Official Luthiers Forum!

I've been wondering, are there any copyright issues to deal with when building a guitar from a purchased plan? For example, if I purchase a "Hauser" plan and build the guitar to those specifications, are there any intellectual property laws to worry about? Can I market the guitar as a "Hauser" guitar? Is it any type of plagerism if I copy his exact bracing pattern or headstock outline and then sell it as mine? Is there any ownership to the specifications of a guitar? I never hear this mentioned but you would think the art or creation from a luthier would be protected just like any other piece of art, or literature, or music, etc...

Any legal experts out there?

Cheers!

John

I am pretty sure that copyrights last for 50 years after the death of the author. I think in most cases it is ok. Even patented items can be reproduced for personal use without violation.

I think this business that Gibson, Fender, and PRS are in muddies the waters for folks like us.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Good point Brock about the 50 years after death. What about if the artist is still alive, for example Hermann Hauser III is still alive building 15 guitars a year. I don't think the guitars are patented, therefore I buttume I can build to those specifications without worry? Now, buttuming I ever get good enough to build a guitar worth selling... I'm not saying I would build his exact guitar, but reproductions of some of the more famous clbuttical guitars is common-place among clbuttical builders. For example a Torres model, or Hauser, or Fleta, etc... I'm buttuming it's okay to build these models and then sell them as I don't believe they were ever patented.

Sorry for the long post, I'm just curious about the legal issues of building to somebody elses specifications. After all, there are only so many ways to brace a top...

Cheers!

JohnJohn Elshaw38356.4198842593

Hey, it looks like the swear filter is changing my post above. The word a s sume is being changed to buttume.   

Oh no, I just realized also I can never spell cla s sical guitar again because the swear filter is also changing that. Brock, can we petition to allow that word for us clbuttical fans???   

John John Elshaw38356.4228819444

I am not a lawyer, but I run into stuff like this with my job, so I have had this explained to me enough times that I think I might be starting to "get it". But don't take what I say to the bank.

In addition to the 50 year rule, it is expected that owners protect their intellectual property and defend the rights to their work. If they do not it is generally buttumed that it is in the "public domain" and is free for all to use.

Gibson, Fender, and PRS are in a huge squabble over the shape of their guitars. They are all racing to protect the shapes and litigating the snot out of this. In the fray a few small builders have gotten cease and desist letters.

It seems like much of this has missed the acoustic instrument world. I think so long as you don't start copying Taylor's bridge or something really obvious like that you will be ok.

My general rule is "It is better to ask for forgiveness than permission."

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Yes, we are searching for clues on the dirty word filter. I know a quick and dirty way to fix this, but we are trying to find a "real" fix.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

I also am not a lawyer. I am a CPA. I suspect there are other issues at hand copyrights and Patent rights/infringement are two distinct and seperate legal terms. Many of the designs...such as head stocks and bridges, even body shapes are not Patentable beause they are not unique enough or different in design, or function, or whatever other criterior is requiered for a patent to be granted. That being the case I think it is more of an unspoken pride thing that my headstock doesn't look like yours or if it does it is still similar but not exact. Some of these guitars and designs like the Les Paul and the Stratocaster were so unique in design that Patent's were issued. I suppose this doesn't become an issue until you start selling so many guitars that are so identical to those patents that the Accountants and lawyers start seeing lost revenue. THEN it is a very big deal. Us small builders probably have nothing to really worry about because what ever we are copying from whomever doesn't amount to much money damages wise and therefore the big boys let us play in their pool without much grief. Sylvan is our in house Attorney ( i believe ) maybe he will chime in and explain.Dave-SKG38356.7008680556

_________________
Dave Bland

remember...

"If it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood"

I tend to take a strict view of copyright and patent laws, primarily because I've worked in newspapers and publishing for 22 years and it is now a habit. But also because it's the right thing to do. My motto is "better safe than sorry."

Taylor, Gibson, Fender and other major manufacturers are taking a lot of heat these days over their zeal to protect their original designs, but I can't blame them — it's their livelihood that's at stake.

If a patent has expired it's perfectly legal to make an exact reproduction of a design, but you'd still want to be careful to label it as a reproduction, or perhaps "in the style of" a particular guitar.

I suspect that some factory guitar models have been made in so many variations that the body shape really has become generic and pretty much unprotectable. But I wouldn't want to be the one to test that theory in court.

The Gibson Les Paul comes to mind in that respect. I defy anyone to point out one of the scads of models they've made over the years and say "This one" or "That one" is the definitive Les Paul. When you start looking closely, you can see many variations from flat top to carved top variants, even some double cutaway models (sculpted and flat versions). Then again, perhaps they've patented each variant with a variant of the name. For example, Les Paul Jr., Les Paul TV, Les paul Special Edition, and so on and on.

Barring a flat-out ripoff of a patented headstock, or perhaps a distinctive body feature such as Mike Doolin's double-cutaway acoustic, (and in that case Mike might decide to tap-tune your noggin) I'm thinking the most likely way for a custom builder to get into trouble is making comparisons to other people's specific guitar models in marketing and advertising materials.

For example, I would definitely avoid such phrases as "My version of the Taylor 355" or "This is the way Martin should be building their OM-16V."

Besides, you don't want one of your lovingly hand-built beauties to be mistaken for a factory guitar anyway, do you?

'ell no!

_________________
D..

Sorry John, I forgot to add that you can find a lot of useful information at Nolo.com

_________________
D..

I agree Dennis... deception is wrong...

However if you have followed some of the things that have gone on with Fender, Gibson, PRS, etc.... it is just stupid. At one point Fender was trying to say that every double cutaway that had horns was a rip off of the stratocaster... that is just absurd.

I think ripping off other people's work. i.e. Taylor's head stock, or bridge design, is not cool.. but honestly, can you say that the body shape of their x14 guitar is all that different from anything else out there? Besides you could build their EXACT same shape and brace it your own way. Does that violate their intellectual property. In my mind you were "inspired" by their design, but put your own signature on it when you braced it differently.

The bottom line is we have all been "influenced" by those around us, and those who came before us. Nobody in this business should be throwing stones -- deception should be dealt with, but the rest of this seems kind of crazy to me.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Good Points from all...But I still think that it amounts to Dollars. When we start churning real bucks...people start looking at how that is happing. That's when it becomes practical for the big boys to cry infringement. It's all about money...shame isn't it?
But then again if I were a Patent holder...I would make each and every one you pay thru the nose! You bunch of copiers you! Just kidding...

_________________
Dave Bland

remember...

"If it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood"

One other point John, don't follow the "plan" to a tee. You know with some forethought and common sense...for me all a plan really is is a starting point. Make the guitar work for the customer by starting with the plan and then customizing it a multitude of ways ( bracing, voicing, bridge design, headstock design, wood selection, etc. you know). Then it becomes your version of that model and not an exact copy. I really never understood someone wanting an exact copy ( well I do but...). Ever go to a really big music store and play 15 d-28's they are each different. As a kid, I used to do that on 48th street in New York. I would go to all the "big" music stores and play everything...spend the whole day...and nothing was the same...strats, les pauls, Martins,etc. whatever. Each guitar was different even amongst the "exact same" model. So even a spec copy is something that is very different sound and playability wise.Dave-SKG38357.5832291667

_________________
Dave Bland

remember...

"If it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood"