Rickenbacker Plans

[mefgames]

Dr Z,

There is a program you can buy from http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/

This will take any picture you choose and print it out, virtually any guitar you have a good pic of will render a good starting point printed out to scale.

It only works on PC's, but it's well worth the $ 22.

I bought it, and have used it to make a copy of a couple of guitars that plans were nowhere to be found.

Take a look

Mike

[dr_zaius]

Originally Posted by mefgames

http://woodgears.ca/bigprint/

That's the guy who builds his own tools! I watched a vid of a giant band saw he built out of wood. That guy has some crazy insane woodworking skills.

[Maricopa]

I was just trying to figure out the difference between 'stealing' for free or for profit.

Actually I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. The Ric shape is what, 40+ years old and like Fender found out you really can't protect the shape of a guitar body so I don't see a problem with either selling plans or giving away a pdf.

[dr_zaius]

Originally Posted by Maricopa

I was just trying to figure out the difference between 'stealing' for free or for profit.

Actually I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. The Ric shape is what, 40+ years old and like Fender found out you really can't protect the shape of a guitar body so I don't see a problem with either selling plans or giving away a pdf.

I think the difference is that all the pdf files you can find on this site are free, and were drawn up with the intention of being accessible at no charge, therefore no one is making a profit off the plans. Meanwhile some fellow in Austrailia is making money off plans for a design he does not own the copyright to. It's not against the law to draw, download, or otherwise obtain a pdf file of a blueprint of a guitar. But I think its kind of crummy to charge money for it when its not your original design, which is why I said I would post a pdf of the plan if I actually did purchase it. If I did, it would basically be a "screw you for charging people for this" type of thing, and that's all I meant by it.

[Warnz]

Originally Posted by fluid69

P.S. does it make it any less of an offence to clone a fender because their legal department is less "protective" of their intellectual property?

Now your questioning morals

[dazzaman]

Originally Posted by Maricopa

I was just trying to figure out the difference between 'stealing' for free or for profit.

Actually I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. The Ric shape is what, 40+ years old and like Fender found out you really can't protect the shape of a guitar body so I don't see a problem with either selling plans or giving away a pdf.

First the disclaimer: I am not in the legal profession, nor in the USA...

There is a big difference, as ievans said. That being that neither Gibson nor Fender have never protected (and probably in most cases didn't even trademark) their designs. And the 40 year thing doesn't come into it because it is a trademark rather than a patent. Rickenbacker have always protected their IP and are obliged to do so to keep it (hence why G and F lost theirs).

Anyone can feel free to phone them up and discuss it if they think they are right and Ric are wrong - others who have tried in the past are pretty much all of the opinion it is something they will never try again. And I have no doubt they are already aware of this thread.

I am pretty sure legally that even making drawings of their designs is illegal, and there is certainly precedent through courts with things such as copyright on images (ie. of paintings) which can not be reproduced etc.

There is a book called "Violin Fraud: Deception, Forgery, Thefts and Lawsuits in England and America" by Brian Harvey and Clara Shapreau which, although concerning itself with violins, directly relates to other instruments and is an entertaining and sober read.

I will repeat my disclaimer - I am no legal authority, but if people really think I am wrong why not phone Ric and ask.

[tehcnalp]

Originally Posted by dr_zaius

It's not against the law to draw, download, or otherwise obtain a pdf file of a blueprint of a guitar.

Actually it is.

I deal with copyright law on a weekly basis in the photo industry. And it's not just US law, thanks to the Berne Convention, most nations abide by almost identical copyright laws. And largely thanks to the Disney corporation the date for protected works falling into the public domain has been stuck at 1923 for a couple decades now (Steam Boat Willie). Copyright and patent law has gone insane.

What will "protect" you and me from being sued by Rickenbacker (and what protects all of us from Fender and Gibson) is that there really isn't any money in suing the small time builder, even if you sell a couple of these to your buddies. Let's face it, we're small potatoes. Instrument builders are nowhere nearly as litigious as the RIAA. It's more costly to go after the small time craftsman than it's really worth.

Their legal departments have their hands full suing each other (Gibson v. PRS over the single cutaway. Overturned on appeal.) It's the mass production knock-offs that are the big problem for these companies. Anyone remember getting targeted internet adds from a Chinese company that was producing identical knock offs of Les Pauls about a year ago?

Just my 2¢.

[dr_zaius]

Originally Posted by tehcnalp

Actually it is.

I deal with copyright law on a weekly basis in the photo industry. And it's not just US law, thanks to the Berne Convention, most nations abide by almost identical copyright laws. And largely thanks to the Disney corporation the date for protected works falling into the public domain has been stuck at 1923 for a couple decades now (Steam Boat Willie). Copyright and patent law has gone insane.

What will "protect" you and me from being sued by Rickenbacker (and what protects all of us from Fender and Gibson) is that there really isn't any money in suing the small time builder, even if you sell a couple of these to your buddies. Let's face it, we're small potatoes. Instrument builders are nowhere nearly as litigious as the RIAA. It's more costly to go after the small time craftsman than it's really worth.

Their legal departments have their hands full suing each other (Gibson v. PRS over the single cutaway. Overturned on appeal.) It's the mass production knock-offs that are the big problem for these companies. Anyone remember getting targeted internet adds from a Chinese company that was producing identical knock offs of Les Pauls about a year ago?

Just my 2¢.

Wait wait wait. So if I were an artist, and I painted a picture of John Lennon circa 1964, playing his Rickenbacker, then uploaded it here just to show everyone how pretty my painting was, wanting no money whatsoever, you're saying Rickenbacker and Yoko Ono could sue me? For what? Painting a picture of their property?

Most of your examples, notably the Mona Lisa thing, those were counterfeited for profit. If some guy wants to paint the Mona Lisa just to hang it in his (or his friend's) living room, what's legally wrong with that?

[dazzaman]

Originally Posted by dr_zaius

Wait wait wait. So if I were an artist, and I painted a picture of John Lennon circa 1964, playing his Rickenbacker, then uploaded it here just to show everyone how pretty my painting was, wanting no money whatsoever, you're saying Rickenbacker and Yoko Ono could sue me? For what? Painting a picture of their property?

Most of your examples, notably the Mona Lisa thing, those were counterfeited for profit. If some guy wants to paint the Mona Lisa just to hang it in his (or his friend's) living room, what's legally wrong with that?

Again with my disclaimer of not being legal - you are fine painting a Rickenbacker or even, for that matter, photographing one since both of those constitute a "work of art" in its own right. A blueprint is different because it is expressly for providing technical detail of Ric's IP.
However, if you did do a painting or photo you would own the copyright on that, and you could sue anyone who copied that work without your permission.
And profit is actually irrelevant. My day work is in museums and collections, and my institution owns several Picasso paintings. We are legally not allowed to put photographs of the paintings on the internet for catalogue purposes because the copyright belongs to the Picasso estate. I know this has been tested in Courts of Law (not by my institution, I hasten to add)...

[Jack Wells]

even the "fender" stratocaster/jaguar/jazzmaster headstock shape was ripped off of bigsby

I wouldn't say ripped off........... more like greatly improved upon.

[PrescottRX]

Hey Dr. Zaius,

I'm really excited to see the work you do on your Fakenbacher which you plan to make solely for your personal use. I hope it turns out great. :)

[tehcnalp]

Originally Posted by dr_zaius

Wait wait wait. So if I were an artist, and I painted a picture of John Lennon circa 1964, playing his Rickenbacker, then uploaded it here just to show everyone how pretty my painting was, wanting no money whatsoever, you're saying Rickenbacker and Yoko Ono could sue me? For what? Painting a picture of their property?

Yes, most people don't realize just how insane these things get. But this isn't necessarily a copyright violation. The Rickenbacker part of the painting would likely fall under a protected trademark (if the logo is visible on the headstock or if the style of the guitar is so iconic, that they registered a trademark it as a trademark.) John Lennon on the other hand would fall under third party rights. You would have to clear that with Yoko and his estate. Also, being 1964, depending on the surroundings you may need to clear it with whoever is still representing the Beatles and their record company.

And let's make this even more fun. Let's say you used a particular photograph as your guide. The photographer actually owns the copyright to that photo. And he or she or their estate could sue you.

The only protection you might be able to claim is a 1st Amendment privilege of Free Press. That is if you called it an illustration and posted it to your blog site along with a couple words about John or Rickenbackers. And the verdict is still out (literally) on whether bloggers are journalists. However that still might not protect you from the photographer. He could still claim that you never paid for the use of their work.

You see a lot of this going on with youtube and music or movies. Someone makes a video of their cat doing something funny, then adds their favorite Prince song. They get a cease and desist order from his Purpleness.

My favorite story was about two years ago. Someone posted a bad phone video of Prince performing Radiohead's Creep. His people sent a letter threatening legal action to the person who posted the video. Radiohead heard about this and said wait a minute, that's our song. You can't do that. It can stay up.

[dr_zaius]

Originally Posted by PrescottRX

Hey Dr. Zaius,

I'm really excited to see the work you do on your Fakenbacher which you plan to make solely for your personal use. I hope it turns out great. :)

Nice try, Rickenbacker employee. Just for all the hub-bub this thread has drummed up, I have decided to build my Fakenbacker in an underground bunker complete with RF shielding, in the dark, with night vision goggles....

... and then cover it with military grade radar cloaking material.

[Dave W]

Originally Posted by tehcnalp

Actually it is.

I deal with copyright law on a weekly basis in the photo industry. And it's not just US law, thanks to the Berne Convention, most nations abide by almost identical copyright laws. And largely thanks to the Disney corporation the date for protected works falling into the public domain has been stuck at 1923 for a couple decades now (Steam Boat Willie). Copyright and patent law has gone insane.

What will "protect" you and me from being sued by Rickenbacker (and what protects all of us from Fender and Gibson) is that there really isn't any money in suing the small time builder, even if you sell a couple of these to your buddies. Let's face it, we're small potatoes. Instrument builders are nowhere nearly as litigious as the RIAA. It's more costly to go after the small time craftsman than it's really worth.

Their legal departments have their hands full suing each other (Gibson v. PRS over the single cutaway. Overturned on appeal.) It's the mass production knock-offs that are the big problem for these companies. Anyone remember getting targeted internet adds from a Chinese company that was producing identical knock offs of Les Pauls about a year ago?

Just my 2¢.

This is about trademarks, it has nothing to do with copyright. And it's specifically about Rickenbacker, not about what Gibson, PRS or Fender does or doesn't do.

Rickenbacker trademarked all their guitar shapes and goes after anyone marketing copies, whether it's a major corporation or a small time builder. That includes a guy who offered plans at the MIMF several years ago. That would include anyone who offers plans publicly.

Whether you approve or disapprove of this is beside the point, it's just the way things are with Rickenbacker.

[dr_zaius]

Originally Posted by tehcnalp

Someone makes a video of their cat doing something funny, then adds their favorite Prince song. They get a cease and desist order from his Purpleness.

"His Purpleness" ftw

[tehcnalp]

Originally Posted by dr_zaius

Nice try, Rickenbacker employee. Just for all the hub-bub this thread has drummed up, I have decided to build my Fakenbacker in an underground bunker complete with RF shielding, in the dark, with night vision goggles....

I say go for it. I'm planning to build one for myself at some point in the future (purely for personal use). It's part of my plan to build every guitar I ever wanted to own - a silly hobby.

Just let me know what kind of RF shielding you use. I was going to just go with a tin-foil hat, but it keeps falling off.

[dr_zaius]

Originally Posted by tehcnalp

It's part of my plan to build every guitar I ever wanted to own - a silly hobby.

This is the precise reason I got into the hobby. I can't afford nice guitars. The most expensive one I've ever had was a Les Paul Studio that my dad picked up at a hock shop for $500.

There's actually two reasons I'm building a Fakenbacker: For one, I am extremely poor, and two, I only like the look of Rickenbackers. I hate the action on them and would much rather play on something with a Fender neck and maple fretboard. That being said, this fake Rickenbacker will really be a 330 body, fender neck and fretboard, probably bolt on, with a ric headstock. So basically I'm gonna rip off Fender and Rickenbacker, and I feel that pretty much evens things out

[PrescottRX]

Originally Posted by dr_zaius

Nice try, Rickenbacker employee. Just for all the hub-bub this thread has drummed up, I have decided to build my Fakenbacker in an underground bunker complete with RF shielding, in the dark, with night vision goggles....

... and then cover it with military grade radar cloaking material.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, I'm a window-washer / returning-student at the age of 37. I'm sitting next to my rough-sawn tele body looking through the forums trying to figure out how to do this stuff.

EDIT: And FWIW, I really was interested in how you were going to go about building this guitar as I'm far to poor, and don't really like Rick's 100% myself, to ever get one.

[sjohnbruton]

Originally Posted by tehcnalp

I say go for it...

I was going to just go with a tin-foil hat, but it keeps falling off.

Use more duct tape. Or a staple gun...

BTW, I say go for it too. (I'm working on building copies of some of my favorite guitarist's main axes. Think Garcia, Allman, Gilmore, Knopler, etc.)

[customxke]

Originally Posted by tehcnalp

Actually it is.

I deal with copyright law on a weekly basis in the photo industry. And it's not just US law, thanks to the Berne Convention, most nations abide by almost identical copyright laws. And largely thanks to the Disney corporation the date for protected works falling into the public domain has been stuck at 1923 for a couple decades now (Steam Boat Willie). Copyright and patent law has gone insane.

What will "protect" you and me from being sued by Rickenbacker (and what protects all of us from Fender and Gibson) is that there really isn't any money in suing the small time builder, even if you sell a couple of these to your buddies. Let's face it, we're small potatoes. Instrument builders are nowhere nearly as litigious as the RIAA. It's more costly to go after the small time craftsman than it's really worth.

Their legal departments have their hands full suing each other (Gibson v. PRS over the single cutaway. Overturned on appeal.) It's the mass production knock-offs that are the big problem for these companies. Anyone remember getting targeted internet adds from a Chinese company that was producing identical knock offs of Les Pauls about a year ago?

Just my 2¢.

Rickenbacker hasn't copyrighted their designs...they're trademarked.