Are headstock shapes proprietary?

[arie]

regarding the gibson/ibanez debacle, while the case was thrown out of court 3 times I think the result is that both sides spent a bunch of money and ibanez no longer makes headstocks that look like a gibson headstock.

i've taken about 3 to 4 months and 2 two prototypes to decide on a headstock design that doesn't look like anybody elses. and yet I not really sure that it will be the final one.

like tim says, there is more too it and there are only so many configurations you can use that a) won't look like somebody else's and b) still looks like something buyers might want and c)that doesn't scare away small childern.

try an 17th century italian lute design.

[cc132]

Originally Posted by oldane

Gibson actually has a design patent on their headstock design. When I ordered a Stromberg Master 400 copy from Jim Triggs this spring, he told me that he had to avoid the center dip (the moustache shape) on the top of the peghead because of this patent.

My Greven L-00V's headstock is exactly like this, and I've always wondered why. Makes sense now.



Not my guitar, but mine has the same headstock.

[Teleplucker]

I have a couple of guitars that were built by Steve Andersen. The first guitar has a headstock that looks a lot like the traditional Gibson with the dip in the middle. When I ordered the second guitar he told me that he had received a letter from the legal dept at Gibson and he was forced to change his design.

[Chazmo]

Originally Posted by Matt Mustapick

There's too much petty tyranny on things like this. Too many people pretending that they've invented the guitar while they're essentially standing on the shoulders of C.F. Martin and Torres...making wild claims about about the dramatic benefits of how they've given these time-tested designs and shave and haircut, while at the same time decrying the original designs as unrefined, and to top it off, guarding their own recipes as if they were on to some magical secret.

In case it may ever be of interest, I'll be perfectly happy to give you the details on anything I do so that you can copy anything you like.

Matt, if it's any consolation, my day job is system-level programming for computers. Forgive the veer, here, but I thought you might like to know. There is ongoing tension among the proprietary computer vendors, particularly with the open community, over time regarding software patents, etc. It may be hard to fathom, but yes... software suffers under the same kind of tyranny that our beloved guitar designs suffer!

What you said is exactly right. Standing on the shoulders of giants and claiming something proprietary after giving something a shave and a haircut... Very irritating!

To me, I've seen the work people do in my business change dramatically from worrying about innovation to worrying about licenses/copyrights/patents, etc. If I'd wanted to to be a lawyer, that's what I would've chosen to do; these days it's nigh impossible not to be one. Bugs the crap out of me.

[oldane]

Originally Posted by oldane

Gibson actually has a design patent on their headstock design. When I ordered a Stromberg Master 400 copy from Jim Triggs this spring, he told me that he had to avoid the center dip (the moustache shape) on the top of the peghead because of this patent.

This is the original Stromberg peghead. Jim Triggs made them like that in the beginning of the 1990s, but stopped doing that because of the Gibsom "design patent" - which may in fact be a protected trademark:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldane/5032668289/

This is the peghead as Jim Triggs makes them now:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldane/5033278194/ (unfinished instrument, as can be seen)

Sorry, Flickr don't allow direct linking anymore, so you have to click the links.

[Matt Mustapick]

Originally Posted by Chazmo

Matt, if it's any consolation, my day job is system-level programming for computers. Forgive the veer, here, but I thought you might like to know. There is ongoing tension among the proprietary computer vendors, particularly with the open community, over time regarding software patents, etc. It may be hard to fathom, but yes... software suffers under the same kind of tyranny that our beloved guitar designs suffer!

What you said is exactly right. Standing on the shoulders of giants and claiming something proprietary after giving something a shave and a haircut... Very irritating!

To me, I've seen the work people do in my business change dramatically from worrying about innovation to worrying about licenses/copyrights/patents, etc. If I'd wanted to to be a lawyer, that's what I would've chosen to do; these days it's nigh impossible not to be one. Bugs the crap out of me.

Well I've aloud myself a rant. Maybe that's silly of me, or maybe it's worth "lettin' 'em have it" once in awhile. I'm still too young to know. I'm fortunate that I have the opportunity to chart my own course as an independent builder, doing things my own little way, and letting all the things I wouldn't want to control have it their way too.

Cheers.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by walternewton

Not patented or copyrighted, but trademarked, as noted above.

Thanks for that. I was wrong.

Jim McCarthy

[tadol]

I was showing Richard Hoover at Santa Cruz my 20 year old H model, and as soon as he saw the headstock, he commented that they stopped making it as a standard option because of a threat of legal action from Gibson - I can't imagine anyone confusing the two -

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by tadol

I was showing Richard Hoover at Santa Cruz my 20 year old H model, and as soon as he saw the headstock, he commented that they stopped making it as a standard option because of a threat of legal action from Gibson - I can't imagine anyone confusing the two -

....

A familiar refrain.

[Spieler]

Originally Posted by oldane

This is the original Stromberg peghead. Jim Triggs made them like that in the beginning of the 1990s, but stopped doing that because of the Gibsom "design patent" - which may in fact be a protected trademark:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldane/5032668289/

This is the peghead as Jim Triggs makes them now:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldane/5033278194/ (unfinished instrument, as can be seen)

Sorry, Flickr don't allow direct linking anymore, so you have to click the links.

You just have to click more often, and in tricksy ways. Here's your comparison, the images gleaned from the links above:





~ S.

[Neil K Walk]

Funny Gibson came up as a name. I haven't really been a fan of theirs, but their impact on the history of guitars has been undeniable.

As for their trademark, are we just talking about the curve (i.e. the "mustache") along the upper edge? If so, then what about the curves along the sides where the tuning machines go?

[JamesO]

I'm a total hobbyist and novice, but I recently (as in earlier this week) shared a headstock design with another luthier since it's pretty similar. He said it was ok if I wanted to use it, but I'm trying to rework it now simply out of respect and appreciation. It was closer than I remembered it being when I was drawing it up.

This stuff is branding, you know? It's hard to find design ideas that really don't look like someone else's. So, if you can, try not to get too close to what someone else has come up with.

[Tele1111]

Originally Posted by Matt Mustapick

There's too much petty tyranny on things like this. Too many people pretending that they've invented the guitar while they're essentially standing on the shoulders of C.F. Martin and Torres...making wild claims about about the dramatic benefits of how they've given these time-tested designs and shave and haircut, while at the same time decrying the original designs as unrefined, and to top it off, guarding their own recipes as if they were on to some magical secret.

In case it may ever be of interest, I'll be perfectly happy to give you the details on anything I do so that you can copy anything you like.

That was awesome Matt! Kudos to you, and to that wonderful attitude.

FWIW, as strictly a player/consumer, I strongly agree.

[arie]

well kwak, if all else fails you could go with the plank look......i guess.
so many others do.

one thing to consider is how the headstock fits into the overall design/concept of your guitar. having something the looks really off the wall probably isn't gonna go over as well on a traditional dread vs. how it would look on an an advanced, multiscale guitar with a cutaway. take seagull for example. i see the reasoning behind the design but imo it's a bit odd looking on their standard dread and their parlor models. it does seem to work (for me) on everything else they do.

[pappy27]

Evidently, before 2007 this custom builder guitar site had no problem with copying headstocks:

"What about making copies of famous guitars... IS IT LEGAL??
The answer is: YES.

As part of your your custom guitar, we can legally incorporate ANY graphic image, body or headstock style that is not explicitly protected by either a Russian trademark, or by a valid international "Madrid Protocol" trademark. (Russia is now a party to the Madrid Protocol for International Trademarks)

At the time of writing (March, 2007) this means that we ARE legally entitled to make guitars with any combination of any popular body and headstock shape imaginable! (Fender, Gibson, Gretsch, Ibanez, Yamaha, Ovation, ESP, Kramer, etc etc etc...)

At such time as any of those companies actually get around to registering actual "madrid protocol" trademarks for their trademarked body and headstock shapes - we will then REFRAIN from making them. I have heard it rumoured that Fender and Gibson are in the process of doing that, perhaps some of their styles may receive international trademarks in a year or two!
But at this point in time, they are all "FAIR GAME" for us (and for you!)"

Here's a link to the Protocol I'm guessing Gibson, Fender, etc. have submitted their trademarks by this time.