Custom built to vintage Specifications vs. counterfeit guitars

[RAG7890]

So Gibson doesn't call them fakes or replicas?

From Gibson's website, "

Working hard to record Guns N’ Roses’ 1987 debut, Appetite for Destruction, Slash was experiencing nothing but frustration trying to achieve the tones he was seeking with a range of contemporary electric guitars he was using. Then someone handed him a reissue-style Les Paul Standard, and that was all she wrote. With this legendary rock machine in hand, Slash laid down the deadliest rock riffs of the decade—propelling songs like “Paradise City”, “Sweet Child O’ Mine”, and “Welcome to the Jungle”—and fired up the biggest-selling debut album of all time in the process."

That's a lot of credit their indirectly giving to Kris Derrig.

.......................as of today I am now going to call mine a "Reissue-Style Les Paul Standard".....................just like Gibson said!

A precedent is good!

 

[RAG7890]

So why not? Of course not in mass production but maybe there is a market segment for a "Gibson real '59 Replica" with +30k or +50k or whatever.

Backstage I don't think they have enough in house skills to do this but yes, if they put their mind to it anything can be done for a price, albeit I don't know how they would handle the BRW issues in light of their current situation.

Cheers,, Rudi

 

[RAG7890]

So you'd not disagree that a person making a bunch of counterfeit copies of Cd's/Dvd's and selling them is considered unacceptable. But for a guitar it is acceptable?

There's a huge difference between someone downloading items for personal use than selling them on for profit at anothers loss. Both are considered theft, but one carries a greater penalty because the abuse is far greater.


Not that I'm judging anyone - Builder or Buyer.

You are missing the point here, download & use for yourself (which as I said I do not do) vs. commission a Replica & use it for yourself. Gibson is not missing out on any sales, royalties or profits; i.e. I own a $hit load of Historics already & I did not order a Replica to replace a potential order for a Historic.

There is zero loss in this equation for Gibson & I put to you, there is in fact a gain. All this talk about Bursts, Replicas & other options only acts as free advertising for Gibson & the Gibson Les Paul, from which they will & do profit.

We need to start a new Thread & debate this topic until I drop dead............as I do enjoy the arguing...................& I have to say thanks to all for being so civil, whether you are for or against.

Was it Voltaire that said................."I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Cheers, Rudi

 

[lowatter]

errr...Gator...I think you created a monster here.

 

['59_Standard]

You are missing the point here, download & use for yourself (which as I said I do not do) vs. commission a Replica & use it for yourself. Gibson is not missing out on any sales, royalties or profits; i.e. I own a $hit load of Historics already & I did not order a Replica to replace a potential order for a Historic.

There is zero loss in this equation for Gibson & I put to you, there is in fact a gain. All this talk about Bursts, Replicas & other options only acts as free advertising for Gibson & the Gibson Les Paul, from which they will & do profit.

We need to start a new Thread & debate this topic until I drop dead............as I do enjoy the arguing...................& I have to say thanks to all for being so civil, whether you are for or against.

Was it Voltaire that said................."I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Cheers, Rudi

No need to try & convince me. You just keep trying to convince yourself.

 

[guitarnut_germany]

That's new to me. He's playing replicas too? So Gibson indeed made a custom shop replica? Erm ... that's weird and cool .

http://www.slashsworld.com/equipment/guitars/59-les-paul-replica-built-by-kris-derrig/

He had 2 other replicas as well........ I'm not that big of a Slash fan, but you can google it....

He made history with those guitars!

Funny thing is: people go and buy this CS replica of the replica now........

 

[gator payne]

Uh, no.

Building a replica of a 1959 Gibson Les Paul is not illegal, per se.

Per se!!!!!!!!!!! building a to design replica of a 59 is not illegal, this is true, However building anything and afixing a Gibson logo, the use of the Gibson name or any of Gibson's other trademarked or copyrighted enities without Gibson's express written concent is absolutly illegal. to tell your self other wise is equivalent of saying that you denie the legal statutes that allow a person or enitie to trademark and or copyright their product.

Or in other words you are pretty much saying

"Yea they have a copyright and trademark but I really dont give a damn about copyright and trademark law"

 

[guitarnut_germany]

Or in other words you are pretty much saying

"Yea they have a copyright and trademark but I really dont give a damn about copyright and trademark law"

What Slash (and several other rock stars as well) have done multiple times . Why did they do that? "Only a Gibson is good enough"

Did they get sued? No.

To be honest, I personally wouldn't have any bad conscience doing this as well..........

 

[gator payne]

You are missing the point here, download & use for yourself (which as I said I do not do) vs. commission a Replica & use it for yourself. Gibson is not missing out on any sales, royalties or profits; i.e. I own a $hit load of Historics already & I did not order a Replica to replace a potential order for a Historic.

There is zero loss in this equation for Gibson & I put to you, there is in fact a gain. All this talk about Bursts, Replicas & other options only acts as free advertising for Gibson & the Gibson Les Paul, from which they will & do profit.

We need to start a new Thread & debate this topic until I drop dead............as I do enjoy the arguing...................& I have to say thanks to all for being so civil, whether you are for or against.

Was it Voltaire that said................."I do not agree with a word you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Cheers, Rudi

The only loss in this senario is if there is non licensed use of Gibson property. e.g. it is illegal to use original or copied Gibson copyright or trademaked protected propertywithout Gibsons express written concent! Unless you have been sleepig during this conversation was the whole point of the topic in the first place

As many of you know I have plans sets for two of my own design guitars at Stewmac. I protected these designs. and licensend Stewmac to sell these plan set and the profit (not counting printing and stewmacs production and operating cost) to be donated to support a Forum I am a member of.

About 2 years after Stewmac Started selling my plans I ran across a person on the internet selling copies of my plans. I spent 2 years bringing charges aginst this individual. I won. I lost money doing this but I would do it again

My point on this is the example I gave about my plan sets is directly equal to the example of a luther selling a guitar (be it a replical of not) and afixing a Gibson log to it without Gibson's written permission. Both are cases of protected property being counterfited for profit. It does not matter if the end user profits or not It only matters If the person selling the product to the end user pockets money from the sell then the copyright owners propery has been illegaly used and the trademark and or copyright laws have ben broken.

 

[gator payne]

What Slash (and several other rock stars as well) have done multiple times . Why did they do that? "Only a Gibson is good enough"

Did they get sued? No.

To be honest, I personally wouldn't have any bad conscience doing this as well..........

That only reflects badly on you.

My point to this topic was never to jump the case of logo'd replica owners. My point in this post was to point out that the fact that many luthiers will build and sell logo'd replicas has given the uninform public the sences that it is just fine to illegaly use and abuse someones elses trademark and copyrights.

"To be honest, I personally wouldn't have any bad conscience doing this as well"

The comment above speaks volumes to the attitude of the I want it now generation

 

[Bgetraer]

This is the way i view the subject fwiw:
I understand the people who want a vintage spec Burst replica built by a master luthier, in order to get the tone, looks and quality of a great 59 burst. I think everyone on this forum would like to have one. i also understand why someone would want the gibson logo; it makes it look like a burst. whether or not you sell it, its cool that people think you own one, even if you freely tell people it is a replica. There is also a feeling surrounding the gibson logo that lends it a certain aura amd assumption of tone, quality, and classic guitars.
However, that doesnt change the fact that it is illegal. this is not necessarily about protecting gibson or corporations, and i can sort of get why people dont care about that. But the fact that it is illegal does not change. this is about personal integrity of the luthier and buyer, even more so than if gibson was a building more accurate replicas. the law is not always easy to understand and uphold, and i can see why it is easy to want to devalue it in this situation. However, that is the responsibility of law abiding citizens in this country. the law is not optional and should not feel optional.you can have a burst replica with all of the features except the logo, and still not break the law. the fact that so many feel compelled to take that extra step which is illegal any way you slice it, is what this thread was originally pointing out.

benjy getraer

 

[gator payne]

This is the way i view the subject fwiw:
I understand the people who want a vintage spec Burst replica built by a master luthier, in order to get the tone, looks and quality of a great 59 burst. I think everyone on this forum would like to have one. i also understand why someone would want the gibson logo; it makes it look like a burst. whether or not you sell it, its cool that people think you own one, even if you freely tell people it is a replica. There is also a feeling surrounding the gibson logo that lends it a certain aura amd assumption of tone, quality, and classic guitars.
However, that doesnt change the fact that it is illegal. this is not necessarily about protecting gibson or corporations, and i can sort of get why people dont care about that. But the fact that it is illegal does not change. this is about personal integrity of the luthier and buyer, even more so than if gibson was a building more accurate replicas. the law is not always easy to understand and uphold, and i can see why it is easy to want to devalue it in this situation. However, that is the responsibility of law abiding citizens in this country. the law is not optional and should not feel optional.you can have a burst replica with all of the features except the logo, and still not break the law. the fact that so many feel compelled to take that extra step which is illegal any way you slice it, is what this thread was originally pointing out.

benjy getraer

At least a few of you get it

 

['59_Standard]

When a "Man of the "Cloth" starts selling them with a G-logo you know were all going to hell...

 

[TwangyTele]

My point in this post was to point out that the fact that many luthiers will build and sell logo'd replicas has given the uninform public the sences that it is just fine to illegaly use and abuse someones elses trademark and copyrights.

My point for debate is that the right script'd logo in the right position with the right silkscreen on the right angle'd headstock with the right veneer and the right font serial number stamped on the back is just as important to me as the Brazilian rosewood fretboard or the old growth wood in order for it to be a a truly fantastic guitar that I would spend heaps of money on.


I forgot who said it, but I think it would be perfect, is if builders did the gibson logo, but then stamped something in the cavities or under the nut or something so that when any situation arises, you can pin point out that it is a burst styled guitar as opposed to a burst

 

[upl8tr]

My point for debate is that the right script'd logo in the right position with the right silkscreen on the right angle'd headstock with the right veneer and the right font serial number stamped on the back is just as important to me as the Brazilian rosewood fretboard or the old growth wood in order for it to be a a truly fantastic guitar that I would spend heaps of money on.


I forgot who said it, but I think it would be perfect, is if builders did the gibson logo, but then stamped something in the cavities or under the nut or something so that when any situation arises, you can pin point out that it is a burst styled guitar as opposed to a burst

Wrong; you are not debating anything, you are advocating breaking the law and ripping off Gibson because in YOUR opinion they do not make an instrument up to you standards.

Whereas Gator is saying it's not alright to break the (any) law whenever it suits you...See the difference?

No?

Didn't think so...

 

[gator payne]

Dear colleges,

Like DGN said Im beating a dead horse here so these are my final thoughts to be posted on this subject. The whole reasoning behind my posting on this was to point out that what we do tells others what we think is right. We reflects or values trough our craft via those that see, read about and purchase our work. Sometimes these reflections reflect not only our convections as individual but also on the assumed convictions of our trade, industry, peers as a whole.

By the continious calls and email requests I get to build a Gibson logo'd instrument I can assume that because of the availability of luthiers willing to use the Gibson logo without license to do so the general buying public assumes this is no big deal everyone does it so I wnat one. In my eyes this is bad for the integrety of the private lutherie industry. It just adds to bad reputation earned in the 90's when internet lutherie first took off and so many scammers took deposits and were never heard fom again. In my eyes in many ways this is worse. It reflects a willing ness of good luthiers with great skills, willing to knowingly break federal laws to please the whim of their clients.

When I was growing up in the care of my grandparents, my grandfather took exsplisit care to teach me right from wrong. He taught me that you can have the opinion that a law is wrong but not to follow the law was worse. If you had a conviction that a law was wrong get off your duff and work to get it changed. He told me that there can be no lasting civil society without respect for law. He also told me that not all laws will be good ones but that disrespect for law is an even worse outcome. That your willingness to obide by the law is a direct reflection of your moral fiber and that your moral fiber is all that you have to build your foundation as man on.

I have no need or desire to set in judment on anyone's morals. hoever I will address any issue head on and when out and out told by someone that they nave no ill conscious about breaking trademark and copyright law I have to feel that if given a reason and opertunity they would likely treat yours or my copyrights and or trademark rights with equal disrespect and injustice.

We have had some spirited discussion and for the most part was very well spoken and respectfull by everyone. But in the end we each have to look at our self as builders or end useers and ask are we willing to break the law just to inflate the vanity of our clientel or ourselfs. If so what affect does that have on our guild in the long run?

Best regards to all my fellow builders and luthiers
your friend and college
Gator

 

[gator payne]

I forgot who said it, but I think it would be perfect, is if builders did the gibson logo, but then stamped something in the cavities or under the nut or something so that when any situation arises, you can pin point out that it is a burst styled guitar as opposed to a burst

i said that that would help eliminate the sell of replicas as the real deal. However it does nothing to address the issue of deliberate trademark infringment. Which many try to deflect the attention away from, but is the cruz of the issue at hand. It is the original sin that makes this whole topic important.

Because my comments were miss represented her I had to reply but I am done.

 

[DGNRepair]

Dear colleges,

Like DGN said Im beating a dead horse here so these are my final thoughts to be posted on this subject. The whole reasoning behind my posting on this was to point out that what we do tells others what we think is right. We reflects or values trough our craft via those that see, read about and purchase our work. Sometimes these reflections reflect not only our convections as individual but also on the assumed convictions of our trade, industry, peers as a whole.

By the continious calls and email requests I get to build a Gibson logo'd instrument I can assume that because of the availability of luthiers willing to use the Gibson logo without license to do so the general buying public assumes this is no big deal everyone does it so I wnat one. In my eyes this is bad for the integrety of the private lutherie industry. It just adds to bad reputation earned in the 90's when internet lutherie first took off and so many scammers took deposits and were never heard fom again. In my eyes in many ways this is worse. It reflects a willing ness of good luthiers with great skills, willing to knowingly break federal laws to please the whim of their clients.

When I was growing up in the care of my grandparents, my grandfather took exsplisit care to teach me right from wrong. He taught me that you can have the opinion that a law is wrong but not to follow the law was worse. If you had a conviction that a law was wrong get off your duff and work to get it changed. He told me that there can be no lasting civil society without respect for law. He also told me that not all laws will be good ones but that disrespect for law is an even worse outcome. That your willingness to obide by the law is a direct reflection of your moral fiber and that your moral fiber is all that you have to build your foundation as man on.

I have no need or desire to set in judment on anyone's morals. hoever I will address any issue head on and when out and out told by someone that they nave no ill conscious about breaking trademark and copyright law I have to feel that if given a reason and opertunity they would likely treat yours or my copyrights and or trademark rights with equal disrespect and injustice.

We have had some spirited discussion and for the most part was very well spoken and respectfull by everyone. But in the end we each have to look at our self as builders or end useers and ask are we willing to break the law inflate the vanity of our clientel or ourselfs. If so what affect does that have on our guild in the long run?

Best regards to all my fellow builders and luthiers
your friend and college
Gator

Well put Gator.

 

[guitarnut_germany]

Gator, I agree with you that law is law and even if it ain't right we have to abide with it. (but I do think that the biggest crimes happen with tax payers money which is 100% legal....... but is that moral?! ) So there is a difference between moral and legal. Something might be 100% legal and 100% immoral. And even vice versa. So when should you have a bad conscience?................

Just read some Grisham books, about lawyers and moral........

It was legal to send people to concentration camps in WW2 right....?

 

[mudfinger]

Per se!!!!!!!!!!! building a to design replica of a 59 is not illegal, this is true, However building anything and afixing a Gibson logo, the use of the Gibson name or any of Gibson's other trademarked or copyrighted enities without Gibson's express written concent is absolutly illegal. to tell your self other wise is equivalent of saying that you denie the legal statutes that allow a person or enitie to trademark and or copyright their product.

Or in other words you are pretty much saying

"Yea they have a copyright and trademark but I really dont give a damn about copyright and trademark law"

Not what I'm saying at all.

And, I don't see what copyright law has to do with any of this; Gibson has trademarks that it can defend at leisure, but no copyrights. There's a substantial difference between the two.

I wonder what Paul Bigsby would say about all this.