It's too much trouble to quote two posters at the same time so I'll just wing it here as best I can...
Let me begin with saying that if any of you believe that I don't understand this subject, I should point out that I've been a commercial designer and graphic artist for 24 years. I've had dozens of designs copyrighted, and protected in other ways in dozens of fields of endeavor. I've had designs copied, forged, distributed, and stolen. I've also been on the other end and have run afoul of rights holders. Nothing serious. So I don't take the subject of intellectual property and it's ownership lightly.
pilotjones said:
To me the damage is in having something you've created, developed, deliberated, prototyped, and agonized over, taken from you. And that refers not only to the finished basses, but to the design itself. You choose to use established designs - great for you. But in my experience, having only drawn and revised some designs, not even getting 1/4 of the way to realizing them as JP has done, that it is a personal process, and that some of your "self" goes into it. And that is what was taken without permission.
Your understanding of the design process and how it comes about is pretty much right on. Taking it as you've stated, the question that begs answering is that if JP felt that connected and wanted to protect that aspect of his work, why didn't he choose to protect the design? My point is that I view JP's lament as after the fact whining when he realized his work could be copied without permission. He should, in fact, be flattered at the mimicry and immediately go out and begin work to protect that design and any other he feels valuable enough to cover.
The examples you cite are basically functional designs. The are functional solutions to problems, and are patentable, for a limited time period, as such. I hold the design process to be different, largely in its aesthetic-artistic nature. You may disagree. Personally I get enjoyment from various aesthetics, and even if they are not legally protected, I feel that there is some respect to be paid.
One of the last examples I cited (the P shape) is having it's form protected by Fender precisely because of it's "design" and not because of it's function. I think Eugene DID pay respect to JP, indirectly at first by copying his design and then directly by displaying it posted with the reason he copied his design. All of the posts right after Eugenes post honored JP in recognizing the shape as JP's.
JP,
First, I assumed that Eugene was in the US. I didn't look at his profile. The point stands - nothing enforceable here.
Ty has it right. I would have been much more impressed with your response had you congratulated Eugene on the build and considered it flattering that he chose your shape over others for the reason he did. Eugene's choice of your shape bodes well for your all of your work. It will be copied because of it's quality. You should actually get used to this and IMO ease up on any individual that wants a shape like yours. If that design means as much to you to cause you to admonish a fan, I would also get thee to a lawyer and get this stuff tied down to you. You're in the international business world now and you should have your ducks in a row for purposes of protecting your work. If you don't, you'll be relegated to the big heap of good ideas and good execution going down the tubes for poor business management.
Nothing to worry about except the fact that someone liked my design well enough to put hours upon hours of work into it to make as close to an exact copy as MY original. 
