Is it Emulation or worse?

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by dberkowitz

I would suspect that Linda's came from the blue guitar project as well. She also was Jimmy's apprentice so she has that direct contact.

And D`Aquisto started out for D`Angelico...

[invguy921]

Ok so, if I'm NOT a builder but a consumer (which I am)...what am I allowed to ask my builder to build for me? If I like one builders headstock design, but another builders arm rest, am I allowed to have my builder incorporate both into my new custom guitar or am I violating "policy"? Let me be clear on this...I think blatant copying of designs into a "spec" are a violation. My question is not about specs...is the CUSTOM buyer and his builder subject to the same scrutiny? If so, do we need a set of "rules for Customers desiring custom guitars"?

I apologize if this seems ridiculous, but just try being a consumer caught in the middle of this whole thing. Go spend many thousands of dollars on something you think will be pleasing and special to you and find yourself in the middle of the battle...welcome to my world...

[hreboredo]

From what I've seen, this happens alot as customers see lots of people's work and find aspects they'd love to see incorporated in some way in a custom build. The correct way to do is to reach out to the luthier who created the concepts and ask for permission to emulate and this is what most luthiers do as standard practice.

From what I've seen over the years this is generally a very generous community and doesn't try to be proprietary with ideas. In addition, even if they're emulating most luthiers will always add their own spin to the concept because that's why they're artists and not just guys building guitars. That said, as many have mentioned, to the extent it's emulation or a close derivative work it is only fair to give the originator their proper credit and make sure you're not doing something behind their back.

Originally Posted by invguy921

Ok so, if I'm NOT a builder but a consumer (which I am)...what am I allowed to ask my builder to build for me? If I like one builders headstock design, but another builders arm rest, am I allowed to have my builder incorporate both into my new custom guitar or am I violating "policy"? Let me be clear on this...I think blatant copying of designs into a "spec" are a violation. My question is not about specs...is the CUSTOM buyer and his builder subject to the same scrutiny? If so, do we need a set of "rules for Customers desiring custom guitars"?

I apologize if this seems ridiculous, but just try being a consumer caught in the middle of this whole thing. Go spend many thousands of dollars on something you think will be pleasing and special to you and find yourself in the middle of the battle...welcome to my world...

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by invguy921

Ok so, if I'm NOT a builder but a consumer (which I am)...what am I allowed to ask my builder to build for me? If I like one builders headstock design, but another builders arm rest, am I allowed to have my builder incorporate both into my new custom guitar or am I violating "policy"? Let me be clear on this...I think blatant copying of designs into a "spec" are a violation. My question is not about specs...is the CUSTOM buyer and his builder subject to the same scrutiny? If so, do we need a set of "rules for Customers desiring custom guitars"?

I apologize if this seems ridiculous, but just try being a consumer caught in the middle of this whole thing. Go spend many thousands of dollars on something you think will be pleasing and special to you and find yourself in the middle of the battle...welcome to my world...

I'm also a customer, not a builder, but I may have a slightly different view. I like to stay out of the way of the builder's aesthetic design and their selection of materials. Maybe it's because I realize I wouldn't be good at making selections; I'm sure the end result of my selections would look like a bunch of isolated choices instead of a design of an artist. I prefer to pick a luthier who can meet my tonal and playability goals, and whose designs I feel are attractive. I like to give the luthier total control of the aesthetic design and material choices (as long as it meets my tonal and playability needs). For example, when Alan Carruth build my 000, I let him choose the headstock (slotted or peghead), the type of cutaway (beveled or 'traditional'), the rosette design, the bridge design, the purfling, the veneers, the binding, the neck and heel design, the neck attachment, the peghead to neck joint, the finish, etc. For some of the choices, I didn't even know what was chosen until I saw a picture. I get more pleasure out of seeing the luthier's design than in seeing how the luthier built what I selected.

[JoeCharter]

Determining whether one party stole intellectual or creative property from another party is not a simple task. Just ask Apple and Samsung and their billions.

That being said, I will only deal with luthiers and artists whose style is already established. If I asked Harvey Leach to do an inlay like Grit Laskin, I'm sure he'd tell me I called the wrong number.

[jaymarsch]

I am a player, not a builder, but having attended many guitar events and chatted with many builders, find these conversations informative and useful. My sense is, when it comes to design elements, that the headstock design is a bit of a signature and many builders seem to put in small elements that define it as their own. Obviously, folks who like simple paddle headstocks are going to have ones that look pretty similar. But I would imagine most builders would not accommodate a custom order with some other builders headstock design. Always exceptions to the rule, I suppose, so anything is possible.

I agree with what many have already said - getting permission and giving credit where credit is due is the most respectful course of action.

Tim - I really appreciated your post. I certainly have experienced the luthier community to be a mostly very respectful and supportive one.

Best,
Jayne

[invguy921]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

I agree with what many have already said - getting permission and giving credit where credit is due is the most respectful course of action. I certainly have experienced the luthier community to be a mostly very respectful and supportive one.

Originally Posted by hreboredo

That said, as many have mentioned, to the extent it's emulation or a close derivative work it is only fair to give the originator their proper credit and make sure you're not doing something behind their back.

I agree. I think the Luthier community is one of high regard one for another. In the end, all work together for the common good...more playable, beautiful, and totally pleasing guitars for all to enjoy. Respect and recognition is the key at all levels...learning from each other and growing together. That said, totally unique innovation is hardly a logical assumption for the future and design elements will always overlap to some degree.

[Lespaul123]

This is certainly a tricky area. OK, part of me feel like guitars are a product and guitar making is a business. Now while producing a product you certainly cannot copy a something that is a logo or copyrighted something or other. This is totally agreeable to me. However there are plenty of businesses and companies that “derive” from each other’s ideas everyday with out credit. Look at Mr. Pibb and Dr. pepper, they taste similar, the cans look similar, and yet you don’t hear about any court cases or even complaints about the similarity of them. This is done every day in the art community. You wont see an artist write on the back of his or her painting to credit the other artists that their style may derive from. People certainly give credit to artists by just knowing where certain style derived. Still part of me wonders maybe the reason this particular artist is remembered for this style because he or she was the most popular person. There is also a chance that he or she derived their design or technique from seeing another artist. Whether the luthiers like it or not copying or derivative work is going to happen and frankly I don’t understand how this could hurt the luthier. In the car world Hyundai has made some very similar copies of high cars. They even changed their logo to look more similar to the high end manufacturer. Do you honestly believe someone who can afford a Bentley bought a Hyundai instead? I highly doubt there is someone out there someone didn’t buy a Somogyi because Dehradun could make the same rosette as Somogyi. I have never seen someone see a segmented guitar or Matsuda styled guitar and not know where the style derived from. If they haven’t then, I believe it is all of our jobs to inform them. Still the fact remains that it is a business and people are going to do whatever they can to make their business profitable.

[ukejon]

Interesting indirectly related site:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Desig...90313407647321

The responses so far have been most thought provoking. As someone who just bought a commissioned guitar, one thought that has popped into my mind is that Maker X could do a very direct copy of the Greta that I just bought from Mark Hatcher--I still would only buy the Hatcher for every reason you could imagine.

[Rodger Knox]

This is a little off topic, but the Gibson/Ibanez lawsuit back in the 70's concluded that Gibson's headstock shape belonged to Gibson, and Ibanez could no longer use it.
Point is, as others have said, the headstock shape is a design element that may be protected as intellectual property. I suspect rosette design to be the same.

[ampjunkie]

The headstock issue is a trademark issue as the design and shape reflects much the same as a company logo. I would think that a rosette could only be trademarked if in fact the rosette design was duplicated *exactly* on each guitar made. But if you're doing a mosaic "stained glass" design -- you can argue that that is a design technique and no two are the same, so no such trademark protection applies. Since a rosette is pretty much an integral part of acoustic guitars -- it would be much harder to trademark or protect a design aesthetic. A *specific and exact* rosette design, however, could be protected through trademark -- especially it if contains a name. :-)

[Simon Fay]

Copied designs do not help the originator at all. They devalue the originality and novelty of the work. Once a design is copied a few times it starts to become "public domain". Fast forward 10 years and many people will never know who was the first. Think of it this way, if everyone started doing Ryan bevel flutes -- then if there was a customer who just had to have a bevel flute, he/she would be able to choose several different builders instead of one. Over time, this would have a real world affect on Kevin Ryan. I stayed far away from the Matsuda rosette for this very reason -- and the reality is that there are still myriads of untapped designs to be discovered -- so a builder's creativity is in no way being stifled.

Originally Posted by invguy921

Ok so, if I'm NOT a builder but a consumer (which I am)...what am I allowed to ask my builder to build for me?

The answer is anything you want. It is solely the builders responsibility to be aware of the work of his peers and know when things are too close to comfort. Some builders will be less apt to share designs and some won't care at all. The luthier is responsible for guiding the customer through the design process. I would handle a request by a customer to duplicate another's design by just referring them to that builder. "It sounds like you would be better off buying _____ guitar instead of mine."

[Lespaul123]

Mr. Fay (I say Mr. out of respect and do not know you personally; I am not trying to sound condescending or scoulding), noted earlier that a design takes many years to develop and a newer builder can do a few pieces and have leniency for “borrowing designs”. However, if it takes years to develop a design feature then shouldn’t a new builder be granted more time to evolve? It does newer builders a disservice of limiting them to what you think is acceptable. They are a creative people just as you and will develop their own style as they progress. If they don’t then they will never be able to step out of the shadow of those who they imbue. However, Mr Chasson, uses the same rosette of many guitars. These rosettes are of course with different woods and are very nice, but if someone were to copy them or do something very similar, I would say they are out of line. Mr. Chasson has been doing those rosettes for a long time and has established them as a sort of trademark. These two ideas seem to conflict as well. My contention is that if it is a style then it is fair game, but if it is repeated design (not style) on many guitars, and is a logo or headstock shape, you may be out of line. Still though I don’t think this is really any concern because I don’t think any builder is trying to become another builder. Every maker I have ever met is trying to develop their design, grow their brand, and develop himself or herself as a unique brand; copying others will not do this. Also you mention that they should veer towards the tried and true, but if the builder wants to enter a more modern world of guitar making? How can they experiment with new design features with out trying the more tried and true design features developed by you, Matsuda, Kraut, Somogyi, etc. As anyone would know creative growth takes time and building a guitar takes time. The modern world of guitar making seems to be the area that some feel to be untouchable. You can work on traditional designs, but nothing modern. I am not sure this is fair. Furthermore, I have yet to see someone do an exact copy of someone else`s design. I have seen some that were certainly inspired and close, but nothing exact. I believe that if someone were able to build something close, then they could do the exact same thing. There is a conscious choice there to do something different, possibly to help further that style or design. Also many guitar makers are building something that looks different for every single guitar. Does the builder get to claim that every guitar they produce with a new novel feature to be their trademark?

[Lespaul123]

I am not sure people doing Matsuda styled rosettes devalue Matsuda`s work; Matsuda has much more to offer than just rosettes or features. Isn't growing the modern style of guitar building helpful to modern styled guitar makers? By bringing the more modern style guitar to the masses it may help break some of the bonds people have with "tradition". Guitar players are certainly hung up "tradition" by bringing the modern style to a larger community it will only help further people`s interest in having a modern style guitar from the master Matsuda.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Rodger Knox

This is a little off topic, but the Gibson/Ibanez lawsuit back in the 70's concluded that Gibson's headstock shape belonged to Gibson, and Ibanez could no longer use it.
Point is, as others have said, the headstock shape is a design element that may be protected as intellectual property. I suspect rosette design to be the same.

Yes, but in that case Ibanez was copying exactly every detail of the LP. In the case of michi Matsuda, even he doean`t make his rosettes the same way evey time, which makes claims of blatant copying a bit less clear. Martin`s rosette ring pattern is easily identifiable, and most likely the most copied rosette pattern. Curiously their headstock is probably the most copied, though I am not aware of them actively pursuing builders and handing them cease and desist orders.