Houston, We Have a Fake (me thinks)

[prowla]

This is one of mine...

 

[sleddogn]

from one of his other listings, must be fun to tune this one
View attachment 4801848

and this is listed as excellent condition, look at the back of bass in pics, waaaaaaay from excellent. wish reverb would shut this seller down completely....

 

[Bass Viking]

(imho) putting a different brand of decal on a bass that isn't of that brand is really silly. Kinda like putting a DeWalt decal on a Harbor Freight power tool. However, there isn't really anything wrong with it unless they try to sell it as something that it is not.

+1. And I’ll bet most people don’t remove the fake decal when selling.

 

[Mister Magic]

Whatever people do in their own bedrooms is their business; if they want to put a vanity logo on their prized Squeer bass then it's up to them.
However, when they offer it for sale with that unauthorised trademarked logo on it they are breaking the law, regardless whether they "honestly" disclose it to the buyer or not.
The argument that there is no harm done by releasing an upbranded instrument into the wild fails because the original seller, no matter how honest their intentions, does not have any say in how ongoing owners choose to proceed going forward and whether subsequent buyers get taken in by it.
All that said though, the likelihood of Fender going after an individual for infringing their intellectual property is infinitesimally small.

For a bit of light relief, this is one I bought at a car boot sale a couple of years ago; I'm still in the process of getting it stripped and refinished.
View attachment 4802439

Had no idea this was illegal.

Regarding the “no harm done” argument…

What if I sell a used car to someone and disclose that the transmission will soon fail, though the issue is likely undetectable to the buyer A. Buyer A purchases car and resells to new buyer B without disclosing the issue and buyer B believes the car to be sound.

Regarding only the “no harm done” principle, how is that any different?

I see no moral dilemma with swapping out logos (Brand X for Brand Y) if it is disclosed. I have never nor would I ever do that, though, because I also think it’s kinda silly. If it is known and willfully isn’t disclosed then it is obviously deceptive.

Hold deceptive people accountable for their actions.

I say all this having been a victim of a fake Fender scam a long time ago.

 

[Bass Viking]

Had no idea this was illegal.

Regarding the “no harm done” argument…

What if I sell a used car to someone and disclose that the transmission will soon fail, though the issue is likely undetectable to the buyer A. Buyer A purchases car and resells to new buyer B without disclosing the issue and buyer B believes the car to be sound.

Regarding only the “no harm done” principle, how is that any different?

I see no moral dilemma with swapping out logos (Brand X for Brand Y) if it is disclosed. I have never nor would I ever do that, though, because I also think it’s kinda silly. If it is known and willfully isn’t disclosed then it is obviously deceptive.

Hold deceptive people accountable for their actions.

I say all this having been a victim of a fake Fender scam a long time ago.

Disclosing a fake logo isn’t good enough. Remove the logo when you sell.

Regarding the car analogy, doesn’t the car have to undergo some kind of safety inspection before it can be sold?

 

[Texican]

“I just don’t understand why…” (insert rude, judgmental, or even hateful comment to a stranger from the safety of your keyboard or smart phone)


Boy you sure do gotta love human nature!

 

[prowla]

Had no idea this was illegal.

Regarding the “no harm done” argument…

What if I sell a used car to someone and disclose that the transmission will soon fail, though the issue is likely undetectable to the buyer A. Buyer A purchases car and resells to new buyer B without disclosing the issue and buyer B believes the car to be sound.

Regarding only the “no harm done” principle, how is that any different?

I see no moral dilemma with swapping out logos (Brand X for Brand Y) if it is disclosed. I have never nor would I ever do that, though, because I also think it’s kinda silly. If it is known and willfully isn’t disclosed then it is obviously deceptive.

Hold deceptive people accountable for their actions.

I say all this having been a victim of a fake Fender scam a long time ago.

I don't get the faulty car analogy; it's a different matter.
The act of you selling a car to A with disclosed faults is not illegal, further A selling it on to B without disclosing them is not illegal either (unless they say there are no faults).
In contrast, the act of selling a guitar with a fake trademark on it is, both you to A (trademark law) and A to B (trademark law and fraud).

 

[Mister Magic]

I don't get the faulty car analogy; it's a different matter.
The act of you selling a car to A with disclosed faults is not illegal, further A selling it on to B without disclosing them is not illegal either (unless they say there are no faults).
In contrast, the act of selling a guitar with a fake trademark on it is, both you to A (trademark law) and A to B (trademark law and fraud).

Which is why I used the term "moral" and not "legal". I'm not going to go into the distinction between the two.

And in some circumstances it would be illegal to sell the vehicle without disclosing the issue. But, it was implied that the legal aspect of it was removed from the scenario. See the post I was quoting for context.

From a MORAL standpoint--as I previously stated very clearly--I have no qualms with it.

Honestly, this isn't really a battle worth fighting any more than I already have. I'm not salty over it, just hit my threshold. Ha.

 

[Texican]

I don't get the faulty car analogy; it's a different matter.
The act of you selling a car to A with disclosed faults is not illegal, further A selling it on to B without disclosing them is not illegal either (unless they say there are no faults).
In contrast, the act of selling a guitar with a fake trademark on it is, both you to A (trademark law) and A to B (trademark law and fraud).

I believe the analogy was in response to an earlier post that basically implied that it was unethical to sell the bass to someone even if you disclosed the fact that it’s not a real Fender, because you couldn’t be sure that the new owner wouldn’t withhold that information when reselling it. In that regard, the analogy was spot on perfect. Keep in mind that the context was ethics, not legality.

 

[Texican]

Which is why I used the term "moral" and not "legal". I'm not going to go into the distinction between the two.

From a MORAL standpoint--as I previously stated very clearly--I have no qualms with it.

Honestly, this isn't really a battle worth fighting any more than I already have.

You posted this while I was still typing my response, but clearly I got where you were coming from, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

 

[GreyBeard]

There is neither Fender nor Nash parts on the bass in the OP. Its a Squier VM with awful fake logo.

My post was in reply to Eighthnoterock and not the OP

 

[Dragan]

My post was in reply to Eighthnoterock and not the OP

I didn't catch all that
Cheers!

 

[Yrag]

This is going on my franken bass soon this ok?

 

[Texican]

View attachment 4803032 This is going on my franken bass soon this ok?

That’s pretty damn cool! Where did you get that if you don’t mind me asking?

 

[Yrag]

That’s pretty damn cool! Where did you get that if you don’t mind me asking?

Two FRANKEN STEIN MONSTER BASS Waterslide Headstock Decals | eBay

I’m in the uk. I paid £2.99 for two!!

 

[Yrag]

FrankenBass

Check out my “fake” in the making

 

[prowla]

I believe the analogy was in response to an earlier post that basically implied that it was unethical to sell the bass to someone even if you disclosed the fact that it’s not a real Fender, because you couldn’t be sure that the new owner wouldn’t withhold that information when reselling it. In that regard, the analogy was spot on perfect. Keep in mind that the context was ethics, not legality.

As I pointed out though, it's a different thing - in fact almost the opposite:

1. The act of selling the instrument breaks Trademark law regardless whether you disclose or not (though disclosing perhaps complies with some sort of perceived moral ethics). Therefore the deception is in selling it without disclosing (actually, selling it without disclosing is counterfeiting).
   
2. OTOH, selling a car with faults is not illegal, regardless whether you disclose them or not; the only case it would be illegal is if you say there are no faults. Therefore selling it without disclosing is not illegal; the deception is if you actively lie (The car I bought has a problem what are my rights - Which?).

Another dissimilarity in the analogy is that:

1. The seller has actively changed the instrument to apply an unauthorised trademark.
2. Faults on a car typically occur due to use (or negligence) rather than deliberate actions; a more accurate analogy would be if the seller had deliberately introduced a fault (which would be a whole different matter).

If you want to restrict it only to the ethics aspect (I told you so it's all OK) then:

1. In the case of the instrument there is still an injured party, ie. Fender's IP has been infringed (it's up to you whether you wish to include that in the putative ethical code or not).
   
2. In the case of the car there are no injured parties (in fact some people buy doer-uppers).

I take your point though that the issue for buyers would require a deception on the part of the seller and the seller in this case cannot be responsible for the bonafides of ongoing owner/sellers.

That's the problem with analogies - by one interpretation they can be used to display a point, but by another they can be shown to do the opposite...

Me, the outcome of this is that I implicitly mistrust pretty much all Fender sales these days and I would always do due-diligence on buying; hopefully threads like these can appraise prospective buyers of the prospective pitfalls and lead them to making informed decisions.

 

[Bass Viking]

Me, the outcome of this is that I implicitly mistrust pretty much all Fender sales these days and I would always do due-diligence on buying; hopefully threads like these can appraise prospective buyers of the prospective pitfalls and lead them to making informed decisions.

+1. Fake Fender threads are a common occurrence around here.