241
Gibson hits Trump Guitars with cease and desist for resemblance to Les Paul body design
(consequence.net)
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
241 points (98.8% liked)
guitars
3884 readers
5 users here now
Welcome to /c/guitars! Let's show off our new guitar pics, ask questions about playing, theory, luthier-ship, and more!
Please bring all positive vibes to the community and leave the toxic stuff elsewhere.
Rules:
-
Treat others with respect. ALL others.
-
No spam
-
No self promotion
-
No NSFW
-
No circle jerk posts, there are other places for that silliness, and they are wonderful. Not here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not trying to defend Trump in any way, but seeing the crap he's trying to sell to dumb people, the last thing I think is "that sure looks like a prestige Les Paul"
I've heard it's not Trump himself selling them just one of his dickriders with his backing.
I normally don't side with Gibson over their stupid copyright claims for pretty generic shapes. But if they can knock some Trumpster down a peg I'll back them this time.
That's Trump's entire business model.
He didn't write the Trump Bible himself.
I don't think anything about a guitar besides maybe artwork printed on the face should be copyrightable.
Features of a guitar may be patentable. New and novel features might qualify for a utility patent, aka "Method and apparatus for pitch bending guitar strings via an articulated bridge." These would have to have functional ramifications to the guitar or represent a new way of making them. The spring-loaded bridge with tremolo handle would qualify for utility patent, I think Ovation's plastic round backs and maybe their clusters of small tone holes would also. Utility patents last for 20 years and all that I've mentioned would have expired by now.
There are also design patents, which is, for the most part, what I think the distinctive shape of a guitar body would fall under. Design patent covers the aesthetic shape of a functional object. The Stratocaster, the Les Paul, the Flying V, the distinctive body shapes of these guitars would qualify for design patent. Design patents last 15 years in the US so all of these designs would have long since expired into the public domain.
Then we get into trademark, which is different from copyrights and patents. Trademarks guarantee the source of goods, and are thus valid as long as you're in business. The names Les Paul, Stratocaster, Breadwinner, etc. Those names can be trademarked. In the guitar world, I would also allow trademarking the shape of headstocks, because while there are practical constraints head stock embellishments are largely non-functional and decorative. The headstock shape of a guitar is notionally similar to the hood ornament or radiator grille of a car. I give Fender right-of-way on their distinctive wedge with circle on the end shape and Ovation their Londo Mollari frill.
If we allow luthiers to trademark the overall shape of a guitar, we're stifling innovation. The entire reason patents expire is so that - after the inventor got his cut - anyone else can go "I can make it better and/or cheaper." Allowing the entire design to be trademarked in perpetuity is subverting the spirit of the law. It allows mostly businessmen who don't actually create anything to gather up and hoard intellectual property like a dragon hoards treasure, profiting from something they had no hand in creating like an intellectual tape worm. The inventions of 60 years ago must now be the heritage of all mankind else we risk allowing the rot of private equity to spread.
The entire design is a feature. Take the strat. None of it was accidental or using existing common features when it was designed. I don't particularly like the look of the design, but I can respect that every inch of it has a purpose. My favorite part of a strat is the shape on the bottom back which isn't even visible but makes it comfortable to play in a sitting position or while moving around in a standing position without hitting a sharp edge. The same applies the front top which allows you to rest your lower arm on the body without hitting a sharp edge. The cut aways are self-explanatory but keeping the horns also serves a purpose of balancing the weight and also makes it possible to rest on a leg when sitting. The headstock is ugly big, but it is necessary for the weight distribution.
Both Gibson and Fender had issues with their headstocks. The 3rd. string always goes out of tune before the other strings, because of the distance between the tuners and the nut. Notice the fix by Fender placing a lock on 1st & 2nd strings, otherwise those would be even worse. Musicman solved that by designing a headstock that is even uglier, but actually works by minimizing the distance. They rightfully patented that solution.
The Les Paul design has none of that, obviously because it came first, but also because it's designed for something else completely: Sustain. The entire purpose of the LP design was to make a long, clean and loud tone.
Copying that and slapping a MAGA sticker on it is a fucking disgrace to everything called guitar design. Nobody serious about guitar design gives a fuck about the colour or visual appeal. It'd be even worse if it was the visual aesthetic that was patentable. I'd definitely call dibs on an all black guitar then or the manga shit that everyone is sporting right now. In my opinion that is hardly worthy of copyright.
Explain the Flying V.
The Flying V was Gibson's reaction to the Fender Stratocaster, which was the first electric guitar to break away from the standard hour glass shaped body used for pretty much all string instruments until then. Gibson wanted in on this evolution and chose to go all in with the 3 futuristic shapes Flying V, Explorer and Moderna, while still maintaining the neck-through from the Les Paul and sharply angled headstock.
They did some improvements to the tuner locations on the headstock and made the upper frets accessible by the body shape instead of simply copying Fenders cut aways.
However, all 3 designs failed completely at the time, selling less than 100 pcs. They were too unconventional for the intended market of jazz and blues players, which already had a preference for other Gibson models like the ES series. It didn't really offer anything that didn't already exist. Gibson learned the hard way that the spacey design was not the reason for Fenders success. It was all about the comfort. Gibson later made the SG to address this.
It wasn't until the 1980s that heavy rock guitarists embraced the radical shapes, which was absolutely for looks. Hendrix made a notable live appearances using the V prior to that, but it's well known that he primarily recorded using a Stratocaster. I'd guess he used it live because of the humbuckers being better for that.
"I don't side with obvious frivolous copyright claims against people unless it's against somebody I don't like"
You can do better
Ok, so let's say they begin to side with Gibson more frequently in their copyright claims.
I think the case has a pretty solid backing though. Gibson has made a more or less identical guitar for 100 years, same with Les Paul, Statocasters, and pretty much all guitar manufacturers. You could argue it's predatory from the largest guitar manufacturer, but they will probably win.