Is it Emulation or worse?

[KevinLPederson]

This is a very complex issue. We all make things that look and sound "like a guitar" (hopefully on the sound dept).

Being harder than it looks, I think trying to do your own thing is best. It might give you a harder time to become "established", but in the end, you'll feel more rewarded with that type of contribution.

In the end, I'm trying to win people over with my designs, concepts, worksmanship, sound and playability. My hope is people will come to the shows and TRY them in the sound booths. I think this is where it starts :-)

My .01 is try to do your own thing as much as you can and don't directly copy something.

Kevin.

[Lespaul123]

Do all of the copies of da Vinci`s Mona Lisa devalue the painting or da Vinci`s other works?

[Lespaul123]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

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.

Maybe this is the fault of the community or maybe this is the fault of the luthier him or herself. By not linking a name to the design it certainly makes it easier for others to borrow it as well as not to give credit. Such as a manzer wedge, ryan or laskin bevel. In the rosette world this has yet to be done. Maybe this is the fault of the community or maybe this is the fault of the luthier him or herself. By not linking a name to the design it certainly makes it easier for others to borrow it as well as not to give credit.

[Simon Fay]

Just another brief comment. I came on the scene later than Beauregard, Matsuda, Kraut, Bashkin, Baranik, and a few other "modern" builders. For this reason, I found that I needed to be quite careful in not copying or borrowing original ideas. That said, I have developed an aesthetic that is minimalist and modern and that absolutely builds and takes inspiration from the work of Matsuda and other artisans from various fields (woodworking, painting, etc.). I've spent a tremendous amount of time in designing and development and I think my guitars look very distinctive. I also have a ton of ideas that are in still rumbling around in my brain that haven't been done before in the guitar world -- and that is why I say there is still so much artistic space to explore -- which invalidates any reason for copying.

One last thing, I think it is very important to realize that a genre is never exclusive to one individual. The broken, interrupted purfling and inlay lines of Matsuda's work are indicative of contemporary and modern designs from other fields. In essence, those ideas are not new or novel but the specific application of Matsuda and his style was definitely original and unique. However, stylistically, there are many ways that broken, interrupted, and modern ornamentation can be implemented throughout a guitar -- these potential designs would certainly be inspired by the work of previous artisans (as all art is) but they wouldn't be copies.

[Simon Fay]

Originally Posted by Lespaul123

Do all of the copies of da Vinci`s Mona Lisa devalue the painting or da Vinci`s other works?

If they were contemporaries of da Vinci -- I think they would. Copied now, they would simply be reproductions. People build pre-war Martin "reproductions" and it is a respected path for an artisan to recreate something special from the past.

Please understand, I am in no way restricting the freedom of artisans to pursue their own path. I am not saying that builders can lay claim to "styles" exclusively. By and large, the lutherie community operates with artistic integrity. But there are most definitely situations where things can be direct copying or copying with only slight modification. In those cases, I believe the ethical course is to either go a different route or give credit to the originator.

[Rodger Knox]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

Yes, but in that case Ibanez was copying exactly every detail of the LP.

You are correct, the only difference was the name on the headstock. The only thing the court required Ibanez to change was the headstock. The implication is that the headstock shape was the only thing on the whole guitar that belonged exclusively to Gibson.

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

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.

That's probably because their headstock and rosette design are so simple they would have a hard time proving they were the originator. Some companies do try to protect their intellectual property (Rickenbacker for one), and even individual builders may come under fire. Other companies are not so protective.
I also doubt that Martin has much competition from copies.

The bottom line is that it's pretty difficult to legally protect design elements, so builders can copy whatever they choose (except headstock shape). Seems like I remember PRS being successful is establishing exclusive rights to their bird inlays.

What can be done without legal liability is not always ethical.

[Lespaul123]

Originally Posted by Simon Fay

If they were contemporaries of da Vinci -- I think they would. Copied now, they would simply be reproductions. People build pre-war Martin "reproductions" and it is a respected path for an artisan to recreate something special from the past.

Please understand, I am in no way restricting the freedom of artisans to pursue their own path. I am not saying that builders can lay claim to "styles" exclusively. By and large, the lutherie community operates with artistic integrity. But there is most definitely situations where things can be direct copying or copying with only slight modification. In those cases, I believe the ethical course is to either go a different route or give credit to the originator.

Excellent point. Ok, How about people copying David Choe`s work. Many people copy his style and he is still one of the richest artists alive. I don't think your going to be able to sell me on people devaluing more prominent people`s work with copies. I believe customers or potential customers are more astute than to buy copies instead of the real thing. This is of course following the premise that the customer wanted the more prominent builder`s work. Still, I don't think we are talking about copies here were are talking about derivative work. Copying is something different all together. It is very difficult to tell where the line it. Some luthiers certainly paint with a broader brush than others. I designed something that was completely novel, then noticed that another maker was doing something similar. I then emailed the builder and expressed my concerns and he said that I should give him credit for the design. Now I didn’t copy and had already began implementing the design, why should I give him credit. Then the following day this same builder made sure to post his design on a unfinished guitar to grab a strong hold on the feature. Now I of course didn’t say anything and honestly could care less, but a about a year later this same builder attacked me for stealing his design. He claimed that he was doing it years before etc. The fact is I designed mine in a close time frame and was unaware of his design after I began implementing my design. Now this builder is much bigger builder than me. I happen to be under similar thought process as someone else and designed something similar. There are only so many ways one can work wood, shape a guitar, build a bridge, etc. For me, at the end of the day a guitar is a product, copying a trademark design is not ok however, deriving work is fine. I know that we are saying the same thing, but I feel like I am trying to convey something different.

It still seems like to me when you say copying with slight modification is following a premise that the person`s intent it to copy and get away from it. To me, it seems more like people are exploring different routes and trying to evolve something that they like. However, you seem to feel that they are trying to take from the other person. I honestly don't feel like this is ever the case.

[Burton LeGeyt]

I have a hard time trying to really understand who is copying who-

People have been mentioning Matsuda again and again as a pinnacle of originality but to my mind his work is very influenced by Uchida:

http://www10.plala.or.jp/harp-g/Uchida-MagamookEng.htm

That doesn't, to me at least, make his work any less beautiful or compelling but if others then borrow those similar stylings who are they copying?

Olson uses Guild's bridge, yes? If someone uses that bridge (and many do) are they copying Olson or Guild? Does it matter?

To my mind a Strat has an arm bevel and a rib bevel and an SG has a bevel cutaway. Did acoustic builders invent these things or simply borrow a very good idea from electric guitars?

I was mentioned earlier as having some sort of claim on the bevel cutaway. I came up with my version after seeing a different version on someone else's guitar (in a background shot of an old Healdsburg festival, I still don't know whose guitar it was). I've had people contact me asking permission to use it but it isn't "mine" in any sense. The only way I could claim that sort of ownership is if someone did it exactly like I do mine. I think that is much of the issue here, that sort of direct copying instead of obvious influence.

I have had customers ask me to build a guitar where they are obviously picking different elements from established builders and looking for someone to mash them together. I can understand the desire for that, we do sell the idea of customization and that is an obvious extension of that, to "design" a guitar with existing features. But very often it feels dismissive of the design work you have put in yourself. When I have done a feature that is obvioulsy from someone else I have asked for permission, as I think almost all of us would (and do).

In that sense, I think you can (or should?) have control over a very specific way of building a certain feature, like a Ryan bevel with flutes, or Ken Parker's neck and neck joint. I don't think it is realistic though to assume you have dominion over a broad idea of a feature. That seems to dismiss the very likely possibility it has already been done before in the long history of instrument building.

There is obviously a lot of grey area and that is what makes it interesting to discuss.

[cogito]

Not that Matsuda needs a lot of further props for his innovations among this crowd, but I do think it's worth noting that his accomplishments in design go far beyond the rosettes that keep getting referenced above. Look at the various headstocks (e.g. for the low D extension model with capo), the neck block on his nylon string models, the multi-dimensional side sound ports, and the "deconstructed" ukele and archtop, among other things - and all in the service of producing great sounding, versatile, and ergonomic instruments. He never ceases to surprise with his creative genius. That's a quality that few artists have, whatever the genre, and it is a quality that simply cannot be emulated. (And, yes, I own a Matsuda. But I don't say all of this because I own one - I bought one because I believe this).

[gstar]

Does true originality actually exist? Isn't every idea a variation, combination or progression of previous ideas? Isn't that what the phase "there is nothing new under the sun" means?

The Kostal rosette is a perfect example of this. Many here on this forum credit him with that design, but as Tim McKnight pointed out, he had done variations of that design before Jason was even building guitars and Tim likely wasn't the first artist to ever use a similar rosette. Even if he was the first to use it on a steel string guitar rosette, the underlying design element certainly existed in other artistic expressions previously.

I do believe individuals sincerely believe they have come up with something original or that they come up with an idea without any reference or knowledge of a prior similar design, but that doesn't make the idea original.

From an invention standpoint, there are legal rights to trademark or patent certain designs/ideas that are sufficiently unique that someone determines they are worthy of legal protection, but that doesn't make them truly novel. No invention starts from scratch. Each starts with the collective knowledge accumulated by those who came before. In many instances two people are developing the same idea at the same time and one gets to the patent office first.

True originality aside, I don't see how a builder would take much pride or pleasure in making an exact copy of someone else's work, although I can see how making authentic recreations or clones of historical guitar designs could be very satisfying.

I'll leave the ethical or legal ramifications of copying ideas or designs for someone else, but if nothing is truly original, isn't it odd to insist on being credited for your variation or progression of what already exists, especially if in all likelihood your variation isn't really all that novel after all.

[Rodger Knox]

Originally Posted by Burton LeGeyt

I was mentioned earlier as having some sort of claim on the bevel cutaway. I came up with my version after seeing a different version on someone else's guitar (in a background shot of an old Healdsburg festival, I still don't know whose guitar it was). I've had people contact me asking permission to use it but it isn't "mine" in any sense. The only way I could claim that sort of ownership is if someone did it exactly like I do mine. I think that is much of the issue here, that sort of direct copying instead of obvious influence.

So you copied the idea of the bevel cutaway, but the woodwork implementation is your own design. I think that belongs to you, and if someone starts with your design, you should get credit.
If someone gets the idea of the bevel cutaway from one of your guitars, but then develops their own woodwork implementation, that's different.

[Burton LeGeyt]

Originally Posted by Rodger Knox

So you copied the idea of the bevel cutaway, but the woodwork implementation is your own design. I think that belongs to you, and if someone starts with your design, you should get credit.
If someone gets the idea of the bevel cutaway from one of your guitars, but then develops their own woodwork implementation, that's different.

Rodger, Yes, I agree. The idea of the bevel cutaway is not mine but if someone does a direct copy of my work then some sort of credit (and ideally, prior knowledge of that/permission) is certainly appreciated.

[Richard Mott]

One consoling perspective on this for me is to track the paths of few of the real giants of the 20th Century luthery. If you look at the early 1930s D'Angelico archtopss when he was just starting out, his instruments took almost all of their visual cues directly from the post-Loar Gibsons of the day. But D'Angelico soon evolved his own scroll pediment headstock, deco finger rest and stairway tailpiece, etc. Then you look at the first 1960s guitars by his apprentice D'Aquisto: they're almost identical to the latter day D'Angelicos--same headstock, tailpiece, f-holes, but by the 1980s and especially 1990s, you have totally different instruments such as D'Aquisto's Blue Centura--a whole other world of design, and not incidentally sound. Likewise with Linda Manzer's celebrated Blue Absynthe, VERY reminiscent of D'Aquisto's late work, as she studied in his shop, but she soon branched out too, ending up with the Pikasso among other iconic designs, including the wedge discussed a number of times in this thread. Deriving a visual vocabulary from the best around you has been going on a long time. It's part of the creative process, and with the best makers ends up leading to real creative departures and renews the field.

[LouieAtienza]

There are a few contradictions that arise when issues of originality and ownership are brought up.

Is it OK to reverse-engineer a cutaway bevel and change it slightly to make it one`s own, but not OK to borrow styling cues frim another`s rosette and configure it your own way?

Likewise, can minimalism be claimed as an original idea when most every entry-level guitar is minimalist by design?

The truth is that originality should be determined in package. Every guitar will share similar design elements regardless of builder. This is a largely evolutionary field, with very few true revolutionary ideas in the last couple centuries.

I can only dream of having enough talent that another human would want to emulate as far as design or construction or technique. I can`t count how much woodworking I`ve done where the architect took all the credit, despite not drawing (or knowing) details of how to construct such work. And I don`t mind. Likely, I wouldn`t mind if someone thought highly enough of my idea to implement in their design; credit would be icing on the cake. I think it`s human nature to want to receive credit, to be known, and to be remembered. I can`t see myself playing a guitar like a NASCAR - with a Manzer wedge, Laskin rib bevel, Stevens extended cutaway, Novax fretboard, Humphreys elevated neck, Steinberger tuners, Cumpiano neck joint, Yairi split bridge, Kasha bracing... it almost tempts me.to build a guitar with all theae features and put everyone`s name on the feature they developed...

OK I`m just being a bit cynical here, but I sometimes wonder if it can come to this. I for one would hope that the people who remember me do so for who I am, not for the obelisks I erect.

[dberkowitz]

The first bevel cutaway that I recall seeing was on Sheldon Schwartz's first Oracle guitar and I believe it was in 2005 at the Healdsburg Guitar Festival.