Members u6crash Posted March 24, 2006 Members Share Posted March 24, 2006 It seems there are so many manufacturers that make high-end guitars with body shapes identical, or near identical, to Strats and Teles. Is the basic appeal of these guitars to get something with a traditional look, but more attention to detail without Fender Custom Shop prices? Also, is there any reason Fender has not taken legal action against manufactures that use those body shapes? After all, Gibson sucessfully stopped Ibanez from making copies of their body shapes. Are body shapes protected under patents or copyrights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators The Eristic Posted March 24, 2006 Moderators Share Posted March 24, 2006 Originally posted by u6crash Also, is there any reason Fender has not taken legal action against manufactures that use those body shapes? After all, Gibson sucessfully stopped Ibanez from making copies of their body shapes. Fender has been trying to "protect" their shapes over the past year or two, after letting them become public domain by not attempting to protect them for 50 years. Compare that to Rickenbacker, who has aggressively protected pretty much everything about their designs from day one. Gibson tried to gain exclusive rights to the single cutaway shape in its recent suit against PRS (using the now-infamous "Smoky Bar Confusion" argument), and succeeded temporarily (at a court in their hometown, I might add), till an appellate judge realized the first judge was apparently retarded and/or blind. Gibson didn't stop Ibanez from using their body shapes, they stopped them from using their headstocks. Early post-Lawsuit Destroyers, Rocket Rolls, and Agents still have "Gibson" body shapes. Fender has gone after a few small builders because of the headstock (most famously, at least on the internet, Scott Lentz), too. Headstocks are generally considered a more strong brand identifier than body shape. I have two Melancons. Neither are 100% clones of Fenders, but they have the same *basic* lines. I chose them because: 1. They were available with features unavailable from Fender, short of ordering Custom Shop. 2. They were better quality than all but the Masterbuilt CS stuff. 3. They were MUCH more affordable than comparable instruments from FCS. (Many high end F-style builders are every bit as expensive, though.) 4. Build time was considerably less than FCS for the one I ordered custom. (As with above, you'll have the same wait or longer with some boutique guys.) 5. I just prefer supporting the little guy whenever possible. Every builder has their own vibe, and I happen to really dig Gerard's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members u6crash Posted March 24, 2006 Author Members Share Posted March 24, 2006 Wow, that answers most of my questions. Thanks for the insight. Has there been an official word that Fender shapes are in public domain? Are other Fender shapes such as the Mustang, Jaguar, Jazzmaster, etc. currently protected because they have not been around as long as the Strat and Tele shapes? I'm not sure what the time limits are. Why did Gibson go after PRS for the single cutaway, but not say, ESP for their model resembling a Les Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members u6crash Posted March 25, 2006 Author Members Share Posted March 25, 2006 Main Entry: bump Pronunciation: 'b&mpFunction: nounEtymology: probably imitative of the sound of a blow1 : a relatively abrupt convexity or protuberance on a surface: as a : a swelling of tissue b : a cranial protuberance2 a : a sudden forceful blow, impact, or jolt b : DEMOTION3 : an act of thrusting the hips forward in an erotic manner4 : the return of an internet message board thread to the top of the forum list, usually with little or no substatial content additions, in a shameless attempt to be noticed again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators The Eristic Posted March 25, 2006 Moderators Share Posted March 25, 2006 Dunno about the other Fenders. The big noise was about the Strat and Tele. I guess the Jag, JM, etc, have never really been popular enough to worry about. Why did Gibson go after PRS? Because PRS is a MUCH bigger threat to them than ESP. ESP has a fairly limited target market (shred and metal guys) in the US when compared to Gibson and PRS. Anybody looking for high-end stuff is immediately directed to Gibson CAH and PRS as soon as they walk into Guitar Center, and the Singlecut was doing phenomenally well. If they'd won against their strongest competition, PRS, you can bet they'd be going after everyone else soon afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members daddysguitar Posted March 25, 2006 Members Share Posted March 25, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators The Eristic Posted March 25, 2006 Moderators Share Posted March 25, 2006 Where have you been? (Other than reporting that Hoddy troll over in those nasty forums.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members u6crash Posted March 25, 2006 Author Members Share Posted March 25, 2006 That's interesting about the Bigsby case. I haven't been able to find anything else about it in any searches. I'd like to know what the final compensation was and if those companies still have to pay royalties. I have to believe they have some sort of arrangement where they can continue to use the designs they've used for years indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members u6crash Posted March 25, 2006 Author Members Share Posted March 25, 2006 Holy plagiarism, Batman! Gibson's Les Paul single cutaway guitar is traditionally shaped with a portion removed from the body of the guitar where the lower section of the fingerboard meets the body of the guitar. The term "single cutaway guitar" denotes that portion of the guitar between the neck and its lower part, that appears to be missing from the natural, round body contour. The removal of this portion forms what is often referred to as the "horn." I got that from this Harmony Central Article about the Gibson/PRS case, written before it was overturned. This text matches exactly text in the Bigsby article above, except that "Bigsby's" has been changed to "Gibson's single". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators The Eristic Posted March 25, 2006 Moderators Share Posted March 25, 2006 Originally posted by u6crash Holy plagiarism, Batman!I got that from this Harmony Central Article about the Gibson/PRS case, written before it was overturned. This text matches exactly text in the Bigsby article above, except that "Bigsby's" has been changed to "Gibson's single". That's because DG is making a sort of guitar history in-joke to point out that Paul Bigsby's designs incorporated several, shall we say, "influential" features before anybody else in the solidbody electric guitar game, but he never sued anybody for "borrowing" his ideas. ;^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members u6crash Posted March 25, 2006 Author Members Share Posted March 25, 2006 Ah, gotcha. I thought the 6 inline tuner thing was pretty weird, but I didn't want to question it and look stupid. I'd rather be taken in and look stupid If I remember correctly, one needs a lawyer or patent clerk to find out what designs are registered and what aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.