Gibson strikes again!

[Leo Thunder]

Granted, Gibson's attempt at re-canning worms is pretty silly, and they went about it in poor form. They'd have been a lot better off making a very, very soft statement just saying they appreciate that imitation is the highest form of flattery, but that doesn't pay the bills and a lot of people are making money off their designs.

Personally, I think it's incredibly lazy for a guitar builder to copy other's designs. If you can't come up with your own shape, at least be honest about it and negotiate a licensing fee. You're making money off their design - give them their due.
…
But people like their Gibson shaped guitars, and for some reason many feel that they have some sort of right to own one without paying Gibson's asking price.

Agreed with one limitation: a design is not a trademark and should not be owned forever and passed on further as a brand name can. The issue at stake is not counterfeiting Gibsons or Fenders or Rickenbacker, that would be the Chibson matter which no one disputes. Other brands are singing the Gibson or the Fender song and that's more in the spirit of copyright, which has a time limit.

 

[Kubicki Fan]

As long as small and large builders alike, operate within the confines of the law, then there should be peace in the "arena". Step too far over the line for too long, then maybe lawyer up or go straight. Whether or not there have been transgressions by either (or any) side can be determined in court, if need be.

The only thing that gets determined in court is who can afford court best.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I have a coworker whose last name is "Gibbons"...how long before Gibson sics their lawyers on him in order to force him to change his name?

I don't think they would monkey around with him like that.

 

[Bander]

The only thing that gets determined in court is who can afford court best.

And the lawyers and court employees win, no matter the outcome. Magnificent system that we willingly continue to make possible! <g>

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Agreed with one limitation: a design is not a trademark and should not be owned forever and passed on further as a brand name can. The issue at stake is not counterfeiting Gibsons or Fenders or Rickenbacker, that would be the Chibson matter which no one disputes. Other brands are singing the Gibson or the Fender song and that's more in the spirit of copyright, which has a time limit.

A design may indeed be a trademark, and additionally a design patent may be applied. If you do not seek protection for trademarked items, though, you lose protection, hence Fender cannot claim a trademark on what is an iconic headstock shape, even despite the Japanese 'lawsuit' era. I am not sure how those cases were settled but it may be that Tokai, etc. felt it was simpler to modify the shape rather than continue to fight it.

Whether Gibson, if it has not previously sought protection on designs used for seventy years I don't know, and whether it means they have a case, but for a small builder changing the headstock and maybe losing some sales might be pragmatic. I have a Les Paul copy that looks pretty close but the nearest I'd get to a Gibson would be one of nice Epiphones as guitar is a secondary instrument for me and the Gibson price too high. I could be tempted by a Grabber or Ripper but you don't see those for sale that often and I'm pretty used to the Fender style and have even had one with a humbucker in before and would probably get another 68 style Tele bass in preference (Squier VM)

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Agreed with one limitation: a design is not a trademark and should not be owned forever and passed on further as a brand name can. The issue at stake is not counterfeiting Gibsons or Fenders or Rickenbacker, that would be the Chibson matter which no one disputes. Other brands are singing the Gibson or the Fender song and that's more in the spirit of copyright, which has a time limit.

As noted before, you lose the right to a trademark if you do not enforce it, not so a copyright. If the Fender headstock were subject to copyright it would be protected another forty years, but as an unenforced trademark it has lapsed already AFAIK. Design patents are time limited, though, but trademark is related to brand recognition rather than function, so Apple can get time limited protection for some features of a phone but they are not sufficiently specific to be permanent but if iPhones were in the shape of the apple logo that would be under trademark. I believe that the shape of the classic coca cola bottle is a trademark. The four in a row headstock could have been a design patent, and the scroll type shape a trademark AFAIK

IANAL

 

[chris_b]

That's exactly what Gibson wants. Why make money on their own by selling quality products when then can just send the lawyers out to collect checks from people instead?

As I say, if Gibson own these designs and others want to use them, they should be setting up licence deals. This is the usual course of action in any other business concerning use of intellectual property. Of course they'll want to make money. They are a business in financial trouble and they have to put the company back on it's feet.

The old management left Gibson practically out of business so this is probably one of a thousand changes that are being made. As others have said, Gibson have to follow this up with a serious improvement in QC, but first they are taking back control of their designs. It's not pretty but it's absolutely understandable.

 

[NeonVomit]

The problem is if you don't bother protecting your designs for ~60 years, you can't suddenly try to claim that you're trying to protect them - cat's out of the bag, closing the gate after the horse has bolted, other animal-related metaphor. They've pretty much become public domain. They can threaten and bully all they want and with some smaller companies they might be able to get their way, but the larger ones like ESP, Cort and whatnot will tell them where they can stick it.

Rickenbacker have been consistent with aggressively protecting their IP and fair play to them - that's how you're supposed to do it.

 

[Leo Thunder]

Design patents are time limited, though, but trademark is related to brand recognition rather than function,

I understand the idea of a headstock shape being accepted as a trademark. By using them over several models, they become a recognisable sign of the brand itself. The body shape, on the other hand, is the product itself, not a "Gibson" signature the way the bottle shape is a Coca-Cola signature. People want a guitar looking like a V the same way they want a drink tasting like Coke or a pair of trousers looking like jeans. That's not a trademark in my understanding. Of course, they really want it to look like the original, and that's where some "copyright" regulation ought to apply.

 

[John Patten]

Perhaps it’s about licensing - if Gibson can establish it’s trademarks, patents and/or copyrights in court, they can then negotiate licensing right to these various manufacturers. Some will probably negotiate before going to court.

For a company in bankruptcy, it seems smart and necessary.

 

[Hounddog409]

The Volcano has been removed from the Reverend website.

Will Gibson have anything to say about the Thundergun?

you are making a bunch of assumptions here.

ever think this was just not selling?

 

[Wfrance3]

Wait... If I’m not mistaken, aren’t Gibson guitars made of wood? Quick, someone prove who patented that first and then we’re done here.

 

[gregmon79]

I commented to my buddy, who is also a bassist and Gibson lover (the basses he has anyway) and I remarked that I can't believe Gibson is even still around. I watched a brief history on YT the other day and it very scarcely outlined how they came up and what they've done over the decades. I just kept thinking to myself, how the hell did this company ever get anywhere?! They've made so many horrible decisions over the years. It's like they tried to not listen to good judgement. Idk, I've never really been a huge Gibson fan, but I do think they can make some of the finest instruments on the planet on a larger scale. OR rather, they can and have but not always. I still would like to get an EB4 one day (like a 2015 or so) and a Ripper. I won't go so far as to say I don't like them or will boycott them. But man, they have really made some nutty decisions over the years. It's still surprising to see they have such a loyal following. So they must've done some things right with all that said. But this recent stuff just seems like another one of those bad decisions in the long line over the years.

 

[Green Knight]

Gibson has profited over the decades by allowing other companies to ape their products, in that the importance of the Explorer, SG, and others to the evolution of the guitar is precisely what has enabled said designs to become iconic in the first place. Often, but now always, the moneyed player will gravitate towards the original brand. If I may mix metaphors, trying to put the genie back in the bottle all these years later strikes me as a case of having your cake and eating it too. Not a lawyer.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

I'll be surprised if there's any earth shaking decline in Gibson fanhood among guitar players. Too much good history, too much momentum. Could just end up being a tempest in a teapot, in the end.

Ibanez restored their sullied reputation (and then some) after years of stealing designs back in the day. Any harm done to Gibson's image (by Gibson themselves) can easily be overcome.

I agree. Gibson makes some of the best guitars, both acoustic and electric, but has never really made it with their basses.

 

[Leo Thunder]

Gibson has profited over the decades by allowing other companies to ape their products, in that the importance of the Explorer, SG, and others to the evolution of the guitar is precisely what has enabled said designs to become iconic in the first place.

I'm afraid this is not the case. At all. Just the wishful thinking of those who hope for a justification to their free sharing wishes, like saying that sharing music or anything on the Internet leads to more people buying the original. It doesn't.

Gibson made its fame in a time when it was not heavily copied. The Les Paul was made into an icon by Clapton and his colleagues in the mid 60s, who bought them used when they were no longer produced after going out of fashion. They had been in the lower half of the price range all along, by the way, just like the Strat', which is why they became popular while the more expensive Gibson and Fender models remained more marginal. The same Clapton also bought his Strat's used and I suppose Hendrix did just the same (or you'd think he'd bought left-handed models). Copies of these models came long after the fame, of course, sometime in the 1970s.

 

[Green Knight]

I see your point regarding the origins of Gibson's iconic status and happily accept correction. Thank you!

The only thing I would quibble with here is the comparison between consuming copies of music and consuming copies of guitars. From the consumer's point of view, there is no cultural capital to be gained by purchasing an original CD. On the other hand, there is plenty of cultural capital in purchasing an original Gibson or Fender.

I'm afraid this is not the case. At all. Just the wishful thinking of those who hope for a justification to their free sharing wishes, like saying that sharing music or anything on the Internet leads to more people buying the original. It doesn't.

Gibson made its fame in a time when it was not heavily copied. The Les Paul was made into an icon by Clapton and his colleagues in the mid 60s, who bought them used when they were no longer produced after going out of fashion. They had been in the lower half of the price range all along, by the way, just like the Strat', which is why they became popular while the more expensive Gibson and Fender models remained more marginal. The same Clapton also bought his Strat's used and I suppose Hendrix did just the same (or you'd think he'd bought left-handed models). Copies of these models came long after the fame, of course, sometime in the 1970s.

 

[jd56hawk]

you are making a bunch of assumptions here.

ever think this was just not selling?

Actually, I'm making no assumptions.
This is from a Joe Naylor Facebook post.

 

[Dynacord]

These look like basses to me.

Yes. And not hard to understand that precedents set by Gibson *if* they are successful could have ramifications for other producers and basses more specifically.

Why the Thundergun? What Gibson design is the Thundergun derived from?

At least the Volcano is unmistakedly a take on the Gibson Flying V. Easy to see why Reverend might want to dodge a bullet, vis-a-vis all the recent litigation hubbub.

But the Thundergun? What am I missing here?

I'm guessing he's referring to the raised center section which is a characteristic of Thunderbirds and Firebirds. (No idea if Gibson has asserted a claim to that detail or not.)

 

[jd56hawk]

Exactly.
I don't think Reverend will stop making them, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the people at Gibson were considering it.
Why? Because that's how you do it, put in claim after claim after claim and hope for the best.
Let's face it, they're suing for this, and to tell the truth, I hope the judge laughs them out of the court on this one.