an electric guitar?Get the f_ck outta here."Oh,well once you practice enough having very thick fingers won't be such a handicap." is what I've been told.Here's a great big "NEWS-FLASH!!!",there are people with really big hands that can play guitar because those people with really big hands have tapered finger tips which is not the case with me,my finger tips literally look like hot dog ends so how in the hell can I even begin to learn to play guitar unless I have a wide neck guitar?The widest stratocaster guitar neck that I was able to find and order was from warmoth and that guitar neck is only one and seven eighths inch wide,not 51mm (two inches) wide which I prefer and that cost me $324.00 and if I should require a refret well fuck me very much because I'll either have to pay through the nose for a refret or drop another $324.00 on a new warmoth one and seven eighths inch wide stratocaster neck.P.S.,the warmoth one and seven eighths inch wide guitar neck that I ordered is for the Squier stratocaster that I bought to see if I can finally learn to play guitar like I have been wanting to do for so long.At least I was able to buy a set of Guyker locking tuners for the warmoth stratocaster guitar neck and it only cost me $23.00 plus free shipping for the locking tuners.A mid level Fender stratocaster can cost upwards of $800.00 then I would have to drop more money for a guitar neck that will work for my thick fingers too?Fender can shove their mid level and high level guitars where they will best fit because Fender guitars are expensive as all hell and so are their replacement parts if you want Fender replacement parts.If you buy a Fender guitar the moment the guitar is unpacked the guitar is considered used and if it's not a genuine Fender with all of the original parts good luck trying to get anywhere near what you paid for the damned thing if you need to sell it.
Lmao stop blaming your fingers and Fender and actually learn to play
Awesome video Dylan, I deal with intellectual property (patents, confidential info, trademarks, even plant breeders rights) on a daily basis in the science sphere. So it was great to hear the reasonings behind this in the guitar world. I didn't know pick ups were in scientific apparatus. Luckily I have good lawyers and patent attorneys to give me good advice!
"He's not just a lawyer, he's a real musician". Lol.
Awsome!!! I finally understand why Gibson was able to say "PLAY AUTHENTIC" lol
thanks so much, please share it
But, there are all these Les Paul body shapes out there. Lots of Les Paul body shape style guitars made by lots of companies. So, are they not "legal"?
Awesome Video man!! By chance in the uncut version did the topic of Rickenbacker’s come up? Or, putting companies aside, Fender, Gibson and Rickenbacker, what if someone like myself, wants to build a pretty close “Replica” of a Les Paul, or a Rickenbacker 620. Body shape and peg head shape included for “Personal Use”. I mean, I have 6 different Ric and Gibson builds in the works, all for my own personal collection.
You're relying on Gibson deciding they don't want to pay their lawyers to come after you. Probably a safe bet, but your call.
@@PaulCooksStuff oh, I’m sure I’ll be ok. I have no intentions on selling them, especially a Ric, they’re worse than Sears Credit back in the day, but I was just curious mainly about Rickenbacker actually since most things you see and or read pertain to Gibson it seems.
What about this for a body.
Sg up by neck, flying v bridge side. Sting thru like tele. Firebird style head. H S H pickups.
How bad would one be sued?
This is way too interesting… my nerd senses are tingling about this mess. So much good information! Thanks Dylan, quality as usual!
What doesn't make sense for me is that the ONLY reason I know that Dimarzio has the double cream trademark is because it came up in discussions about trademarks, not because I, or anyone I knows sees a double cream pickup and thinks, "ah, that's a dimarzio." At this point, I'd be more likely to thing, "oh, that guy winds his own pickups" because that trademark is so incredibly obnoxious.
I thought the same!
I understand about "intellectual property rights." and the like but things have gotten totally out of control.Now even the song "Happy Birthday" is copy righted,what in the hell is going on?Many companies have infringed on and even outright stolen other peoples' concepts and ideas so why in the hell do all of these companies have their bloomers all up in bunches?Often times people pay outrageous amounts of money for things and it turns out that they pay through the nose mainly for the name brand.As a licensed locksmith I have bought lower priced lock tools that exceeded the build and quality of the more expensive lock tools,take it from me,just because something may cost you a lot more doesn't guarantee that you will get the best.Screw that crap,I'd rather have things that work as best as possible than to pay through the nose for things that cost so much more for having a name brand stamped on the thing.
Two cheers for DTT for providing this. Three cheers for Mr Bienstock for fighting the good fight. I feel like there should be term limits on what trademarks a company can own. When was the last time Gibson did something truly different with the Explorer body shape? Beside make other guitar builders match their specs.
Wish there had been people at law school like this guy when I was there. I might not have flunked out.
thanks so much, please share it
There are a few things I just don't understand. What's the big deal about having an imitation shaped guitar? It's a MUSICAL INSTRUMENT. What matters should be, I would think, are the sound and the playability. And why are so many musicians so obsessed with meaningless trivia, like wanting DiMarzio colored pickups, but not DiMarzio pickups. Would a guitar with pickups with any other colored bobbins not sound as good? I get the impression that far too many guitarists are worried about what their guitar will look like in a music video or a CD cover and not nearly enough about what the guitar will sound like.
That was an awesome interview and very informative!
thanks so much, please share it
Man, this was really really good. I've found myself frustrated with the DiMarzio trademark in particular. Wanted to have a double-cream humbucker on a build I did to match an 80's Ibanez I had at one point, but didn't want a DiMarzio.
From Leo: Good topic and good interview. I always wondered about the Gibson ES335. There are at least 2 different shapes, maybe 3., and then there is at least a couple of scale lengths for the necks. It would be pretty hard to tell which was protected.
Interesting stuff Dyl! Did NOT know Dimarzio pick up colours were a 'trade mark'! I NEVER picked if I saw a PAF style hum bucker with 2 cream coloured bobbins, that is WAS a Dimarzio pick up! I assumed they MAY have been, as Ace Frehley used them in his axes exclusively, as Ace & Larry were school mates, so Ace often road tested his prototypes on KISS tours!
Qua...Qua...Quad-stacked pickup? Make it!
Glad I got my Ibanez VBT700 in 2007, the one year they were made.
So the question I have is in regards to fender.
If we are free to use the body shape then why are there ever variations? I see tele bodies all the time that are "not quite" a fender clone
Because people might want to have something that is like a fender with their own twist... Just because you can copy doesnt mean you must/have to....
@@BBGuitars I think I'm speaking more about kit guitars. Generally, people who do those are probably more into making clones
? Dylan. Love your videos. I've learned so much. You made a quick reference to Bill Lawrence. I got so pumped. I have an original Billl Lawrence guitar and would like you to do a specific video on his history, with your knowledge applied to his patents, etc. I think everyone would benefit from your review of his contributions to fender and Gibson and his Wilde guitars.
You can build whatever you want as long as you aren't trying to sell it
Individuals can pretty much build whatever shape they want. Businesses can't copy and SELL copyright shapes.
You can still be open to litigation. It would be up to the owner of the mark
@@DylanTalksTone Good luck to them then. If I'm not making money but want the look of that guitar, they can't show damages. Watched about a half dozen videos with lawyers explaining this exact topic.
I'd like to hear what Mr Bienstock has to say about Chinese manufacturers copying things. Cars, watches, guitars etc and getting away with it.
And Rickenbacker, they're very hot on copies.
Full interview is on our Patreon. He gets in to fhat pretty heavy
I wan't going to comment until at the end of your video there was a Thomann ad. Has Thomann entered agreements with all of the companies that they make inspired guitars of? I am an American living in Spain and I have a few Harley Bentons and "authentic" but not Gibson guitars. How does this work with Thomann?
Fender has a few companies that they license to use their body, neck and head stock shapes. Warmoth in Puyallup, Washington is one. This company also has all the same parts like the neck plates, pickguards, guitar strap posts, pickup switches and knobs, pickups, volume and tone controls, knobs and pots, control plate and tuners. The whole thing. A lot of people buy all the parts and build their own. They work great too. I have one that's a 72 Thin Line with PRS Humbuckers instead of the Fender Wide Range ones that were in the Fender model. I don't think Gibson would ever do that.
Just finished watching the uncut version.
Great information to know !! Thanks for this video & all you do !!
there was a Bigsby guitar from1948.......Les paul body strat headstock
Dood spoke so much facts that it broke my brain a bit.
Thanks for sharing both of you, thanks for this DTT
Personally, as a chef, there is a very strict guideline that in order for a published recipe to be YOURS, there must be 3 unique differences to all other published recipes...It could be differences in ingredients, a method used, what have you, as long as there are 3 distinct differences....
SO....back to guitar world....I've been building a lot of DIY pedals lately. I've been wondering, how many "mods" do you need to make to a specific circuit to make it "your own?" This could apply to guitars as well, but to me, pedal circuits have very specific requirements in order for it to be simply operational. In a guitar, you can change wood, color, shape, materials used, miniscule design changes, etc. But in a basic fuzz circuit, for instance, you need resistors, capacitors, a transistor, and a diode. Just about every possible value/type/quantity of each component has been tried, I'm sure....so, with about 500 different companies/individuals making/selling fuzz pedals, how do the ones that are essentially the same "get away" with it? of course, the enclosure differences are one thing, but the circuits themselves....can/should they be protected?
In today's world, though, with digital effects becoming more popular, it's become much more difficult to "clone" newer pedals. Nobody can make a direct "clone" of pretty much anything that Strymon makes, simply because reverse engineering the programming in them isn't exactly the same as reverse engineering individual components that you can see on a circuit board.
the circuits aren't patterned, the code most likely is. You just can't use the exact PCB layout or the TM (name, artwork etc)
As far as fuzz pedals go, it's probably the same reason why Marshall hasn't trademarked the plexi/2203/800/silver juiblee etc circuit(s), which is why there are so many clones on the market. They're now considered to be generic.
Good content Dylan. Thanks for sharing!
This was such a great informative video. I'm looking forward to the next video with Ron. Awesome stuff.
As a guitar maker myself I don’t want to copy other builders designs. I mean what’s the point? That’s like being an artist and painting the Mona Lisa every day. Sure, you might do a good job and can pat yourself on the back, but it’s just a copy and you didn’t create the original. It’s like playing in a cover band. lol.
Having said that, while I have no interest in making a Flying V, Gibson did nothing while countless companies made all those shapes. I really don’t see where they get the right to get trademarks now.
And those companies that objected to Fender that time make a living on making Fender copies. That brings me back to my original statement; do something original.
I guess Rickenbacker had the right idea in protecting their designs.
Regarding DiMarzio; I explain it exactly the way he did. It made their pickups recognizable. However DiMarzio state on their website that black is their standard color. So no longer can you spot a DiMarzio because they are double cream. Same with their bass pickups. If you saw a P bass with a cream pickup it was a DiMarzio. Now it’s just one of many colors they offer. Are all those colors their trade dress? No.
This begs the question; is that not abandoning your trade dress? What if UPS started painting some of their trucks blue. Would brown still be their trademark?
That's why even Squiers always have the Fender name written on the headstock. They're afraid of losing the copyrights, if their not using it all the time.
Squiers are a fender brand
I’d be super intrigued in music copyright, how can a cover band make monies but on say a TH-cam show you can get a strike
Massively simplified...
Live music at gigs generally needs no license agreement to play any song (though depending on your country and the size of the audience, the venue might need a public performance license - the songwriters get a small split of the annual performance license revenues).
TH-cam is a different kettle of fish. You're distributing a recording and a video of the song and technically should've sought permission from the rights holder beforehand, and made a legal contract about how much you're paying them and who gets what split of the royalties per play. Even deeper minefield, you need an agreement for mechanical royalties for distributing the audio recording, and arguably a synchronisation license for the video footage. Legally, you're meant to get the contracts and licenses sorted before releasing songs/videos (and there are middlemen companies like distrokid who sort it all out for you for ~$15'ish a track in routine cases etc). But the rump of home TH-camrs and tiktokkers don't bother with the law, so DMCA legislation was passed so that rights holders could retrospectively catch up with license evaders. DMCA gives rights holders the choice of insisting the platform take it down (in specific countries where the rights holder has the rights), or leaving it up and claiming all ad revenue, or sharing ad revenue with the tuber/tokker. DMCA insists the platforms have a process for dealing with persistent offenders that can lead to expulsion (but doesn't tightly prescribe how many strikes in what period). Common practice seems to be 3 strikes (in 90 days maybe?) and you're out, though there's some leeway that a rights holder insisting on a takedown doesn't automatically lead to a copyright strike - it depends on the platforms judgement on your pattern of offending. Platforms are pretty much exempted from prosecution by DMCA as long as they do whatever the rights holder asks. Which is why yt will pretty much say "not our problem, go settle your dispute with the rights holder and tell us the outcome" the second anyone lodges a DMCA claim (yt don't even check the claimant has the rights to the song - DMCA law assumed honest actors, and real life didn't work that way).
Confused yet? It gets even more complicated if you're a live musician livestreaming music (the live performance is mostly ok, but if your stream is available for replay like yt livestreams can be, you're in a DMCA world of pain and need mechanical licenses again).
I won't even start on caveats and exemptions (fair use of short excerpts for study/critique, whole song parody etc). There are some uses that don't need a license, but because DMCA enforcement is largely done by automated audio-id bots, you'll very probably still get wrongly hit with enforcement and have to appeal your case with the rights holder.
And that's hugely simplified.
Are you glad you asked?
@@PaulCooksStuff thanks! Glad you simplified it for me 🤯
I just spoke with Ron. We are scheduling some time to chat about this subject.
I’m still confused because Bienstock said something about putting any decals, besides copycat Fender decals, on copies of Fender style necks. I’m not clear about what he meant by that from a legal standpoint or if he was only interjecting a personal opinion about the decals, regardless of whether it’s Fender or something else… even perhaps a hand written signature. I wonder because the are plenty of Fender type guitar and bass models that have been made with a different brand/logo/decal on the headstock. Bill Nash Guitars comes to my mind foremost as a current case.
Hot damn a real blues lawyer boys!
Great video
'Fender came out with it first." No. The trademark is proof of establishing the publishing date.
No CF Martin did in the 1880s, then Paul Bigsby expanded it on his 1st solid bodies in the 1940s!
Loved this! Thanks so much!
Oh my gosh
This video is the goldmine I was looking for
I'll watch it religiously
Btw
Cool t-shirt Dylan!
thanks so much, please share it
This was very informative, thanks!
Dylan - Thanks this was very informative as usual - cheers from Canada
Thanks so much. Please share it if you can
thanks to both of you. outstanding content
thanks so much, please share it
That t-shirt rocks!
Excellent content!
You can replicate any guitar you just cant market it as your own...an as long as you alter dementions an alter the headstock there's realy not much they can do ...they can give you a seize an resist order but likely they will not move any further
So I’ll probably need to watch the entire video to the actual answer, but my question so far becomes, how it is that PRS and Dean Zelinsky are able to use the Les Paul body shape? On Zelinskys, while the shape is there, overall design is such that it’s obviously not a Gibson, which I’m assuming is how he got around it.
That's how every copy gets around a trademark. Alter the design by enough millimetres so it falls beyond the limits of the patent.
Crimson got a cease+desist from PRS in their "SRP kit". A week later it's imperceptibly changed dimensions and is back on sale. The scoop is missing on the lower horn. 5 minutes DIY with a rasp, it's back.
Absolutely fascinating video. This was awesome!!!! Thank you.
Thank you - that was terrific!
In a few words,you can make everything for your personal use or for your friends but you can not sell everything to global market in large scale commercial way.If a product is gaining in popularity soon or later will encounter intellectual property issues and is somehow difficult to proof that you have reinvent the wheel rather than you pay for the intellectual properties.And then the initial low cost of your product is starts to rise to the sky.
Not really ….
SO COOL. THANKS DYLAN
Awesome content
Great video, thank you.
So I can't make CAD files off guitars to people :O for CNCing.
I thought it was because a Les Paul is the signature guitar for les pul and Stratocaster is just a guitar
Really cool info video.
That is quite like in Germany, you have to use your brand and defend it.
I can make a guitar inspired by the Gibson Explorer, I can easily shape it different enough, so no one will think it's really a Gibson Explorer.
And I can as easily use a generic shape of a guitar, give it a single cutaway, and I'll say it's just a generic shape of a guitar. Look, here it's rounder than a Gibson Les Paul, here it's more flat and this, this is mush more angled and look at that! And look at this horn! Hope I don't get sued by ESP!
Because that's basically the deal with the Les Paul, the shape is a generic guitar shape with a single cutaway! The exact shape may be copyrighted, but other designs of traditional guitars simply can't be sued! And that is the reason so many exist!
If you know guitars, you will recognize an ESP by just the part where the switch and one of the strap buttons are!
This owns.
please share it
I thought patents only lasted a few years - and after that period, the idea is free for anyone to use.
Thanks
thanks so much, please share it
Very cool video.
Probably, Gibsons are set in constructions, being almost impossible to replace necks or bodies separately.
Gibson users might have been fixing their guitars when it break, instead of detaching and replacing. Obviously replacing would cost more.
Trying to prevent other manufacturers from making instruments with Fender shapes sounds like a stupid move to me. Any Strat copy is a free ad for a Fender Strat isn't it?
IP law is absurd.
And thanks dude means a lot
thanks so much, please share it
Why couldn't I have retained this guy's services when I was arrested for stalking Cher....
now that sounds interesting
Shared.
The answer is no .
See ex post facto.
The Fender Decision was a joke...easily the most fucked up piece of jurisprudence in the history of Intellectual Property Law. The idea that one can steal design work from a company because a 12 year old walking into Guitar center doesn't know history is criminally insane.
Boring lawyer speak.
He’s a bass player, he’s a real musician. These things do not go together.
You must like shitty music.
Great stuff!