Official Luthiers Forum!

I'm a hobby builder and a friend ask me to make a Les Paul Special with P90s. I'm not selling commercially but wondering if I was, what the implications of selling guitars that look like the originals? My name will be on the headstock, but can I put a decal that says Les Paul Special down the middle? I'm not too up on the rules. Any help greatly appreciated.

Technically, the companies have trademarks on the names and headstock shapes. So make the headstock shape significantly different. And DON'T put an LP decal on it. It's not a Les Paul.

you could call it a "Less Paul Special"

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

A couple of years ago Gibson's new CEO issued some sort of legal ultimatum

viewtopic.php?f=10123&t=52054&hilit=gibson+lawsuit

I really don't care because I will never make a copy of a Gibson (why would I want to?) but they did publish a whole long list of names and shapes that are trade marked, copyrighted or otherwise protected. Whether they would go after a small time builder who choses to put one of these names on his guitar is unknown. My suggestion is either don't do it (your guitar is not a Les Paul Special, don't pretend it is) or if you choose to do it have your attorney give you advice.

Gibson goes after deep pockets..... If you're broke, no worries. OR - don't charge for your LP copies.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

This is correct. The US courts have decided that names and headstock shape can be protected by copyright. Not so with body shape — in that area you are free to make an exact copy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In very broad terms, intellectual property in guitars is limited to those elements that identify WHO made the guitar, not so much HOW the guitar works.

If you make a guitar that might lead people to think someone else made it, you might have a problem. If you make a guitar that functions like another guitar you are generally OK.

There is also no independent intellectual property police. So the added element is that it is up to you if someone makes a guitar that confuses people into thinking it is one of your guitars. So there is a cost/benefit analysis involved there too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So here's a mistake a lot of us small builders make...

It starts as a hobby. Then next thing you know, you've got folks who want to buy your guitars, so you build and sell them. Then more people want some, so you build and sell them. All of a sudden you have a business, but you've not done your due diligence and created an LLC. You're a sole proprietorship. It's ok, though, because you're small potatoes, and you're not on anyone's radar, so it's ok (at least you think it is). Then one day you get a C&D from one of the big names because you've infringed on their copyrights, and they have proof in the form of the pictures you've posted on social media and/or your website, and they've seen the posts you've made on internet forums. Then your butt puckers because you're a sole proprietorship and realize they could go after anything you own to compensate for the damages that their high-priced lawyers have calculated.

Was it worth it just because you figured it was ok to infringe on their copyrights because you REALLY wanted to put Les Paul on your headstock?

Infringing on copyrights is wrong. I don't care who owns the IP. I'm not a fan of Gibson the company in any way, but they have a legal right to what is theirs.

Back in the 80's Geoff Gould at Modulus Graphite once sent me a cease & desist order because he had heard through the grapevine that I was thinking about making graphite guitar necks on the side. Color me surprised... Apparently, they were owned by Hughes Tool (yes - Howard Hughes), and the whole law department was supposedly poised to slice my throat in court..... Despite the fact that all I did was buy a used oven for $100, and ask my brother if it was possible to make molds from fiberglass cloth and plaster of paris (the answer was yes). I figured I could buy carbon fiber cloth from the many suppliers here in town serving the aircraft industry. Wouldn't even need a vacuum pump to make necks strong enough for guitars. Needless to say - I dropped the idea and sold the oven.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Here's something of interest:

Fender Musical Instruments Corp. v. Swade. If you don't have time to read the whole thing: Court fines guitar builder $50,000 plus Fender's legal fees. Fender served this Nashville builder, Kelton Swade, a cease and desist order to stop selling his Fender clone "vintage replicas" with headstocks that violate Fender's trademarked design. Swade settled out of court with Fender, signing an agreement to disjoin from selling guitars "in any way similar to" Fenders protected designs. He made very small changes making his clones "sufficiently distinguishable" from Fender: Contempt of court- $50,000 + Fender's legal fees and court costs. Language is important boys and girls: "in any way similar to".

https://casetext.com/case/fender-musical-instruments-corp-v-kelton-swade-individually-kelton-swade-llc?fbclid=IwAR0-o4CoOtlDyj-uNAn74Qb1pcS4-diZPwiyB8QdyOfZKyU-eHgXT8-vpnc

_________________
Measure Twice,

Karl Borum

That was in the terms of his settlement with Fender. I don’t know if it would apply to all design patents. Would it? Good read and interesting for all of us; especially if you build strat clones. Beware.

I think a small builder might be better off making some modest changes to the design (including body shape) anyway. Why not produce something with your own artistic contribution?

Because there is only so many ways a guitar body can be shaped. That's why US courts says you can't trade mark body shapes.

Otherwise everyone who made a D style guitar is in trouble.

_________________
Cat-gut strings are made from kitten guts, stretched out to near breaking point and then hardened with grue saliva. As a result these give a feeling of Pain and anguish whenever played, and often end up playing themselves backwards as part of satanic rituals.

Typhoon Guitars
http://www.typhoon-guitars.com

In the ultimatum article cited by Freeman above, Gibson says

“It’s a common misconception that a brand is just in a logo. The Les Paul, Flying V, Explorer, SG, Firebird, Thunderbird and ES shapes are trademarked shapes of Gibson. The design, from the components to the actual shapes are an integral part of the Gibson DNA.”

So what is the verdict on guitar shapes?

Ed M

If you really want the fine print, the decision on the Fender body-shape challenge is found at
https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno=246
In short, a guitar maker cannot trademark their body shape, so you are free to copy.
It’s quite a different story for headstock shapes, where Gibson has successfully defended its trademark on headstock shapes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In a common law country you could probably mount a defense based on precedents. However I wonder about civil law countries (which is what most countries in the world adopt). In civil law the law, not precedents is the only thing you can argue.

Meaning I wonder if Gibson could research laws in your country and then claim a copyright violation if your country's law says body shape is trademarked.

It can get complicated at times.

I know in the US Martin said they wanted to stop their headstock shape from being copied but it's so easy to accidentally stumble on it that I don't see how it can be trademarked. Plus many builders, companies, factories have used Martin's headstock shape and Martin had done nothing to protect it.

_________________
Cat-gut strings are made from kitten guts, stretched out to near breaking point and then hardened with grue saliva. As a result these give a feeling of Pain and anguish whenever played, and often end up playing themselves backwards as part of satanic rituals.

Typhoon Guitars
http://www.typhoon-guitars.com

I agree. Aren’t there enough Les Paul copies in the world, anyway?

This seems strange to me. Aside from the fact that a patent on using carbon fiber (assuming there was one) probably never conceived of this application, the idea that you were worth shutting down appears absurd. And you weren’t even selling products yet, right?

What do you mean, "assuming there ever was one"? Somewhere in my file cabinet I still have a copy of the patent I purchased from the US Patent Office. Yes - there was a patent, and Geoff Gould was protecting it aggressively, after all - it was his meal ticket.
http://www.ggould.com/info.html

The patent was extensively broad in scope, almost to point of being absurd. The technical drawings were of a mandolin, and the patent covered the necks of ANY and ALL stringed musical instruments. I'm pretty sure that any company or person who went up against the Hughes Tool legal machine would be cowed, as I was. However - it was eventually challenged in court, and Hughes (and therefore Gould) was forced to change the patent to a more narrow definition.

Modulus granted other companies the right to make carbon fiber necks under license if they paid a fee (usually a portion of the wholesale price), but now the fee has been reduced. What's strange is now there is very little market for graphite necked instruments and almost no makers doing so. Steinberger went to all wood construction eventually. Moses Graphite went out of business. There are boutique makers - mostly in Europe, and makers exploring all kinds of non-wood materials for guitars. By and large - more than 99 percent of the guitars made in the world - are wood.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Moses Graphite made an upright bass fingerboard for a Kay upright for me last year so they're still around. They make parts for classical instruments and high tech speaker cabinets.

Examine Collings offerings they not only flirt with Gibson IP (intellectual property) they are able to do g*bson better than g*bson in build quality and performance. In doing so Collings even launched Waterloo which are Kalamazoo 1930's copies for the most part. Collings changes headstocks and cut aways and the Les Paul look alike, the 290 and in doing so keeps a lousy company like g*bson from suing them as g*bson has done to others.

An individual builder who is not being commercial has every right to copy a g*bson guitar. Go commercial and watch your back Jack g*bson is the pariah of the Lutherie world when it comes to malicious use of the courts.

If you have to go around worrying about lawsuits then might as well just not do anything.

_________________
Cat-gut strings are made from kitten guts, stretched out to near breaking point and then hardened with grue saliva. As a result these give a feeling of Pain and anguish whenever played, and often end up playing themselves backwards as part of satanic rituals.

Typhoon Guitars
http://www.typhoon-guitars.com

Collings changes the body shape slightly as well as the headstock. Easy peasy. Don’t get your panties in a wad.

If they know you’re not directly copying and they try to shut you down, you can probably find an attorney to counter sue them on contingency and you’ll probably win. They’re not entitled to sue a guitar maker with the intent to shut them down by bleeding them of cash if they know that maker isn’t producing a direct copy.

In the biotech space, where I work, the proper response to a letter where you’re accused of IP infringement is to respond by saying you’ve looked into it and you’re not infringing. In this case, you could be more specific and say your body shape and headstock shape don’t match any known Gibson models but if they have any evidence to the contrary they should send it to you and you’ll be happy to look into it and cease production on those models IF they’re correct.

Otherwise they can f*** off.

I don't want to read this whole thread.

Can I build a Corvus or not?

_________________
"Real guitars are for old people, Mr. Marsh."

Eric Cartman

You can, but why would you?

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince