Official Luthiers Forum!

Just wondering  how other builders feel about using someone elses design. There is so much information that different ones have provided in forums like this and on individual websites. As I have contemplated building an instrument over the last 18 months or so I have spent quite a few hours collating general info as well as specific details and ideas which I have thought good or useful.

In another post recently I read of someone contacting another builder to ask permission to use their particular design . Is this what I should be doing myself?  How do others approach this aspect of building?

t's ok to be straight to the point with me. I won't be offended.

Regards

Craig. 

Technically if there is not patent on the design you are free to use it, but if it
is something very specific to that builder I'd suggest a quick e-mail or
phone call asking for their grace.

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

Craig, you will get many answers. It is unclear what you really mean by copy a design. After all most guitars we are building are copies, in the sense that the body shape, bracing patterns etc are somewhat standard, or end up being slight modifications from a standard.

If you mean you would like to copy some of the aesthetic details from someone's guitar that you like, I think you want to be careful about not crossing an imaginary line. It's perfectly reasonable to see someone inlay a rosette with pau in ebony and decide to to something similar. It's perfectly reasonable to see someone bind rosewood with Koa and decide you want to use the same combination. On the other hand I think it's unreasonable to copy someone's rosette, or unusual headstock exactly.

I think that a person needs to start with a somewhat standard design, look at all the great work out there, and allow the designs they like to influence their own design. This will give you something with your own signature on it. I'm all thumbs when it comes to aesthetics, but I still find it to be an enjoyable part of the creative process.

_________________
David White, Toronto

"All my favourite singers can't sing."

Why would you copy when you are trying to achieve your own identity? There are millions of design variables. Give one a try.

Dean

_________________
Dean

For me it`s pretty obvious what can and shouldn`t be copied.For example if you wanted to copy this
I`d say no.Although I can`t imagine why you would want to.On the other hand if you wanted to make a pick guard like this.
I`m pretty sure no one would care.
                       James

_________________
James W Bolan
Nashville Tennessee

[QUOTE=CraigSz]

Just wondering  how other builders feel about using someone elses design. There is so much information that different ones have provided in forums like this and on individual websites. As I have contemplated building an instrument over the last 18 months or so I have spent quite a few hours collating general info as well as specific details and ideas which I have thought good or useful.

In another post recently I read of someone contacting another builder to ask permission to use their particular design . Is this what I should be doing myself?  How do others approach this aspect of building?

t's ok to be straight to the point with me. I won't be offended.

Regards

Craig. 

[/QUOTE]

i commend you on your honesty. some people wont even bother to ask much less care to take someone else's design. i personally had a 7 string neck design stolen from me on another forum, no questions, no cares, just stolen. dont be one of those, whatever you sew in this life, you will also reap.

MEB

As James points out, there should be some distinction made between straight 'forgeries' and the use of common patterns, shapes, bracing, etc... Let's face it- it's pretty difficult to actually 'copy' a guitar unless you have it in hand (or have the CAD files??).
I don't see many 'pros' advertising their guitars as 'Martin OOO copies'...when I do, I'll get more excited about this whole issue.
There's a huge range of attitudes on this from the 'originators' - from the exemplary statements by Rick Turner (Thanks, Rick) that his ideas (adjustable neck,buttress bracing) are open to use by others (I assume for non-commercial use)...to builders who are making slight variations on fairly common ideas and then claiming that they are 'proprietary'.

I'm happy to use statements like 'inspired by..', 'after a design by...', ' xxxx-style' and the like when describing my guitars. I don't plan on doing a full 'literature search' and round of permission letters every time I head downstairs to make some sawdust.

This is all reminiscent of the 60s 'folk boom' when we learned that many tunes we thought were traditional were actually written by Bob Dylan and others.....

Cheers

John

I am amazed by the openess and the generosity of the luthiers here- whether they are at the top of the profession with 40+ years experience or 5 years. All are generous with design concepts- and the very least I can do is PM them and ask for their permission to use their ideas, giving them credit when "presenting" the completed guitar to the public, in whatever form of media that may be.

At one time a maker's peghead design and rosette were pretty much considered to be the luthier's signature, particularly in the classical guitar tradition.

Now, of course, some classical guitarists are among the worst violators of what I consider to be ethical representation of their work. There are a number of builders making Smallmans, Hausers, etc. and calling them by other makers' names.   I think that is just despicable, and is no different from my making a rough copy of a guitar and calling it a Traugott model or a Wingert or an Olson.

There are surely design elements that are de facto public domain at this point...all the Martin shapes including the peghead, for instance.   But if you're going to make a dreadnaught or a 000 then why not bring something of your own to the table?   Is it so hard to choose an alternative purfling or rosette?   

Some of us modern luthiers have clearly established our own signature looks in addition to engineering features.   I personally have no problem sharing the engineering stuff, but frankly, I'd just as soon people leave me to those features that could be argued to be my own aesthetic details. In marketing-speak they are "branding elements"...features like the famous Nike "swoosh"...that when seen carry the message "Rick designed this" to my potential future customers.

I've been amazingly fortunate that my most recognizable instrument, the electric Model 1 so closely associated with Lindsey Buckingham, hasn't been much copied. I know of a couple of luthiers who have made versions, but no major manufacturer has done so. I can't say that about my earlier work with Alembic where both Ken Smith and JayDee (in England) borrowed extremely liberally with my design ideas almost to the point of direct copies.

But then there's a guy in England who has a company there called "Turner Guitars".   His last name isn't Turner...

[QUOTE=Rick Turner]

But then there's a guy in England who has a company there called "Turner Guitars".   His last name isn't Turner...[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am aware of that guitar brand, but I didn't know the chap had a different surname...

And to think my Welsh grandmother's maiden name was Turner....

As Rick says, there are certain design elements that are 'trademarks' of sorts, although most of us don't register them as such. I just had a weekend student who really wanted to get a look at my 'owl' inlay, so that he could copy it. That's _my_ logo, for heaven's sake: make up your own! ;)

We're craft persons, working within a fairly developed traditon. Most of the 'obvious' things that don't involve new technology have been tried, and the designs we have embody the best features found by past generations. These work together in a very complex way to produce the desired result, and you'd be hard pressed to come up with a real 'improvement' starting with a blank sheet of paper. It's almost impossible to avoid copying some elements of good designs. I would not apologize for that sort of general convergence.

OTOH, I'm getting tired of seeing spalted rosettes. The idea was quite original; using 'rotten' wood as a decorative feature on a fine instrument. However, once you've had that insight, all that's left is to find a prettier piece, and there is a limit to that, and not much 'creativity'.

In short, there are places where a certain level of creativity is expected, and others where it's not. You have to know a fair amount about guitars to come up with a successful new shape that's not based pretty closely on an exisiting one, and most people won't ever do that. But you should be able to come up with your own style, through wood choices, trim design, and so forth. I don't give out many points to folks who buy a pre-inlaid Chinese fingerboard, or a Russian copy of a Japanese rosette from the 70s, or a laser-cut rosette of somebody else's design and manufacture. If you can make a guitar, you ought to have the skill to design and make your own trim, at least once in a while.

I asked a question a while back about the ethics of using someone else's inaly work on a guitar, and it seems that all that replied saw no problems with it. I personally dont see the difference between using one of our sponsor's inlays or some guy in China's inlays...Good art is good art no matter who made it. I will be the first to admit that inlay work is my achillie's heel in building guitars. I dont mind using other's art work in my builds.

As far as the headstock design, I will totally agree that everyone needs to come up with their own design. I have tried to come up with one that as far as I know nobody else has. I want my guitars to be distinctive from a distance. I certainly dont want to use Martin's or Taylor's or Gibson's headstock. I wouldnt knowingly use any other luthier's headstock design either no matter how well known or unknown.

Rosettes are in that gray area... there isnt much you can do on a consistant basis to have your own design. I will admit that I have seen some awesome rosettes though. Not sure who did it, but the crown of thorns rosette is as distinctive as they come!  I have been struggling to come up with a rosette that will be "My own", but so far I havent found that perfect rosette yet. I still like MOP and Paua rosettes...call me strange if you like, but I like the bling.

_________________
Reguards,

Ken H

"Rosettes are in that gray area... there isnt much you can do on a consistant basis to have your own design."

I've managed to do it, I get people asking to use my
designs all the time, the answer is No! their copywrited1
Lance

Thanks everyone that has replied. I will be extra careful when doing the rosette and peghead. I really do want to respect other builders creative ideas. John I think I will adopt your advice and email if I find I'm getting too close to copying exactly.

Regards

Craig.

All have made good points here, especially Rick.
I've had several people want to copy my end graft design. My answer was always, "why?" There is a reason my endgraft looks the way it does. It has nothing to do with the "S" shape of the binding wood but the shape of the sides and how they terminate. The "S" shape is the result of the negative space. My point being this: I didn't just design a cool looking "S" shape. My end graft has a deliberate thought process into it (as does every part of my guitars) and I would enourage you to do the same. Are all of my designs original? Heck no.
Bottom line if you copy a bunch of design ideas: you'll make other builders mad and your designs won't look original. Borrow ideas and make them yours.

When it comes to copying/borrowing, there is actually a very complex set of intertwining Federal, State and common law statutes that protect the types of works being discussed here. We are talking about a whole library of issues. John Mayes mentioned patents, which is only one such topic. But there is also copyright law, and aspects of trademark law, which can apply without lifting a finger. Certain rights are automatic.

There are also unfair competition laws that might kick in if there is an attempt to pass off your product. I think this is what got Ibanez in trouble with their Howard Roberts knock off, etc. Too close in appearance.

There are good suggestions how to go forward here, be original, buy plans, copy very old designs or build only for yourself (no selling). But be aware that this is not only a touchy subject because you might anger someone, it is legally complex as well.

_________________
"Building guitars looks hard, but it's actually much harder than it looks." Tom Buck

Of course, as many have said already, if you are going to copy something, asking permission is the best idea, even if you think something is in the public domain. Sometimes it flatters the originator and he/she will share important details on construction or technique or whatever, that you might have figured out yourself!

_________________
"Building guitars looks hard, but it's actually much harder than it looks." Tom Buck

Steve alluded to the look of a product. Legally this is called "trade dress" as opposed to a "trade mark". Michael Jackson actually got an injunction against a company that was marketing a single black glove in imitation of Jackson's signature look in his stage show and videos. This is also where companies like Gibson get the legal clout to protect their dove wing peghead and the bell truss rod cover designs.   I know that they have also seriously considered trying to shut down the "F" mandolin copy industry, but haven't moved on that...yet...

If the Martin company had had better lawyers several generations ago, they might still have the only dreadnought on the market...and OM, 000, 00, etc.

If you're good enough to build a guitar, you should be good enough to do at least some of your own design work.

Rick, you are quite correct, and thank you for bringing this up, because this aspect of the law is where many of us might get confused or tripped up.

Trade dress is essentially a trademark right. Trade dress (which is protectable by trademark) requires that the appearance of a product, or a distinctive non-functional design element of the product or packaging somehow identifies the source. For example, the hourglass shaped Coke bottle identifies the Coca-Cola company as the source of the product.

So, if you copy the logo of Mr. X, or end graft, or body shape, or a peg head, which happens to identify the product as being sourced from Mr. X, you could be in trouble.

_________________
"Building guitars looks hard, but it's actually much harder than it looks." Tom Buck

Steve, is there a way or need to register a trade dress? Or is that the whole point, that you don't have to register it?

I never said that buying inlays or other parts was 'immoral'; I just said that I don't give out many points for that! :)

As I understand it, at some level, copyright is inherent: when you originate something, you have the copyright. You can lose it, however, if you don't defend it. That's what happened with Martin's Dread shape: so many people have copied it so many times that it has become public domain. I wonder just how far Gibson would get defending the F mandolin at this point? Big companies spend a lot of time and effort defending their copyrights and trademarks. Words like 'Kleenex' and 'Band-Aid' that are close to public domain can be very hotly defended. MacDonalds tried to sue a Scots lady with that name who opened a sandwich shop, and Anhauser-Busch tried to sue the original Budweiser brewerey in Europe, even though they'd been making the brand for hundreds of years. Neither of those suits went anywhere, but the effort was made.    

I apologize if this is confusing, it is hard to simplify enough to fit neatly into a paragraph, and since I am at work, that is what I am trying to do. Qualifier: I am an intellectual property professional, but I do not do trademark or trade dress work at my firm, I do have a patent practice before the USPTO and so have a smattering of these concepts.

Paul, if you want to stop someone from copying something you designed and which has a distinctive aspect which points to you as the source you may be able to successfully obtain an injunction via the trade dress route. There is no registration needed to bring this kind of action.

To obtain trademark protection, of course, involves the submission of an application to the USPTO.

I believe the subject matter for trade dress and trademark protection overlaps to a great degree. It is also my impression that with trademark protection it is much easier to prove infringement. Once you have a trademark registered, you own it. With trade dress you have to prove your design points to you as the source without a registration putting folks on notice that you are the owner. A little more difficult hurdle to cross.

Copyright protection, as Alan states, begins at the moment of creation of the work and has a long, but finite life. I don't think copyright protection can be lost by not defending. On the other hand, if a trademark becomes "generic" it loses its special association with the owner. Trademarks last as long as they are renewed by the owner, but can pass into public domain if the owner does not enforce his rights because in time the mark, if used by others, no longer identifies just the original owner.

Now I am tired.

_________________
"Building guitars looks hard, but it's actually much harder than it looks." Tom Buck