Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by stnmtthw, Jun 20, 2019.
Can you inform me what the difference is?
Not being argumentative, I honestly don't know.
Is there a summary of the aggressive Gibson video anywhere?
I wish that I would have viewed it.
I appreciate the legal info from warrent and birfl - thanks much.
I wonder how Dean got selected for the public display. Are they small enough that Gibson can afford the retaliation but big enough that other manufacturers will notice? Is that it??
Dean? I talk to guitar players daily and I enjoy forums and I gig and I haven't seen a person in public with a Dean Guitar in over a decade. I don't hear people talking about Dean. I wonder how and why they measured up for the big Gibson stance. I'm in my mid 50's and when I think of Dean I mostly think of Ric Ocasek. When I was 18 wanted a Dean like his so badly!
Dean. This is all that I've got.
Wow...a guy from Detroit that uses the word "y'all" for a plural sencond person pronoun. That's a first.
I've bought new and used guitars all my life. I will say I was unimpressed with Gibson's made between 2010-2015.
I've seen a few of the hideous redneck Dean Dimebag guitars in the hands of 17 yr olds. I know one guy that has a pretty nice old Dean Cadillac. Other than that, I don't know where they are or who buys them.
You are right - and it doesn't stop at guitars...
What about amps and effect pedals? How many tubecreamer clones are out there? How about tweed and blackface fender clones?
Sure, many of these are improvements on the original, but a $20 chinese tubescreamer has got to hurt ibanez's bottom line.
Vox has sued some botique builders that were making accurate copies of their original amps - even when they weren't selling anything remotely similar circuit-wise.
I think there is a lot of ambiguity in trademarking a shape. How far off does it have to be considered legal - 5%, 10% ??
I don't think it will go anywhere - it might just backfire on them and lead to the trademark canellation that Dean is looking for.
You can view it here
Think of it this way a Trademark is how a business identifies itself. Like the Fedex logo. Trademarks can live forever.
Copyrights protect creative works like a book, a song or a design for a period of time usually the authors death plus 70 years or so.
If you want to understand how one decides if a trademark is infringed this is a good outline of an 8 factor test:
Thanks. I just found it on the Mandolin Café site.
I don't find it to be extremely offensive. They could have chosen a speaker who was more diplomatic but the message would be the same.
I don't watch a ton of TV but living near Milwaukee I hear constant TV and radio ads that have the rough and tough announcer who boasts about the real Harley Davidson - real American motorcycle experience and life style. I hear the same stuff about real Ford F-150's (the real American truck) and Stihl Chain Saws and John Deere mowers (etc) and I don't freak out. "Hey man you want to own the original iconic thing and we sell hats and t-shirts that will make chicks dig you - it was all us; we invented it!". It's branding.
For years people griped about the Gibson diversion from iconic classic designs. The Robot tuners were bad and the $999 Tribute models stunk and the space age Explorer X was a joke and Henry was a doofus and on and on.
Now they're focused on base models and QC again and they're trying to protect the branding but now they're still bad.
Gibson can't do anything right!
Gibson isn't trying to protect anything.
They're going against all the legal precedents set simply to bully people with lawsuits.
The trademarks on Gibson/Fender body shapes from 70 years ago don't exist and have not been approved in any recent time. Moreover, the headstock trademark was never a Gibson design in the first place, it's IP Trolling at best.
Unlike many here, I find IP Trolling to be a disgusting behavior.
All Gibson is doing here is abusing their ability to file lawsuits to scare others for doing things that are perfectly legal. Fender does the same crap too. Even though they can't win on the trademark issue, more juries and more lawsuits and more juries and more lawsuits.
The only thing this abuse of the justice system leads to is misery & expenses for others which Gibson is perfectly OK with. As an instrument company they damn near pioneered the age of branding plus mass manufacture.
Almost all of my guitars are Gibson so it's not some inner hate streak I have against them. There should be term limits to design exclusivity, period. The shape of a piece of wood used in instruments, in my opinion, beyond an appropriate term should absolutely be public domain. Most of them already are when you get rid of the IP trolls.
I read , therefore I am. (Y’all)
Speaking of “y’all”, bringing up that Cracker Flag Dimebag guitar is , as the millennials say, very triggering for me.
Not in any political sense, but in a aesthetic sense.
Would you say the Gibson public relations department is worse than the Dean design department or are they just about even ?
Hideous guitars and headstocks from day one. Truly atrocious . Trailer park metalpalooza. Sold to guys with Oakley sunglasses, FOX decals on their Chevy S 10’s and theyre still kinda/sorta into ICP but their bro’s razz them for it.
I found a Dean six string banjo that I wanted to mess around with for about 150 bucks on craigslist 10 years ago.
I lasted a week with that thing before I ran it through my buddy’s bandsaw just to flatten out the top of the headstock.
A little stain and she was good to go !
Looks like I'm going to go buy a Dean this weekend just on principle.
I really had high hopes for Curleigh...
Now,I can see what's really afoot here. Gibson and those at the levers of power are bound and determined to run the Gibson name not only through the mud (Henry J already did that for years) but to drag it straight to hell.
When you are making poor financial decisions in the mergers and acquisitions department, meanwhile letting (what should be) your main area of business (guitars) "go to the dogs" in both customer/market demand, affordability/accessibility, and QUALITY!
I do not even like PRS (they make great guitars, just not for me) but I can say I would put several PRS SE models up against the last 10yrs of "high end" Gibsons as far as quality and consistency is concerned.... and that is SAD considering their respective price points and target demographic.
failing to recognize what PRS and many other makers of fine/ "high end" makers did as far as making a more affordable range of guitars, that still LOOK like and play similar to the top end models... just like PRS.
I hate to keep referencing PRS, but they have gotten so much right in the "affordable" game, that they cannot be ignored.
There are FAR more "low end" players than "high end" payers.... in other words more of us can afford an $800 guitar (MORE OFTEN EVEN) than to pay 3-5k for one...ONCE!
So,instead of focusing on areas of improvement like James Curleigh originally came out of the chute singing... he has resorted to finger pointing and the blame game...
Its everyone else's fault Gibson guitars have sucked for well over a decade both in Colors options, feature set and QUALITY control.
Its everyone else fault that people can't afford to buy a 3-5k guitar when they just feel like it, "but we made the "faded" guitars cheaper" yea the ones that are so stripped down in comparison to the 3-4k models that they don't even compare to what they are supposed to be representing... and they are usually lacking in overall quality. "But there is Epiphone" again, not a Gibson!
Fender has guitars made in Mexico that say FENDER on the headstock, and are built buy a guy with FENDER on his shirt/nametag.
Its everyone else's fault that our headstocks break off on guitars that can cost over 10k... that's why so many builders and companies have improved that horrible design flaw, but Gibson hasn't.
China isn't making all those copies cause no one is buying... but Gibson has become so shameless and slimey who would even want something with the name on it?
At this point I honestly HOPE they crash and burn, and then maybe one day the Phoenix will rise from the ashes and someone will come along and do it right for a change.
Trying to compete in the world of "high end" guitars is a pretty tall order when your product is of questionable quality at times, and even at it's (current) best isn't on par with other companies guitars that cost far less...
Going on name alone just doesn't work anymore, and being a scumbag/ finger pointer isn't exactly popular either.
It's time someone pulled the plug and just let it go in peace.
+1. I'd love to have another old Gibson acoustic, but their whole shtick now seems to be "Let's aim for the guy with incredible disposable income who may not be able to play guitar but wants to relive his youth and get some Gibsons to hang on the wall of his playroom."
That doesn't speak well about what they must think of their target market. Nor does it make the company look very appealing to younger and more diverse guitar players. It's 2000-freaking-19. If they think pandering to 'Real 'Murica' is gonna help get them outa debt, they're in for a rude awakening.
Fender estimates that half of new players are women. I'd personally love to know what Gibson plans to do about that. Make more tough guy videos? Please.
Harley Davidson? I've heard they're not doing so well nowadays in the US. They're apparently making an electric bike for foreign markets. Because loud pipes save lives or whatever.
I played a couple J35’s and even the lowly J15’s and a couple of them impressed the hell out of me.
They weren’t that much new and used I think some of them are real bargains
well, just watched that part of the video. if I was trying to craft a video for Gibson to highlight iconic Gibson guitars,.. I'd make sure the spokesperson wasn't amped on,.. let's say coffee. He could be selling aluminum siding or Audis,.. just the clothes would be different.
Too bad, certainly a misstep to warn other guitar companies in a the guise of a promotional video. Not to say I'm against anyone protecting their brand but Gibson should take the time to show everyone they are back and making kick ass stuff. If they expect to drive sales back to the mothership by eliminating the competition,.. it's chump move IMO and ill timed.
Dean? Seriously, Dean??..
I'd say that this is part of "the cost of doing business" and would agree, it's shady. However, we are talking about designs that were around literally decades before there were attempts to protect them. And that's not just true of Gibson.
My feeling is, the horses have left the barn on this, long ago. And a video (which I have seen) that can come across as someone trying to be a [email protected]$$ with a general tenor of "Yeah, mess with us and we're gonna send some guys around to break your thumbs" is barely worth an eye-roll and a chuckle.
There are differences between trademarks and copyrights, but you're not wrong.
Well and truly spoken, IMO. And I'd echo--I am not a Gibson hater either. One of the iconic images that made me want to play guitar in the first place was seeing Jimmy Page with a Les Paul slung around him, cig dangling from his lips, bottle of Jack clasped in one hand. I've owned several Gibsons. But the fact is--at least it's factual to me--they are way overvalued/overpriced, both new and vintage, and several companies make Gibson-like (dual humbuckers, etc.) guitars that are at least as good and probably far more stable.