THE BEST blue guitar is...

[DaveAronow]

 

Unless he has an agreement with Gibson and paid them to use their logo, no, I'm not confusing anything. They get to decide where that logo is used. Not him or anyone else.

 

 

I will gladly concede this point to you when he is served with a cease and desist notice, or when the Gibson Logo police come bust down his door.

 

But until that happens, I will have to proclaim myself right, and you, not so much.

[Morphious]

My Korean Fender Showmaster.

 

[aliensporebomb]

Disclaimer: this is not mine. I don't have ten grand to buy it. But check out that blue!

 

[fly_with_v]

To someone that loves blue guitars.... your desired anonymity is safe with me. I know what you mean. Same thing has happened to others. My first guitar had a Gibson logo sticker on the headstock. It was sold, but before it was sold the logo was removed and the headstock updated with a custom logo for the guy. Too many weird things can happen when it leaves your hands. This is why I can understand and appreciate people opinions on this matter as another to common human trait is deceit. Once the guitar is out of your hands it is subject some interesting exchanges and changes.

 

So while I sympathize and understand your opinions, please understand my decision to build a near perfect replica for myself. Honestly, the guitar has never been outside of my home or work office and never will be. The most public it has been is my build pages, and unfortunately this thread. I do not need anyone's approval, it is a beautiful guitar and I wanted to share. I spent many hour perfecting the top color and depth and I hope you all can appreciate that.

 

The reality is based on most legal interpretations of copyright law there is no violation. Gibson is not affected by this guitar or the use of its logo and therefore has no claim. If I began producing these at will it would be another story.

 

Think of this, how many cover songs have you played live? Do the police come down on you? It is your interpretation of some other persons music. Not really a big deal. But put it on a album and sell it, and you will be served.

 

Something else, I have never downloaded any song, album, or movie from the internet without paying a fee. Have you?

[Cliff Fiscal]

I have a Mercedes hood ornament on my kit car. {censored} the man .

[fly_with_v]

LMMFAO

[fly_with_v]

Disclaimer: this is not mine. I don't have ten grand to buy it. But check out that blue!

Did you get a press release?

[fly_with_v]

This

 

 

 

or this

[terryd5150]

 

Unless he has an agreement with Gibson and paid them to use their logo, no, I'm not confusing anything. They get to decide where that logo is used. Not him or anyone else.

 

 

Apparently, some of you missed the point of why I mentioned Slash and his Les Paul(s)....

 

http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2010/Oct/The_Legend_of_Slashs_Appetite_for_Destruction_Les_Paul.aspx

 

 

Slash didn't simply buy a second-hand copy of an LP, he COMMISSIONED them to be built. That's right, HE HAD THEM MADE!

 

-AND-

 

He not only had one LP copy made from one luthier, he had MULTIPLE copies made from MULTIPLE luthiers (again, HE HAD THEM MADE).

 

As far as every one that seems to be flaunting some sort of thinly veiled threat of "Gibson Logo Police"....

 

Q: What was Gibson's punishment to Slash and the luthiers that designed and produced his copies?

 

A: A Gibson Custom Shop model (and endorsement contract) based on the specs of his copies.

 

 

To close, there is a tremendous difference between hand making a high-quality replica for someone's personal use (I.E. NOT for financial gain) and producing a knock-off counterfit intended to capitalize on brand recognition for financial gain.

 

Gibson's legal department is well aware of this, I'm not sure why this concept isn't more widely understood.

[rchiav]

I will gladly concede this point to you when he is served with a cease and desist notice, or when the Gibson Logo police come bust down his door. But until that happens, I will have to proclaim myself right, and you, not so much.

 

 

You can proclaim whatever you want. It doesn't make it so. Of course Gibson isn't going to serve him with a C&D, but that doesn't mean it doesn't run afoul of the law. No one claimed that he'd be prosecuted. Manufacturing a guitar that looks like a Les Paul and then adoring it with markings that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that that guitar was in fact manufactured by Gibson, regardless of the intent to sell, still runs contrary to federal trademark law due to the confusion of origin.

 

And regardless of the law, it's just flat out deceptive. I can't think of a good reason to do it unless you want to intentionally deceive people into believing that it's actually a Gibson guitar, and that goes right back to an intent to confuse people about the origin.

[RaVenCAD]

Apparently, some of you missed the point of why I mentioned Slash and his Les Paul(s).... http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2010/Oct/The_Legend_of_Slashs_Appetite_for_Destruction_Les_Paul.aspx Slash didn't simply buy a second-hand copy of an LP, he COMMISSIONED them to be built. That's right, HE HAD THEM MADE! -AND- He not only had one LP copy made from one luthier, he had MULTIPLE copies made from MULTIPLE luthiers (again, HE HAD THEM MADE). As far as every one that seems to be flaunting some sort of thinly veiled threat of "Gibson Logo Police".... Q: What was Gibson's punishment to Slash and the luthiers that designed and produced his copies? A: A Gibson Custom Shop model (and endorsement contract) based on the specs of his copies. To close, there is a tremendous difference between hand making a high-quality replica for someone's personal use (I.E. NOT for financial gain) and producing a knock-off counterfit intended to capitalize on brand recognition for financial gain. Gibson's legal department is well aware of this, I'm not sure why this concept isn't more widely understood.

 

In the eyes of Gibson's marketing department, Slash > Fly.. By a long shot, all day, every day.

 

 

I bet if Gibson's legal department was made aware of Fly's use of their logo and headstock shape, they'd show up on his front porch for a chit chat. And I betcha they wouldn't be there to offer him a signature model..

[mistersully]

 

To someone that loves blue guitars.... your desired anonymity is safe with me. I know what you mean. Same thing has happened to others. My first guitar had a Gibson logo sticker on the headstock. It was sold, but before it was sold the logo was removed and the headstock updated with a custom logo for the guy. Too many weird things can happen when it leaves your hands. This is why I can understand and appreciate people opinions on this matter as another to common human trait is deceit. Once the guitar is out of your hands it is subject some interesting exchanges and changes. So while I sympathize and understand your opinions, please understand my decision to build a near perfect replica for myself. Honestly, the guitar has never been outside of my home or work office and never will be. The most public it has been is my build pages, and unfortunately this thread. I do not need anyone's approval, it is a beautiful guitar and I wanted to share. I spent many hour perfecting the top color and depth and I hope you all can appreciate that. The reality is based on most legal interpretations of copyright law there is no violation. Gibson is not affected by this guitar or the use of its logo and therefore has no claim. If I began producing these at will it would be another story. Think of this, how many cover songs have you played live? Do the police come down on you? It is your interpretation of some other persons music. Not really a big deal. But put it on a album and sell it, and you will be served. Something else, I have never downloaded any song, album, or movie from the internet without paying a fee. Have you?

 

 

cool post

 

i'll be honest, i'm against the whole logo thing... i recently met a guy that had a replica made for him... he was about to sell it... he'd told me he'd advertise it as what it was... but who knows

 

but you know all that

 

i just honestly have no idea why you'd what to put gibson on a guitar that you'd done such a great job building... far more impressive that it's not a gibson imo

 

you obviously have your reasons though

[fly_with_v]

cool post i'll be honest, i'm against the whole logo thing... i recently met a guy that had a replica made for him... he was about to sell it... he'd told me he'd advertise it as what it was... but who knows but you know all that i just honestly have no idea why you'd what to put gibson on a guitar that you'd done such a great job building... far more impressive that it's not a gibson imo you obviously have your reasons though

 

 

Thank you. It was just my attempt to make a near identicle 59 Les Paul. The measurements are very consistant, but there are a a couple of preference modfications. It is always clearly introduced as being made by me and a replica. Where I stop short is use of stamped serial numbers. In fact there is no serial number and it is signed as a "59 replica" inside the pickup cavity clearly. And remember it also has my name and signature inside.

 

My wood working skills were developed building scale R/C model aeroplanes. Exact replicas of Boeing, Lookheed, and other aircraft (like the SU-27), including all the logos.

 

It is just a hobby, but I have made quite a few guitars. I have been playing and performing maintenance including fret work for many years. I am still working on a logo I like for myself, just haven't got there yet. Once my own logo is developed, it will probably be added to the back of the headstock on this LP.

[fly_with_v]

And for those of you that would like Gibson to come to my door and C/D me, Thank you, I hope you are right. I have built one replica. It is mine and if they would like come see, admire it, inspect it, feel the need to take it, good for me, I am honored, one hell of a story.

 

They are not up their planning their attack on me. They probably actually benefit from this discussion. Do you not think that my picture promotes the Gibson brand and product? Have I received PM

[fly_with_v]

Back to BLUE.......... This gets my vote right now, dead sexy.

[

[RaVenCAD]

 

Back to BLUE.......... This gets my vote right now, dead sexy.

 

 

First thing we've agreed on so far. But I think your clear knobs would look great on it.

[fly_with_v]

And, believe me buddy, I get your points.

[terryd5150]

 

They probably actually benefit from this discussion. Do you not think that my picture promotes the Gibson brand and product? Have I received PM

[terryd5150]

In the eyes of Gibson's marketing department, Slash > Fly.. By a long shot, all day, every day. With respect: how do you, me, or anyone at Gibson know Slash>fly_with_v? Consider this: when Slash had his LP copies made, he was not "Slash- Guitar Hero of GNR"; he was Saul Hudson, just another struggling musician living hand-to-mouth. However, there are similarities here: both men had high-quality hand-made replicas that inspired others to purchase an actual LP of their own. Any company's marketing department LOVES it when they don't have to put effort into a product and yet brand awareness/product demand increases anyway. I bet if Gibson's legal department was made aware of Fly's use of their logo and headstock shape, they'd show up on his front porch for a chit chat. And I betcha they wouldn't be there to offer him a signature model... If someone from Gibson does actually contact fly_with_v, I sincerely doubt it will be anyone from their legal department; it would more likely be someone from the design department wanting to document and record specs. Since fly_with_v isn't a popular "guitar hero" type at this point, I'm not implying that he would be awarded with an endorsement contract; however, a Thank You note (or something similar) from the marketing department for him helping to increase product demand through his well-documented build thread is a realistic possibility.

______________________________________________________________

A RANT ON COPYRIGHT LAWS....

 

As a manufacturing manager by trade (NOT musical instruments), I've had to go to arbitration involving copyright laws. It's more common than you think; however, it's usually business-to-business (B2B) cases that make it to arbitration. The RARE cases involving an individual are more often due to something of a much larger scale, and usually settle out of court; here's why:

 

Copyright laws don't apply the way YOU THINK they should, they are complex guidelines written to protect a sole proprietorship or corporation from significant losses (or the potential thereof) from another individual or business unit encroaching upon proprietary products, designs, or concepts (intellectual property).

 

As such, they are EXTREMELY open to interpretation during arbitration. The burden rests on the plantiff to prove significant financial loss, loss of market share, or loss of competitive advantage (or the potential for any of those conditions to exist) due to the unlawful use of proprietary property (or other actions) from a third-party individual or entity.

 

As relates to fly_with_v:

 

Gibson, at best, could only prove the loss of sale (or potential loss), of one sales unit (or SKU), and that would apply only to the replica LP fly_with_v has in his possesion. That would be extremely difficult to prove.

 

Why? Because to even begin to make that claim, would be entirely dependent on Gibson being able to prove that had fly_with_v NOT made the replica, that he WOULD HAVE SURELY purchased one a NEW one FROM AN AUTHORIZED GIBSON DEALER and NOT a used Gibson LP from any third party OR that he wouldn't simply have bought another make/model (new or used) from any other source. Can you say impossible?

 

Remember, buying a used Gibson from any source, or buying any other new or used make/model from any other manufacturer does not constitute a loss of any kind (if it did, we'd all be in jail -I call top bunk you f_ckers!).

 

Even if Gibson pulled one out of their collective asses and managed to prove the loss of sale of one SKU (which I think we've established how difficult that would be), that would hardly consitute "signficant" losses, or enough loss to justify seeking legal relief. They'd simpy get laughed out of arbitration.

 

Regarding the use of the headstock design itself (and not simply possessing the guitar): again, see proving significant loss (or the potential thereof). Remember, it's been used only once in this case and that product was made for self-ownership - not for sale (I.E.- which, as such, could not constitute a "loss"); and has never, at any time, been represented as an authentic product. There has been no attempt to defraud, on any level, based on product design.

 

fly_with_v's case v. Gibson is actually much BETTER! He CAN prove an INCREASE in demand for Gibson's products through his actions.

 

It would basically go something like this:

 

Arbitrator: "So, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Gibson Counsel, I've reviewed your complaint and I see that you're seeking relief from Mr. fly_with_v's use of your propriety property. Is that correct?"

Gibson Counsel: "Yes."

Arbitrator: "I've also read the affidavits Mr. fly_with_v has submitted regarding the increase in product demand generated by his actions. I trust your group has reviewed these documents...do you dispute the validity of their contents?"

Gibson Counsel: "We cannot at this time."

Arbitrator: "Case dismissed."

 

And later when the presiding arbitator is out having beers with his colleagues:

 

Arbitrator (with buzz): "You're not gonna believe the stupid sh_t I went through today! Listen to this sh_t...."

 

-HOWEVER-

 

Gibson's case (and odds that they would pursue) increases greatly, if fly_with_v:

 

1. Starts putting serial numbers on his guitars, and/or including a Gibson case (real or fake) complete with the requisite case candy (also real or fake).

 

And then,

 

2. Starts to market & distribute the guitars described in item 1 as AUTHENTIC Gibsons, even if only locally - or by word-of-mouth.

 

While conditions 1&2 may not cause "significant loss", in themselves, the loss of competive advantage WOULD start to apply at this point and WILL start to raise eyebrows.

 

In summation: Gibson spending any of its time or resources as concerns fly_with_v, and his current state, would be equivalent to the State Attorney General utilizing the state's vast resources to nail your ass to the wall for the ticket you got for going 66mph in a 65mph zone. While there may be a case under the letter of the law, the actual interpretation and application of the law simpy wouldn't justify the use of such resources for a case that, most likely, will be dropped anyway.

 

/RANT

___________________________________________________________________

 

I do applaud and agree with your aggressive position regarding the counterfitting of quality guitars. I think we, as avid guitar enthusiasts, SHOULD be vigilant in stamping out such actions. We, ourselves, are the FIRST and BEST line of defense in preventing purposefully made, cheap knock-offs from getting into the hands of the naive, unsuspecting, and those that are less-educated at spotting fakes and counterfits. I, myself, WANT to be there to prevent that fresh-faced, wide-eyed teenage kid that saved up his McDonald's money from wasting it on the LP Custom he's found on CL for $250....

 

However, that condition simply didn't exist when Saul Hudson comissioned his LP copies to be made; nor does it apply to fly_with_v in his current state.

 

ROCK ON, BROTHERS!!!

[RaVenCAD]

Man, you need a new hobby.

 

And the "Slash > Fly" comment was based strictly on the fact that I own a Slash t-shirt, but have never heard of Fly outside this forum. You/he/anyone may be hot {censored} around here, but out there in the real world, that means jack. The idea that Gibson would ever approach someone and thank them for makig a replica.. Well that is just {censored}ing stupid. You are delusional and based on the length of your rant, far too self-important..

[terryd5150]

 

Man, you need a new hobby. And the "Slash > Fly" comment was based strictly on the fact that I own a Slash t-shirt, but have never heard of Fly outside this forum. You/he/anyone may be hot {censored} around here, but out there in the real world, that means jack. The idea that Gibson would ever approach someone and thank them for makig a replica.. Well that is just {censored}ing stupid. You are delusional and based on the length of your rant, far too self-important..

 

 

Slash is more well known that fly_with_v, I conceded that in my post.

 

The fact that you failed to grasp the common theme that both men generated interest in Gibson's products through creating a faithfully-detailed reproduction (and that NEITHER were considered "t-shirt worthy" when they made their copies) tends to suggest that you may be the "{censored}ing stupid" and "delusional" one.

[RaVenCAD]

 

Slash is more well known that fly_with_v, I conceded that in my post. The fact that you failed to grasp the common theme that both men generated interest in Gibson's products through creating a faithfully-detailed reproduction (and that NEITHER were considered "t-shirt worthy" when they made their copies) tends to suggest that you may be the "{censored}ing stupid" and "delusional" one.

 

 

If Fly gets very famous, he might someday get a deal. Until then, he just makes fake Gibsons. You're really comparing apples to tennis shoes though. Damn this conversation is about 4 days stale.

[terryd5150]

 

If Fly gets very famous, he might someday get a deal. Until then, he just makes fake Gibsons. You're really comparing apples to tennis shoes though. Damn this conversation is about 4 days stale.

 

 

It really has nothing to do with fly_with_v's status, or lack thereof.

 

The point of it all is that fly_with_v generated a lot of interest in Blueburst Gibson Les Pauls with his actions.

 

That's a far cry from counterfitting; Gibson would have no interest in taking legal action against him at this point.

[Steadfastly]

THE BEST blue guitar is one that has had the blue paint stripped off of it and finished with a proper colour for guitars like natural or a tinted stain or burst.