Copying classic guitars doubt

[Artur pickupmaker]

Excuse me if the answer of this question is obvious for you, here in Brazil nobody is sure about it.

Is there any legal problem if I made a perfect copy of a classic model like Tele, Stratocaster or Les Paul, with exactly the same shape?

[David Schwab]

Not really. If you are going to sell them you have to change the shape of the headstock, since those are the trademarks of the makers. And of course you can't call them Fenders or Gibsons.

[Artur pickupmaker]

Thanks for answering, David.

I am starting to make guitars and pickups, first for me, but I am sure people will like it and I will make some ones for sell.
I plan to use different pickups, woods and pickguard shape, but people really like the shape of the body and headstock of the classic models. I will sell my instruments only in my country.

So, is there a legal obligation that forbids me to use the same body and headstock shape (remember, other parts will be different to the original, impossibiliting someone to sand the headstock logo to put the Fender logo, making a falsify)? If there is, it is appliable out of the USA?

[David Schwab]

You can use Fender's headstock shape if you pay a licensing fee. Otherwise they will come after you! Same for Gibson. And don't even try to copy anything on a Rickenbacker, unless it is for your own use.

This is the various makers business identity, so it's a trade-mark infringement issue, and very serious. They will take legal actions.

Obviously, there are a lot of Fender style (copy) guitars on the market, but they don't use the same headstock shape.

[Artur pickupmaker]

There must to have a rule for this.
If I make a headstock that is just 0,5 milimeter plus in a part, most people will not even notice it, can be considerated a different headstock?

I don't want to get problems because of this.

[Jeff Callahan]

I'm not sure if this is correct, but I think the peghead has look distinctly different from the original at a certain distance, say 40 feet. This is because if the shape is indistinguishable from that distance someone watching a guitarist on stage could think that they are in fact playing a certain brand of guitar. From what I've heard Gibson will go after you, Fender, maybe not.

You could always add a little "hook" to your peghead that could (after the sale) be sanded off. Saving your ass.

Edit: I think Gibson now has bigger legal issues to sort out. Maybe you could buy them off with some rosewood

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by Artur pickupmaker

There must to have a rule for this.
If I make a headstock that is just 0,5 milimeter plus in a part, most people will not even notice it, can be considerated a different headstock?

I don't want to get problems because of this.

If you use the same shape, or a shape that might be confused for a Fender, for example, you will get in trouble. All the companies that sell Fender style necks with the Fender head shape license this. This is why you see Stew-Mac selling paddle head necks. So you can do your own shape. You can do it exactly like a Strat if you wanted, but they can't sell if that way without giving Fender a fee. And you couldn't sell it either.

Take a look at Strat style guitars on the market, and see how they change the head.

The head shape is the builders trademark, so you should come up with something original.

Do you want to be "a fake Fender", or something that is your own?

[Jeff Callahan]

+1 for David's comment, I wasn't trying to suggest to copy fender or gibson, but just saying how many do it. I work for a parts supplier that makes bodies and necks for some builders, and many people shape their headstock so anyone with a block and sandpaper could sand it down to make it look original. Going with your own idea is a far better idea, especially if you are proud of your work.

I could be wrong, but doesn't Ed Roman sell a routing template to put the mustache on his LP copies?

Jeff

[Artur pickupmaker]

And what about use a name that remembers a known name?
A model of a certain brazilian guitar manufacturer is called "Stratosonic".

[Robert M. Martinelli]

Originally Posted by Artur pickupmaker

And what about use a name that remembers a known name?
A model of a certain brazilian guitar manufacturer is called "Stratosonic".

In this case that guitar manufacturer could be asking for trouble, because "Stratosonic" is not only reminiscent of a "Strat", but it also is the registered trade name of a true FMIC model, ( AFAICR much like a Strat with P90-like pickups which appeared in FMIC 2002-2003 catalog, along with its Tele-like "Telesonic" counterpart ).

Cheers

Bob

[Artur pickupmaker]

Yes, but this manufacturer makes this model since the 60's or 70's, as their "super-sonics", that are like a Jaguar with 3 single coils.
If they had registered it in the 70's, they can impede other manufacturers to use this names?

Can I make a "Tele-something", been "something" a new and non registered name, or the prefix "Tele" is enought to get trouble?

[David Schwab]

"Strat" and "Tele" are registered trademarks, and you can't use them.

Why not just come up with your own name?

This would be like a band playing music that sounds like another band, and having a name with part of the other bands name in it, as well we the song titles.

Just use some originality.

[Jag]

Frankly, regardless of how great a guitar might be, if it looked like a knock-off and the name sounded similar to a major brand, I wouldn't be able to get past the "counterfeit" stigma.

If you build a grerat guitar, and have the confidence to put your own brand on them (headstock, model and brand name) I'm more interested.

If the body is a Strat, Tele, LP, PRS, etc. shape, that won't turn me off as long as the logo and headstock don't look like obvious attempt to mislead!

Be proud of your work and put your own twist on it!

[bosrocker51]

individuals and companies copy Fender and Gibson bodies every day. Unless you get famous for it, you will probably have no problems.

"Max" made 1959 LP Standard copies and got into trouble with Gibson because - he's in the USA, and he documented online how he did it. His copies are dead ringers for 1959 LP Stds and go for $15L+. Original 59 LP Std go for $85K+

Gibson sued him.

but - I have a Tele copy and a couple of LP Custom copies made in asia - Gibson has done nothing to deter asian manufacturers from building copies - admittedly, the LP Custom copies do not say Gibson on the headstock, and they don't have a moustache top - it's rounded.

Best of luck - I'd love to see your work... take care

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by bosrocker51

...and they don't have a moustache top - it's rounded.

That's where you missed the boat. Gibson can only go after you if you use the "open book" design for the headstock. Same is true of Fender. You can copy a Strat and sell it. Just don't copy the headstock. You have to draw the line between a guitar based on a Strat or LP and a counterfeit.

But the real question is why would you want to copy a guitar? Why not just paint Mono Lisas on the street corner or play other people's music and call it your own.

Just be original. You don't see Fender making LPs or Gibson making Teles. (The Gibson Hendrix model not withstanding)

[Vihar]

Originally Posted by David Schwab

You don't see Fender making LPs or Gibson making Teles. (The Gibson Hendrix model not withstanding)

Really?

Gibson Valley Arts Guitars: Electric Bass Custom Guitar Shop and Online Store, Guitar Video, Pictures and Specs

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by Vihar

Really?

Gibson Valley Arts Guitars: Electric Bass Custom Guitar Shop and Online Store, Guitar Video, Pictures and Specs

But that's Valley Arts Guitars. Yes, Gibson bought them, but that's not Gibson. And they don't have Fender headstocks.

[Vihar]

Originally Posted by David Schwab

But that's Valley Arts Guitars. Yes, Gibson bought them, but that's not Gibson. And they don't have Fender headstocks.

Look at the url noobie, you failed. Just admit it.

www dot GIBSON dot com

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by Vihar

Look at the url noobie, you failed. Just admit it.

www dot GIBSON dot com

I failed? You can't read! I said Gibson bought Valley Arts, but Valley Arts is not Gibson. Valley Arts has been making Fender copies for years.


Valley Arts Guitar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kepeb]

ha,
interesting topic, i might just poke in and agree with the main point tho.
you should be original imo, the best you can do with a copy guitar is that... copy it. do something original. i would be far more inclined to punt more cash into a nice esoteric or 'original' guitar than a copy. in fact i avoid the ones that look like major brands on purpose. make you look unoriginal.

i think you would make about the same in profit selling cheap copies or nice originals with a little higher price tag. i know which i would prefer.

on a related note, its interesting that so many guitarists need to have original/stock/official instruments yet choose to spent all their time playing other peoples music. it's either hypocrisy or contradictory but happens.

[Artur pickupmaker]

Me and other people like Strat and Tele, they are classic models. I would like to make some for me and people would pay for me to do it for them. I'm just starting to make guitars, when I became profissional I will design my own models.

Well, it seem to have no problem to make some copies of this models since I will not fake the logo in the headstock and I live far from the USA.

I have seen a Gibson Stratocaster and Epiphone Teles (very bad Teles), if even this companies make copies I can make too.

[overdrive]

Looking back, didn't Gibson once try to sue PRS over the LP single cutaway style body? They failed. Decades ago (1970s), CF Martin had a cease & desist ruling on the old Takamine acoustic guitar that resembled a D-18 right down to the hilarious "Takemine & Company, Est. 1965" headstock lettering.

I suspect that body-style copying is generally acceptable. Afterall, how many different acoustic dreadnaught or electric guitar body styles can you come up with at this stage of the game? With the possible exception of some of the famous Gibson deviations or the outlandish death metal offerings, just about every guitar shares some sort of similarity whether it be ergonomic or function. The headless guitar was probably the last innovative design in recent/past years. Leo & Les had their bases covered in terms of classic design(s).

Now similar headstock shape/design/lettering & model name choices may be another issue altogether & growing fodder for the various lawyers who thrive on this kind of litigation...depending on the geography of the 'crime'.

We wouldn't be having this conversation in China as they can copy, replicate & rejuvenate just about any of the above trademark designs without any serious repercussion(s) outside of maybe a consumer boycott or an import ban. On the other hand, if their instruments were actually of professional grade quality, offered at an attractive price point & some famous guy was onstage playing one...consumers would probably find a way to buy them regardless of any similarity of appearances to a Fender or Gibson. Fortunately, the possibility of any of this occuring within the immediate future is probably remote at best as China appears to be doing quite well economically manufacturing a variety of disposable, inexpensive commodities.

Bottom line...build your guitar in a manner that pleases you in the long run, Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but too much might indicate an overall lack of innovation & imagination.

Originally Posted by kepeb

ha,
in fact i avoid the ones that look like major brands on purpose. make you look unoriginal.

Isn't the cosmetically impaired Nash Stratocaster little more than a blatant Fender copy (sans the Fender headstock logo)? Kinda' makes you wonder about those consumers who groove on fake/relic imagery...the 'instant bluesman' syndrome.

Maybe a Brazillian 'relic' approach might fly in some circles...it certainly did in the USA.

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

Actually, Gibson won that case against PRS. Gibson boys are real hawks about that sort of stuff.

Headstocks are considered trademarks, bodies seem to be in a no-man's land. During the early 2000s you could see lots of guitars with strat style bodies and other style headstocks slowly disappear. Ibanez, Peavey, and a mess of others all had pretty close approximations of strats with their proprietary heads on them, and they all were either redesigned or eliminated. Some folks at Fender later confirmed for me that this was because of discussions that the body design belongs to Fender. I don't think it ever actually went to court though.

As for the parts market, they all squeeze by and get licensing because they sell "replacement parts", not guitars. That is why you won't see any of them sell kits to build your own instrument, that would imply that you could call one of them up and order a strat, albeit in parts. The language in catalogs and on websites carefully avoids the idea of putting together a strat neck and a strat body for a complete strat. They sell necks to replace strat necks on your genuine Fender product, and they sell bodies to replace bodies on your genuine Fender product. Both Fender and the parts companies see the absurdity in this scenario, but they are just sort of going along with it... for now.

If you want to build copies, it is going to be a question of how many you make, and if it will be worth the time of said company to go after you and write up a cease & desist letter. If you make one, they won't care. If you make two, they won't care. If you make 10,000, they'll definitely care. Somewhere in between is the point where it changes over. Fender is more likely than Gibson to turn a blind eye to a guy making one or two at a time as a loving tribute to old instruments, which seems to be what you're up to.

By the way, Valley Arts has a relationship with one of those parts companies and there seems to be some handshake agreements at play there. I'd consider them the exception to the rule. Other companies won't get treated the same way. It could be interesting to see what happens over the next 10 years and if that arrangement stays.

Stay away from the decals, there seems to be zero tolerance regarding decals.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by FunkyKikuchiyo

Actually, Gibson won that case against PRS.

Yes, and no. Mostly no.

(from Wikipedia)

PRS Guitars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1998 PRS released their "Singlecut" guitar, which bore some resemblance to the venerable Les Paul, Gibson Guitar Corp filed a trademark infringement against Paul Reed Smith. An injunction was ordered and PRS stopped manufacture of the Singlecut at the end of 2001. Federal District Court Judge William J. Haynes, in a 57-page decision ruled "that PRS [Paul Reed Smith] was imitating the Les Paul" and gave the parties ninety days "to complete any discovery on damages or disgorgement of PRS's profits on the sales of its offending Singlecut guitar."

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court decision and ordered the dismissal of Gibson's suit against PRS. The decision also immediately vacated the injunction prohibiting the sale and production of PRS’s Singlecut Guitar. Paul Reed Smith Guitars announced that it would immediately resume production of its Singlecut guitars.

Paul Smith, the founder of PRS, stated "We are delighted that the appellate court affirmed what we and the industry have long known: the PRS Singlecuts are musical instruments of the highest quality that would never be confused with a competitor’s product."

Gibson tried and failed to have the case reheard by all twenty-four Sixth Circuit judges (denied in December 2005) and then by the United States Supreme Court (denied June 2006), which was their last chance to have their original injunction upheld.

In the litigation, Gibson alleged that concert goers in a smoky concert hall might not be able to differentiate a PRS Singlecut from a Gibson Les Paul. The appellate court rejected that trademark theory out-of-hand, emphasizing Gibson’s concession in court arguments that “only an idiot” would confuse the two products at the point of sale.

While no changes to the design of the Singlecut occurred as a result of the lawsuit (given that Gibson lost), some Singlecut owners and sellers have erroneously adopted the term 'pre-lawsuit' to differentiate their Singlecut from others.

As of January 2010 PRS no longer manufacture the single cut.

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

Thanks for that David, I knew about the first decision but not the second. I'm glad to see that. I remember George Gruhn in particular making a lot of stink about it, that the courts didn't ask enough guitar experts about it. My faith in American justice: +1

[jrfrond]

You will get yourself into some legal troubles if you duplicate the headstock's visual shape, even if you vary the dimensions. You will also run into trademark issues with names. I don't know about Gibson, but I know for a fact that Fender guitars destined for South America are built in Brazil, licensed to the Giannini factory in Barueri, Sao Paulo. I've been there and have seen the operation. I even have a Strat neck sitting in my shop that they gave me, made of marfin and ebony. So, you have Fender essentially sitting in your backyard, so I wouldn't fool around and piss people off. It's a bad way to get a start in the music business.

[earache]

The favorite classic songs that everybody knows and loves from the rock era were created on guitars with quite different designs - mainly Strats and Les Pauls.

It sounds like you have the means to make any kind of guitar you want, why not make something that is between the two, or entirely different in shape and style, and use that as your selling point?

Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by earache

why not make something that is between the two...

That worked very well for Paul Smith.