When Fender imitates Fender

[SustainerPlayer]

Another “Mother”?

"It seems Fender has made a guitar that has a striking resemblance to Mother...down to the 50's pin-up sticker on the back (go figure). This is extra suspicious as Fender had my guitar at their custom shop for a repair last March. My friends at Fender say this is simply a coincidence; that they did not copy my guitar. Seems all I can do is take their word for it, BUT..." - Philip Sayce

READ MORE IN ABOVE LINK

:icon_scratch:

 

[reluctant-builder]

I assume the one on the left is the copy because its "wear" is more eye-pleasing ... seriously, though, how the hell does someone beat a guitar so thoroughly to shit? Does he play it with a belt-sander?

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Strange indeed.  But curiously, I believe yours inspired theirs but I don't think you have a case.  The sticker would be the only tell tale.  A solid color over a botched Sunburst, it is known Fender did these.  This is just a relic of one of those with a sticker on it.  Fender (maybe Squier) is selling a non pickguarded Sunburst fretless J Bass.  It screams Jaco to me, but you'll find no such description.  Thusly, Jaco's estate gets nothing from it.  If yours had a non-Fender color or some strange mod, it would be more blatant.  As is, you have a well worn Fender with a sticker on it.

 

[Tonar8352]

how the hell does someone beat a guitar so thoroughly to shite?

Watch some clips of him playing on YouTube and you will understand how that thing got played to death. Phillip Sayce is worth taking a look at.

 

[Nightclub Dwight]

I don't see it.  They are both beat to heck, but its not an exact copy.  I just can't understand why someone would pay good money for a reliced guitar. 

 

[line6man]

Strange indeed.  But curiously, I believe yours inspired theirs but I don't think you have a case.  The sticker would be the only tell tale.  A solid color over a botched Sunburst, it is known Fender did these.  This is just a relic of one of those with a sticker on it.  Fender (maybe Squier) is selling a non pickguarded Sunburst fretless J Bass.  It screams Jaco to me, but you'll find no such description.  Thusly, Jaco's estate gets nothing from it.  If yours had a non-Fender color or some strange mod, it would be more blatant.  As is, you have a well worn Fender with a sticker on it.

You're thinking of the Squier VMJ fretless. The Fender versions are both sold as signature models. :blob7:

 

[llmtelecaster]

That is the most beautifully worn strat I have ever seen.

 

[SustainerPlayer]

Just to clarify. I am not Philip Sayce: I've just linked to the story. Sorry for not making that clear enough in my OP.

I just linked to the story to hear other opinions about this as I am more than a little puzzled about the idea of "ownership" of a "worn finish".

 

[Cagey]

I just linked to the story to hear other opinions about this as I am more than a little puzzled about the idea of "ownership" of a "worn finish".

Claiming ownership of ideas and situations has become another national pastime here, second only to placing blame. What's wild is that while none of that silliness is actionable, a surprising number of people are lining lawyer's pockets by filing suits they can't possibly win.

 

[dNA]

Even if i was wholly convinced that Fender did copy your strat, and that it was their deliberate intention to duplicate it exactly, it wouldn't mean anything to me. Unless you specifically DESIGNED that kind of wear-n-tear and had it with the deliberate intention of creating something that you were going to market, I don't see any level of ownership over the way it looks. It'd be a whole other thing if you bought a strat, reliced it to that exact spec, and before you sent it in for copywriting you had it worked on by somebody who stole your idea.

 

[Cagey]

Even if i was wholly convinced that Fender did copy your strat, and that it was their deliberate intention to duplicate it exactly, it wouldn't mean anything to me. Unless you specifically DESIGNED that kind of wear-n-tear and had it with the deliberate intention of creating something that you were going to market, I don't see any level of ownership over the way it looks. It'd be a whole other thing if you bought a strat, reliced it to that exact spec, and before you sent it in for copywriting you had it worked on by somebody who stole your idea.

No, it wouldn't be different at all. Not any more than saying the wear pattern on your disc brake rotors or tennis shoes or baseball mitt is unique and therefore yours. Geez! Can you imagine? Nothing would be sacred. Copyright, trademarks and patents already go much too far.

 

[SustainerPlayer]

I reserve all rights to this thread.  :icon_jokercolor:

 

[dNA]

No, it wouldn't be different at all. Not any more than saying the wear pattern on your disc brake rotors or tennis shoes or baseball mitt is unique and therefore yours. Geez! Can you imagine? Nothing would be sacred. Copyright, trademarks and patents already go much too far.

So you don't believe in any kind of intellectual property? I don't know if you misread what I wrote or something. I'm talking about the difference between something that happen by chance and something that was conceived in a persons mind and deliberately created or designed as such.

 

[Cagey]

Of course I do. I just don't think every fired neuron constitutes it.