ANNOUNCEMENT: Gibson styled products

[swarfrat]

I really hope to see those new body shapes goming out soon.

I don't know how sudden this lawsuit by Gibson was, but where is Warmoth in terms of giving an estimate for release of the revised body shapes? Weeks? Months? Years?

It probably takes awhile considering that if it's going to be based off of other companies' works they'd need to get an agreement and whatnot, but I wish they would just go with Guild since I'd think that because Fender owns them all the models from Guild should be up for grabs.

Guild cutaway is ever so slightly more open, and sharper at the cusp. But it still looks good - I've already said they should just call em Nightbirds.

 

[bluestometal]

I think for most folks this is a good announcement. I see no reason to copy Gibson products because the shape is so generic, so you build a custom guitar that looks so similar to Gibson products and Gibsons own Epiphone.  So when I see you play your guitar, I assume it is a knock off and worth $100. On the other hand,  by altering the shape and putting some personality into it, it has echos of a Lp or ? but reflects your personality.

I sort of see what you're saying, but I also think the quality of the tops/finishes from Warmoth make it pretty clear that these aren't some cheap knock-off from China or something. I mean, just look at the last 6-7 builds in the LP thread, and it's clear that those are all VERY nice instruments.

Whenever I see a pic of a guitar body or neck showing a very distinct and quality look I'm always NOT surprised to read it's a Warmoth. Really, just think at an Explorer shaped guitar featuring a Mahogany/Bubigna body and a Maple/Ebony neck with the quality and look of the Warmoth woods. I can onkly think to ESP doing it for 5k euros (about 6-7k us dollars) but you'll never be able to touch or check it before it's done in about an year.

 

[Unrepresented]

If you still want clone bodies , you can always get a blank and carve your own .. it's not that hard

I live in an apartment, and kitchen utensils would be the closest thing I'd have for shaping the body. I don't have the tools, the space, or the experience to do it safely or effectively.

Plus, I like the the idea that they can deliver a painted body which eliminates further opportunities for me to mess up several hundred dollars of otherwise happy wood.

 

[bluestometal]

If you still want clone bodies , you can always get a blank and carve your own .. it's not that hard

I live in an apartment, and kitchen utensils would be the closest thing I'd have for shaping the body. I don't have the tools, the space, or the experience to do it safely or effectively.

Plus, I like the the idea that they can deliver a painted body which eliminates further opportunities for me to mess up several hundred dollars of otherwise happy wood.

Custom guitar parts producers have always cloned/duplicated/refered to "the big two", that's why the're custom parts/replacement producers and not guitar/bass producers. Of course Warmoth's something more than a 2 persons custom shop selling in door so I can perfectly understrand why Gibson pulled the trigger but I think something like a "copyrights upcharge" on explorer and Lp's bodies and necks would've been better. Yeah, a blank body could solve the thing from a point of view but if I take my hard earned money and give it to Mr. Warmoth it's not to play the happy carpenter in my living room but to buy a piece of pro-quality, perfectly made and finished wood in the shape and function of a guitar body or neck. I know a lot of us can do that, know how to do that and reach extremely good results but, if Warmoth is what it is, that's for the quality of the finished product (and that's what itched Gibson's a**). Again, I really can't wait to see Warmoth's new designs to replace the "incriminated" ones.

 

[Ace Flibble]

(and that's what itched Gibson's a**).

No, this is a basic case of trademark law having to be enforced because if they don't chase up every and any infringement they lose the rights to their designs.

It's really very simple and I don't know why so many people don't 'get it'. If you make something, trademark/copyright it, and expect to maintain ownership of it, you have to challenge anybody that comes along and tries to use it without your permission. It's irrelevant if they do it well, poorly, expensively, cheaply, if they're a big company or a tiny one-man operation based in a garden shed. If you can be proved to have knowingly ignored an infringement on your trademark/copyright, you lose the rights to [whatever the thing is].

So, Gibson have to take action against operations like Warmoth. They literally have to, otherwise they lose their designs and then the Chinese knock-offs become just as legit as the stuff coming out of Gibson's own factory. If anything, they have been remarkably calm about it by taking so long to put the pressure on.

 

[bagman67]

(and that's what itched Gibson's a**).

No, this is a basic case of trademark law having to be enforced because if they don't chase up every and any infringement they lose the rights to their designs.

It's really very simple and I don't know why so many people don't 'get it'. If you make something, trademark/copyright it, and expect to maintain ownership of it, you have to challenge anybody that comes along and tries to use it without your permission. It's irrelevant if they do it well, poorly, expensively, cheaply, if they're a big company or a tiny one-man operation based in a garden shed. If you can be proved to have knowingly ignored an infringement on your trademark/copyright, you lose the rights to [whatever the thing is].

So, Gibson have to take action against operations like Warmoth. They literally have to, otherwise they lose their designs and then the Chinese knock-offs become just as legit as the stuff coming out of Gibson's own factory. If anything, they have been remarkably calm about it by taking so long to put the pressure on.

Well put.  At least with respect to players in the same market, anyway.  At the same time, there are folks who are overdoing it.  For example, Monster Cable has a nasty habit of going after folks in completely different industries, too (auto repair?  really?) - but it's just a matter of policing far more aggressively than necessary to make sure everyone knows they're serious.  Helps keep the prices high, and the margins fat.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I think everyone gets it.  Doesn't mean we have to like it.

 

[bluestometal]

(and that's what itched Gibson's a**).

No, this is a basic case of trademark law having to be enforced because if they don't chase up every and any infringement they lose the rights to their designs.

It's really very simple and I don't know why so many people don't 'get it'. If you make something, trademark/copyright it, and expect to maintain ownership of it, you have to challenge anybody that comes along and tries to use it without your permission. It's irrelevant if they do it well, poorly, expensively, cheaply, if they're a big company or a tiny one-man operation based in a garden shed. If you can be proved to have knowingly ignored an infringement on your trademark/copyright, you lose the rights to [whatever the thing is].

So, Gibson have to take action against operations like Warmoth. They literally have to, otherwise they lose their designs and then the Chinese knock-offs become just as legit as the stuff coming out of Gibson's own factory. If anything, they have been remarkably calm about it by taking so long to put the pressure on.

I work in the entertainment industry and there's no such thing as "if you ignore someone using your copyrighted property  then you cannot blame others to use that and you loose your rights over that thing". You don't "have to" but you "can do" 'cause it's your right. There're thousands of exemple out there of maintream big companies allowing everybody to use, in a respectful or apreciable way, their copyrighted properties (I work for some of those and, in some case, I am one of those) and others cases where the same companies go after some guy for specific (rightful) reasons 'cause they "want" and "can", not 'cause they "have to".

I think everyone gets it.  Doesn't mean we have to like it.

That's it, pretty simple. Thanks.

 

[Cagey]

I work in the entertainment industry and there's no such thing as "if you ignore someone using your copyrighted property  then you cannot blame others to use that and you loose your rights over that thing".

He's making the same mistake a lot of people do by equating copyright and trademark when they're not the same thing at all. You're right; you don't have to assert/defend copyright to hold on to it. It's your choice whether you do or not, of course, but not doing so doesn't change your rights. Trademark is different. You do have to defend that, or lose your claim to it. Another difference is copyright is designed more to allow the creator a reasonable amount of time to enjoy commercialization of their work and provide for the expansion of the arts, while trademark is really designed to protect the consumer. It prevents confusion of origin. In other words, if it says "Kleenex" on the box, then I know it came from Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., not some fly-by-night outfit that knows nothing about wiping snot.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Fender waited 40 years to try and trademark/copyright, which ever is correct, their bodies.  As a result, anyone and everyone copies their bodies legally.  The headstock is the only protected part.

 

[bluestometal]

I work in the entertainment industry and there's no such thing as "if you ignore someone using your copyrighted property  then you cannot blame others to use that and you loose your rights over that thing".

He's making the same mistake a lot of people do by equating copyright and trademark when they're not the same thing at all. You're right; you don't have to assert/defend copyright to hold on to it. It's your choice whether you do or not, of course, but not doing so doesn't change your rights. Trademark is different. You do have to defend that, or lose your claim to it. Another difference is copyright is designed more to allow the creator a reasonable amount of time to enjoy commercialization of their work and provide for the expansion of the arts, while trademark is really designed to protect the consumer. It prevents confusion of origin. In other words, if it says "Kleenex" on the box, then I know it came from Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., not some fly-by-night outfit that knows nothing about wiping snot.

Thanks 

 

[Ace Flibble]

I work in the entertainment industry and there's no such thing as "if you ignore someone using your copyrighted property  then you cannot blame others to use that and you loose your rights over that thing".

He's making the same mistake a lot of people do by equating copyright and trademark when they're not the same thing at all. You're right; you don't have to assert/defend copyright to hold on to it. It's your choice whether you do or not, of course, but not doing so doesn't change your rights. Trademark is different. You do have to defend that, or lose your claim to it. Another difference is copyright is designed more to allow the creator a reasonable amount of time to enjoy commercialization of their work and provide for the expansion of the arts, while trademark is really designed to protect the consumer. It prevents confusion of origin. In other words, if it says "Kleenex" on the box, then I know it came from Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., not some fly-by-night outfit that knows nothing about wiping snot.

Yes and no. I realise now that of course most of you (and, in this case, the subject of Warmoth) are in America, where there is a more distinct difference between how you can/must defend trademarks and copyright. Here in the UK (as well as in many other EU countries) they're more or less the same thing and which is applicable—and therefore the small variations in law—come down to what the subject is (writing, video, physical product, logo, tune, etc).

So, yes. For America, forget that I used the term 'copyright', just replace all instances of that word with 'trademark'.

 

[bluestometal]

I work in the entertainment industry and there's no such thing as "if you ignore someone using your copyrighted property  then you cannot blame others to use that and you loose your rights over that thing".

He's making the same mistake a lot of people do by equating copyright and trademark when they're not the same thing at all. You're right; you don't have to assert/defend copyright to hold on to it. It's your choice whether you do or not, of course, but not doing so doesn't change your rights. Trademark is different. You do have to defend that, or lose your claim to it. Another difference is copyright is designed more to allow the creator a reasonable amount of time to enjoy commercialization of their work and provide for the expansion of the arts, while trademark is really designed to protect the consumer. It prevents confusion of origin. In other words, if it says "Kleenex" on the box, then I know it came from Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., not some fly-by-night outfit that knows nothing about wiping snot.

Yes and no. I realise now that of course most of you (and, in this case, the subject of Warmoth) are in America, where there is a more distinct difference between how you can/must defend trademarks and copyright. Here in the UK (as well as in many other EU countries) they're more or less the same thing and which is applicable—and therefore the small variations in law—come down to what the subject is (writing, video, physical product, logo, tune, etc).

So, yes. For America, forget that I used the term 'copyright', just replace all instances of that word with 'trademark'.

I'm from Italy  :blob7:

 

[Ace Flibble]

Huh, then for you, copyright and trademark shouldn't be that different in enforcement (though yes, they do apply to different subjects; I should clarify that I wasn't meaning to imply that both apply to Gibson's products). I've had to deal with publishing some stuff in Italy and from what I remember, application of term aside, the actual enforcement of both laws was more or less the same. Though, granted, in my case we were dealing with old media.

 

[swarfrat]

Legal advice from strangers on internet is one thing, but if someone in the entertainment industry told me the sky was blue, I'd go check, then check my bank draft to make sure they hadn't placed a lean on my account for illegal viewing of the blue sky.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet.

 

[bluestometal]

:laughing7:

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet.

 

[jay4321]

I see this as an excellent opportunity for Warmoth to consider some of the repeated requests that they've been unable to attend to. Things such as:

AANJ style necks and designs
Wine red paint
An improved 12-string headstock
Headstock binding
Purfing
Decal print and application services for Warmoth-original headstock designs
A big semi-hollow style (if only aesthetically serving the purpose)

 

[Updown]

And then there was 45 LP's left.
Funny one just popped up the other day.  :icon_scratch:
I'm betting one of the last to go out the door, will be the Lemon Drop Metallic Finish.  :tard: ......... And theres 2 of them  :doh:

Wonder if SC1 means .... Single Cut & the DC1 means Double Cut  :dontknow:

 

[Jumble Jumble]

Ah, Sherlock, we've been expecting you.