Is it Emulation or worse?

[ukejon]

The question has arisen a number of times on AGF about guitar makers borrowing elements--aesthetic or structural--from one another. This leads to interesting questions about intellectual/aesthetic ownership of a particular concept or design.

From one perspective, emulation is the greatest form of flattery. On the other hand, is an ethical line crossed when one luthier borrows a major design or structural concept from another without seeking approval. Tricky ground, to be sure and certainly something we players don't have to think about nearly as much as makers.

Where do folks draw the line here? Think of the number of luthiers who do direct copies of Martin and Gibson guitars without permission. Is that a problem or is that OK because these are big companies and they can withstand the competition. Is it more of a question when two independent luthiers are involved? And is it more allowable when a student borrows from a mentor?

I look forward to hearing people's politely stated (not inflammatory) thoughts on this matter, especially makers who deal with this every day.

[runamuck]

I haven't entirely thought through my feelings about this, but it bothers me a whole lot more when a contemporary maker, for example, Matsuda, gets his designs ripped off, than people making Martin copies.

Also, I'd feel differently about a hobbyist using someone elses design ideas if it were a guitar made for themself rather than made by a pro to be sold publicly.

[dberkowitz]

I agree with Runamuck. It's one thing to borrow a design element and reinterpret it, as well as acknowledging from where you got it; however, its another thing entirely to take something and put it out there as if it was entirely your own work.

I know on my own guitars from where every element was borrowed and how it developed. My inspiration for the J/F bodies was the Santa Cruz F, but clearly my guitar is not that shape. My bridge came from the Taylor 815 bridge and was first on the baritone built for John Jennings. I was trying to make it different and scooped the ends in, but eventually it evolved to have both a curved out front, back and wings as well as its Gilbert inspired lateral arch.

I can no longer count the number of guitars that are being built with practically exact copies of Michael Greenfield's spalted maple/dual abalone banded rosette.

A little is a complement, a lot is well, too much.

[HHP]

The origins of most elements on a guitar go back a long ways, establishing who actually "owns" some element is unlikely.

Using design elements others may be known for is pretty common, even to the use of what were once trade names like "Dreadnought" or "Jumbo".

Its a whole different matter when it comes to forgery and misrepresentation of a brand name. Then its a crime.

[dberkowitz]

HHP, I don't think the OP is looking at the general aesthetics, but rather rather the kind of builder specific design elements that many builders have no shame in copying outright, with no acknowledgement, not a doff of the cap.

[fazool]

Originally Posted by dberkowitz

...the kind of builder specific design elements that many builders have no shame in copying outright, with no acknowledgement, ....

Can we get some specific examples because I live in the world of design and intellectual property and such. I understand the general question but it seems sort of vague.

For example,

IMO, it's offensive if someone steals the barnd-identifying design of a headstock but it's not really a "copy" if someone copies a particular wood combination.

It's a real grey area when you start talking about things like newly introduced bracing patterns, etc.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by dberkowitz

HHP, I don't think the OP is looking at the general aesthetics, but rather rather the kind of builder specific design elements that many builders have no shame in copying outright, with no acknowledgement, not a doff of the cap.

I'm not talking about aesthetics either. The "X" brace is associated with one maker but everyone uses it. Modern body shapes basically trace back to two builders, everybody uses them. Belly bridges and adjustable truss rods get no acknowledgment typically.

[dberkowitz]

I hope we're not talking about wood combinations. I think its not quite cricket to copy someone's design elements outright with little or no modification, and call it your own. Runamuck already mentioned Michihiro Matsuda's work being copied. Bill Charis copied Jim Olsen outright, even visited his shop where Jim gave him some help and then proceeded to block and copy Jim's guitars. I've seen Greenfield's body shape and bridge copied on a guitar from Germany (Voss). I could go on.

Originally Posted by dberkowitz

...Bill Charis copied Jim Olsen outright, even visited his shop where Jim gave him some help and then proceeded to block and copy Jim's guitars...

Do you mean Bill Wise? I've played them but don't know Olson or Charis guitars well enough to comment further.

That said, most Dreadaughts are at least Martin-inspired, and many are near-copies of prewar designs. Every F-5 mandolin is a Gibson copy to one degree or another. Same with virtually every 5 string banjo.

[Rodger Knox]

Originally Posted by fazool

Can we get some specific examples because I live in the world of design and intellectual property and such. I understand the general question but it seems sort of vague.

That would be a wedge design as developed by Linda Manzer (and others), or possibly the cutaway design developed by Burton LeGeyt (and others). Al Carruth builds a similar design.

[Tim McKnight]

We have used a back bracing design on a number of guitars that closely resembles the original bracing design of Jeff Traugott. I asked Jeff if I could "experiment" with his back bracing design and he graciously gave me his permission. I have since acknowledged the similarity of our two back bracing designs multiple times here on the AGF and each time giving open credit to Jeff for allowing me to use a similar but not exact replica of his design. Jeff connects all four ladder braces together with a single perpendicular center brace to maintain the longitudinal arch in his backs, I only connect the bottom three ladder braces and use the floating brace to voice the back. I maintain my back arch with carbon fiber struts off of the neck block to the waist which shares no similarity with Jeff's design.

I have built a number of guitars using the "Manzer Wedge" but I did so ONLY with prior permission from Linda. We always give her open credit for HER design. She does have a fee for using her wedge design and if you have spoken with her in advance you will know what the fee is

I have been accused of using Jason Kostal's rosette design. Jason and I have exchanged several emails and conversations about this topic and I was actually using mosaic rosettes in the early 1990s before he did but who really cares (at least between Jason and I). We ended one conversation with, "we are flattered that our customers are so passionate and defensive of our work but in the end, we are both just trying to make a living all the while maintaining our personal friendships within the builders community." Its all good.

I would surmise that a lot of conversations have been exchanged between builders that the general public is not aware of. We are a close knit community in more ways than one and have always shared a camaraderie of sharing ideas and building philosophies. Each year GAL and A.S.I.A. hold symposiums where builders openly share topics like: building, marketing, voicing, finishing, design, pre-war reproductions and the list goes on and on. Oftentimes executives and engineers from large OEM's, boutique shop owners, one person shop builders and hobbyist all intermingle, openly sharing ideas while networking at these symposiums.

Martin has historically been very supportive of our community and openly shares with the building community as we have with them. Case in point, Mary and I were invited to meet with an executive at an undisclosed but VERY large guitar OEM. We were given a personal tour of their factory by this executive and were personally thanked for sharing some of our ideas with them which they later put into production. BTW, we did not make a dime in the process because it was another way of giving back to someone who openly supports and gives back to all of us. We are family in more ways than one.

Is there blatant copying and ripping off of ideas? Most likely there is but its probably a very small minority within our community. One could only hope that these folks would learn from their mistakes and give credit where credit is due.

[Oxwood_Handmade]

When I read this question my mind automatically goes to a certain aesthetic trend, and Matsuda is the first example that comes to my mind as well. I've taken inspiration from other builders' designs, even Matsuda's. The funny thing about that is that I didn't even know because it was on a different builder's work that I first saw these segmented, artistic rosettes. Now, seems like everyone does them. It is not my first choice of design and only do them on request. I lay them out to be my own balance of segmented pieces and lines, not copies. Or what about the broken glass/mosaic type rosettes? I don't even know who originally came up with that idea because I've seen in on so many guitars. When I wanted to try a Ryan Bevel I visited Kevin Ryan in his shop and asked permission...and he even showed me how to do it. I do believe he said something along the lines of "if you go around showing everyone how to do this now I'm going to be pissed", haha! Seems like plenty have figured it out on their own, anyway. When I decided I liked the look of the radial grain cap on the bevel, I contacted Joel Stehr and complimented him on his work and got permission to use it. If I ever intend to borrow an idea whether aesthetic or structural, I always contact the builder and ask permission and give credit. Most builders are cool about it and allow you to use the design and are generally just glad that you acknowledged their design efforts. Builder's like Jim Olson and Kevin Ryan are very gracious and willing to help and I've received guidance from both on more than one occasion. That is their personality; not threatened by a another builder but would rather help them climb...probably has something to do with decade long wait lists and prices to match.

I've never given much thought to the things like the X brace, double X brace, lattice brace, adjustable truss rods, etc. I guess I don't feel that the magic is in the brace layout itself, but in the builder's ability to utilize it correctly. I actually think it's kind of weird for a builder to keep his or her bracing layout a secret, as if that's all there is to it. Believe me, there is much, much more.

The true innovators will be ahead of the pack. Novice builders will cut their teeth executing ideas of others. Everyone has to start somewhere, it's natural. I believe originality comes from maturity and experience in your craft.

Brad

EDIT: I'd add too that sometimes two minds just work similarly. I had never seen a fret access bevel before doing my first one 7 years ago, I just did it. I later found that Sheldon Schwartz was doing them. I later saw them EVERYWHERE and I have not a clue where the idea originated from. The guitar is exactly what it is and there will be overlapping ideas of how to improve in that I think.

[jeastman]

Does Martin hold a copyright on the x brace or dreadnought body shape?

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by ukejon

The question has arisen a number of times on AGF about guitar makers borrowing elements

Amateurs borrow... professionals steal!

(paraphrase of Stravinsky).

[Simon Fay]

This is an easy question for builders to answer -- but this is a difficult answer for players to answer. The reason being is that in the design process, a builder is aware of their influences and whether they are directly copying or being influenced by another's work.

First of all, Martin's guitar designs are pretty much public domain at this point in time. The folks that make Martin reproductions are making "Martin Clones". There is nothing wrong with that as there is great respect for those old style instruments and many who desire to have an instrument that recreates the past. However, every single person acknowledges and recognizes that those instruments are directly copied/patterned off the work of Martin Guitars. Building a Matsuda clone is an entirely different matter and the reasons for that should be obvious.

The big manufacturers do patent certain designs and will go after people if they feel their brand is being copied. However, it can be a challenge to argue over artistic designs and legal recourse is simply not the best option. The best option is to simply walk a unique design path if you are an independent builder.

A couple important points

1) The design process takes a tremendous amount of time. A good design can take years to refine. Out of respect for other builders -- the lutherie community adheres to the well established principles of "artistic integrity" by acknowledging specific designs of other artists and asking permission for designs that are borrowed before they are utilized.

2) It is far easier to just copy and slightly modify than it is to create something new. However, I view this as a slap in the face to other artisans and one essentially profits from all the hard work spent in design by another artisan. In short, it is an egocentric and disrespectful path to walk. I feel this way when I see Jason Kostal's stained glass rosette used or a specific Matsuda design ripped off. I do not have any problems when those designs are borrowed with permission and in most cases, I think the lutherie community is quite good at asking permission first.

3) No builder has hold over a genre. I think this is where most "players" get confused with what is copying and what is simply a source of inspiration. One could build an Art Deco guitar. However, if you see a builder copy another's very specific Art Deco designs -- then that is where most of us take issue.

4) If in doubt, contact the person before you use their design. This is super easy to do. On my website I credit Jeff Traugott for my back "floating brace" (Tim McKnight uses this as well) and I credit Michi Matsuda for a specific inlay element. Credit to Ryan and Laskin is given for development of the armrest bevel design even tho' my own design is a significant aesthetic departure from their designs. I contacted both Traugott and Matsuda before I used these elements in my own guitars and received their blessing. Everything else on my guitars is mostly my own design -- within reason, of course, -- the overall work of modern builders has influenced by perception and vision for my own instruments -- but in the design process, I do try to start from a blank page rather than start from someone else's designs.