It is currently Tue Mar 17, 2020 5:56 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:31 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 9640
Location: Indiana
Hmmm.

A friend of a friend has a car that is completely decked out as a cop car, sans any police decals, with all of the lights and sirens and the look of a cop car. We know that it is perfectly legal to do this, but illegal to use the lights and siren on the street, say to pull someone over. It really pisses the cops off, but nothing they can do except harass the guy.

So would it be legal to make a Fender copy for your own personal use, including decal, yet illegal to try and sell it, representing it as a legitimate Fender product? Fair Use Act? I know that eBay has a policy that even if the seller represents their fake as a fake, it is still not allowed to be advertised for sale.

:?:

_________________
---> "The amp should be SWITCHED OFF AND UNPLUGGED before you do this!" <---

Por favor, disculpe mi español, no se llega a la práctica con mucha frecuencia.


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:19 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician

Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:45 pm
Posts: 2770
Location: Kansas
shimmilou wrote:
Hmmm.

A friend of a friend has a car that is completely decked out as a cop car, sans any police decals, with all of the lights and sirens and the look of a cop car. We know that it is perfectly legal to do this, but illegal to use the lights and siren on the street, say to pull someone over. It really pisses the cops off, but nothing they can do except harass the guy.

So would it be legal to make a Fender copy for your own personal use, including decal, yet illegal to try and sell it, representing it as a legitimate Fender product? Fair Use Act? I know that eBay has a policy that even if the seller represents their fake as a fake, it is still not allowed to be advertised for sale.

:?:


I think the cop car thing might vary from state to state. When I lived in Kentucky I'm 99% sure you weren't allowed to have lights on your unless had authorization - for example a volunteer firefighter could have a rack of red or red/white lights but they couldn't have a rack of blue lights.

I don't think it's illegal to make a Fender copy from licensed parts for your own use. It is illegal for anyone but Fender to make and sell Fender decals as that is a copyright and/or trademark infringement, so I suppose as long as you made the decal yourself by hand then that would also be okay. But you would have to remove it were you to legally sell the guitar later.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:01 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:14 pm
Posts: 305
Interesting points and in the case of this guitar builder I think he was just pointing out a double standard when it comes to guitars vs amps. In reviewing the Marsh website I saw reproduction Princeton Reverb's, Deluxe's etc. that all had faceplates saying Fender when in fact they aren't Fender amps. People sometimes get upset when someone actually has a Fender guitar and has replaced the neck with a Warmoth neck and then adds a Fender decal. As for the custom 62' Strat build I encouraged him to create a custom decal for it to reflect all the hard work that he did in building it. To be fair I don't know anything about Marsh amps and they may be using original chassis and then building an amp from that point. There is a company in Detroit that builds complete 57' Chevys by the name of CARS. They use only the original cowl/door post and everything else is reproduction. They are still considered "restored"57 Chevys as opposed to reproductions since the original VIN is still attached. Kind of like having an original vintage Strat neck and building an entire guitar around it and calling it a restoration.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:17 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:57 am
Posts: 13164
Location: Peckham: where the snow leopards roam
Hi again l88vette: I think you raised an area of this debate one or two of us might not have given much thought to before. So that's good.
l88vette wrote:
Interesting points and in the case of this guitar builder I think he was just pointing out a double standard when it comes to guitars vs amps.

In view of Rob's posts on the previous page I'm not so sure there is a double standard. I've a feeling he might be tacitly signalling that the Company definitely does not think folks putting Fender's name on imitation amplifiers is OK. Perhaps something is going to be said about it in private.

Obviously, that's purely my speculation and you wouldn't expect Rob to discuss a specific case further on a public forum.

But maybe we'll keep our eyes peeled, huh?

Cheers - C

_________________
Image


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:25 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 13467
Location: Palm Beach County FL
Martian wrote:
Putting it at an even 'closer to home' level, let's say one of us here is a brilliant painter whose work is most desirable. How would said person feel ethically and otherwise if someone was counterfeiting his/her paintings right down to forging his/her signature?


We have done this dance before...and heatedly so. Rob...we certainly would love to know if and when Fender is going after Marsh. If they are overseas, the laws are different and Fender may have no recourse.

As for Martian's example....one of us is but a counterfeiter would be hard pressed to reproduce his work, if ever. 8)

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:20 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:57 am
Posts: 13164
Location: Peckham: where the snow leopards roam
ZZDoc wrote:
...we certainly would love to know if and when Fender is going after Marsh. If they are overseas, the laws are different and Fender may have no recourse...

Hi Doc: their website says Marsh are in Weston, FL; which is apparently near Fort Lauderdale. Their site also shows that as of this moment they are still offering amps with Fender badges on them.

Hey, maybe you'd like to pop round and have a word with them! :D

Cheers - C

_________________
Image


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:31 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 13467
Location: Palm Beach County FL
Ceri wrote:
Hi Doc: their website says Marsh are in Weston, FL; which is apparently near Fort Lauderdale. Their site also shows that as of this moment they are still offering amps with Fender badges on them.Hey, maybe you'd like to pop round and have a word with them! :D Cheers - C

Must have been wearing my old vision prescription when I checked out their website. Coinkadentally, I was out near there on another matter last Saturday. It's about a 45 mi drive from my home. Wound up in Weston having missed the 'split' for the highway north. Had to exit there and head back east. I don't know that I'd would morally and ethically give those guys the right time unless I knew that FMIC had absolutely no interest in pursuing the matter legally.[Which IMHO the ought to and with vigah!!] The only person close to us who could inquire further is good 'ol Rob there. If not, I might take a serious look at their line.
So let's hang on the line and see what the moderator has to say. So far he's done a helluva better job for us than those three debate losers did for our electorate. :wink:

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:49 am
Offline
Roadie
Roadie
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:27 pm
Posts: 269
It would be funnier to make the decal say "Fendor" or something silly like that. Then even if the guy forgets what he did or dies or something no one will be confused.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:48 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:10 pm
Posts: 30
If it's not made by Fender, it should not be allowed to have Fender on it. No exceptions, peiod.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:09 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 13467
Location: Palm Beach County FL
newfmp3 wrote:
If it's not made by Fender, it should not be allowed to have Fender on it. No exceptions, peiod.

As Ceri recognizes, and from what I see in their online parts catalog are 'repro' hardware with logos and logo scripted backplates. The question to be answered is whether or not these are yet copyright protected and in violation. Somehow I don't believe this US-based company would be doing something it knew was illegal. They manufacture parts for hobbyists, and electronics repair people as well as doing reproduction manufacture of amplifiers on order. There is a Marshall head in there somewhere, as well. If Fender knows about them, and has not acted against them, I would have to assume it is not at issue from the point of view of their legal representatives.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:01 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:14 pm
Posts: 305
Well then back to the original point. If it is legal for a company to manufacture complete clone amplifiers such as the Fender Princeton Reverb or any of the others shown that in fact are not Fender amps then FMIC should have no problem with a guitarist who puts a decal on his own guitar. As ZZDoc pointed out the website in question features Fender badges, faceplates, etc. Think about the guy who buys what he thinks is a Fender Vibroverb used only to find out it is in fact not a Fender. The guitar builders question was why is it a big deal to put a decal on his guitar when others are selling complete reproduction amps and you hear no complaints.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:25 am
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 13467
Location: Palm Beach County FL
l88vette wrote:
Well then back to the original point. If it is legal for a company to manufacture complete clone amplifiers such as the Fender Princeton Reverb or any of the others shown that in fact are not Fender amps then FMIC should have no problem with a guitarist who puts a decal on his own guitar. As ZZDoc pointed out the website in question features Fender badges, faceplates, etc. Think about the guy who buys what he thinks is a Fender Vibroverb used only to find out it is in fact not a Fender. The guitar builders question was why is it a big deal to put a decal on his guitar when others are selling complete reproduction amps and you hear no complaints.

You may have heard of the 'dimed' Stratocaster reproductions which Fernandes manufactured many years ago, the shipments of which Fender has seized and destroyed. [I've seen a guitar of that genre, owned by Carlos Santana, which was displayed at the SONY Center in NYC in the mid'90's. It was spot on.] Large quantities of such are certainly of interest to the company. The individual, private guitar, concerns us as users more from a moral/ethical consideration in that it makes possible the misrepresentation of product on a one-one basis which is what might happen with the parts sourced from vendors such as Marsh or Reliable Fender, for example. I have surfed Marsh's website and am of the opinion that they are not representing this stuff as Fender product. What a re-seller might do, with a little tweaking, is another matter, and relates back to my original observation about misrepresentation.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:14 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:49 am
Posts: 16
Try doing this with a Rickenbacker and see what happens. I have been amazed over the years that Fender allows all these knock offs. I think they are somewhat protective of the head stock but why do they allow any company to copy the strat? Too late to crack down I guess but I have felt over the years that it was not wise for Fender to allow it. Just my two cents.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:13 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician

Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:45 pm
Posts: 2770
Location: Kansas
marcomucho wrote:
Try doing this with a Rickenbacker and see what happens. I have been amazed over the years that Fender allows all these knock offs. I think they are somewhat protective of the head stock but why do they allow any company to copy the strat? Too late to crack down I guess but I have felt over the years that it was not wise for Fender to allow it. Just my two cents.


Historically they never did crack down on use of the body shapes - the leadership at the time any patents would have expired (that would have been back in the mid-70s for the Strat so it would have been CBS at that time) took the opinion that the headstock shape and logo was the "signature" of the builder and the body shapes were more or less "functional design items".

Therefore they only protected the headstock shapes, logos, names, etc. with trademarks, not the body shapes. When Fender did make an attempt to gain a trademark for the body shapes 3-4 years ago other manufacturers were able to band together and have the application dismissed. These other manufacturers included John Suhr, Tom Anderson, WD Products, Warmoth, and many others (I believe 20-30 companies pooled their finances in this case). Their argument that by Fender not protecting the body shapes for over 30 years the shapes were now in the public domain, plus Fender did not submit detailed drawings of the instruments, only 2D outlines (if you look at Gibson's Trademark/Trade Dress drawings for say the Les Paul they are very detailed right down to the knob position, logos, inlays and binding - they even have separate filings for the LP Custom versus the LP Standard).


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Does he have a point?
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:22 pm
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:01 pm
Posts: 1598
These are, as always, just my own personal opinions, but I think Retro pretty much hit it up there...so much of this debate comes down to "intent".

Yes, I've forged the Fender logo on personal instruments (in fact, while I don't know if the pics are still there, I had shots of one of my projects up here a few years back). My "International Strat" is a mutt...she's got an '03 Indo Squier neck, MIM bridge and a body of unknown origin (I actually think it's an Ibanez but no way to prove it either way). In this case this instrument was as much an art project as anything else (including the 2 tone finish which I was still experimenting with at that point)...and that big ol' Indo Standard headstock was just screaming for a 70's Fender logo! Now in this case, I did leave the Indo serial number on the back of the headstock intact and if someone were to look closely enough, the "serial number" I had engraved on the neck plate is actually my birthday! LOL!!! So here's the moral issue; -if- I were to try and sell this as some kind of genuine 70's instrument to some unsuspecting putz who couldn't be bothered to realize that a genuine 70's Strat is going to have a 3 bolt neck and not a 4 bolt...yea...sure...it's wrong (although I would briefly add the words "buyer beware"). However that's just not the case...I made the guitar, I own the guitar and I have no intentions of selling it what so ever...full disclosure or otherwise. So to address Johnjay's comment, how -exactly- is that so bloody "wrong"? People keep trying to turn this into some kind of black and white issue, but it's not...never has been. What's more is that people keep trying to blame others for their own ignorance...

Here's the thing...people are f'in stupid...and greedy to boot (always a BAD combination). I was standing at a guitar show sometime back looking at a fake LP. For the $450 the guy wanted, it was actually a pretty nice instrument and worth the money, BUT...how did I know it was a fake? Because on the headstock was the name "Gibsun" (beautifully inlay'd I might add). You -know- some greedy little dumbazz kid saw that thing and thought "Oh boy! I'm gonna get me a REAL Les Paul for cheap!"...and at some point after getting hit home, crapped an eggroll! LOL!!! And sure enough, I saw it on Craigslist some 2 weeks later (I recognized it in the pics). So in this case, is the moral responsibility really up to the person who made it or the person who sold it, or just the greedy little putz who couldn't be bothered to actually know how the name Gibson is actually spelled? If you're gonna blow some $500 to $1000 on something like a musical instrument, shouldn't you have SOME freaking clue what it is you're actually buying...other than a headstock logo?

I've seen a couple of fakes over the years that very honestly were well worth the money being asked. Yea, I've seen over-priced bad fakes...I usually laugh my butt off at the person selling it and walk away. But that's not always the case... I saw Strat at another guitar show that was again, a fake (albeit a pretty good one...I had to look closely at it). The guy wanted $450 and if I had of had the money, I might have actually bought it...outstanding instrument to say the least and WELL worth the money...in fact I might even say "a bargain". Yea...it was a fake...so?

At what point do you stop blaming the con man and realize the REAL person at fault is simply the idiot that allowed themselves to get screwed...all because they just couldn't be bothered to do a hair of research FIRST? As my brother often says, "ya just can fix stupid".

Now I also have to take a poke at Martian here...if for no other reason that I enjoy annoying the pss out of him...

"Putting it at an even 'closer to home' level, let's say one of us here is a brilliant painter whose work is most desirable. How would said person feel ethically and otherwise if someone was counterfeiting his/her paintings right down to forging his/her signature?"


While I won't use the word "desirable" (although "brilliant" may apply), I -am- an artist...a digital artist (photography, raster, vector, 3D modeling & animation, et al) so my first question would have to be: are they making more money on my signature than I am? Or at the very least, how much of a loss am I taking from their use of my signature?

Here's the thing dude...while it's all fine and dandy to say "this is legal" and "this is illegal" (feel free to substitute the words moral or ethical if you like), the world's a changin'...and it's changing FAST. For better or worse, the days of people running around with copyrights and trademarks and such, acting like a bunch of spoiled brats screaming "MINE! MINE! MINE!"...those days are really deteriorating big time. Let's consider digital images for a moment...

Yes, I've had my work ripped off and used by others without my permission. In fact there's a local non-profit humane society that's still using one of my images in their logo...they have been for at least a good 6 years now (I suspect much longer than that as the image was shot at least 10 years ago). They never asked, never contacted me...nothing. The -ONLY- reason I even know about it is because I spotted when my wife and I were looking for a new puppy 6 years ago. Now do you really believe for one moment that I'm actually going to sue these people over it??? Is anybody really that pathetically petty or greedy (rhetorical question)? I know of another lady that has used several of my images...she makes lighter cases, puts images on them and sells them at craft shows for $4 a piece to make a little extra money for Christmas and such. Again...is it remotely realistic for me to sue this person? Is there really any reason too???? Why should this bother me in the slightest??????????

Say it with me Martian...P-E-R-S-P-E-C-T-I-V-E.

Like it or not, at some point this is going to come down to more than "ownership", it's going to come down to practical perspective. Yes, if I were driving down the road and I saw one of my images being used (without my permission) on a billboard in the latest multi-million dollar Walmart ad campaign, you can bet your bottom that I'll be on the phone with my lawyer! But let me tell you that as a photographer, if I try to sue that humane society or the lady making the lighter cases, I'm going to LOOSE a great deal of money in the process...money that I will NEVER get back. What's more, is that honestly...it's free advertising...and that alone is worth it's weight in gold! I've actually scored a couple of sales because people have seen that pic of mine on the humane society's logo. Do I really want to loose that kind of advertising...all for the sake of being petty and screaming "mine"?? Should I even feel bad about it, ethically or otherwise? Sorry but that's just moronically lame...

So Martian...you want to forge my work and my sig? Really...I'm game :-)

Jim


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: