Lunch with an old friend

[fortyearspickn]

MoJo, Yes, but.....

What is the threshold of how many guitars a small business owner can make before they can be sued? Suppose he gets his brother in law to start a company so he can also sell the same guitars? Suppose ten other guitar makers decide they are small enough to copy things that are legally Gibson's product identification?

I don't think 'paying homage' has a legal standing if you are infringing on copyrights - especially after working for the original company for 10 years. There's hundreds of small guitar builders who manage to not stray into areas where they can be accused of copying, for example, the Hummingbird, down to Very Similar fret markers, bursts, white oval sound hole labels, peg head 'pineapple' inlaid logo and engraved pick guards! For $5k. And calling it "The Bird". Maybe Bozeman just got tired of being given 'the bird' by a former employee who set himself up in competition down the street.

[olie]

Sounds like a return to "lawsuit" guitars a la the 60's and 70's.

[OldCowboy]

Frustration exists at all levels? Not a bad notion. Major companies will always have the edge over independent craftsmen, though, in terms of the amount of financial resources at their disposal to keep their product more or less unique. Gibson has used the 'if you can't beat em, buy em out' strategy more than once to eliminate significant competition. Corporate manufacturing is an interesting creature, perhaps a necessary and/or inescapable evil, maybe just a reflection of things many have had to experience while trying to survive on the elementary school playground. Theories abound!

[Hogeye]

Wow. We were just having a nice talk when Kevin just sort of mentioned that Gibson was upset with him and the lawyers got involved. He was surprised that they took offence at his instruments.

 

Kevin has no grudge against Gibson in fact he is probably one of their biggest admirers. He wasn't trying to copy anybody or trick anyone. He was just building the best guitars he possibly could. He is extremely flattered by their concern.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Kevin has no ill will toward Gibson and of course he will stop using their peg head shape and any other feature that Gibson feels is inappropriate. All they had to do was call him and voice their concerns. Kevin is a very accommodating, unassuming kind of guy and wouldn't intentionally hurt anyone. A little lunch like we had would have solved all the problems.

 

Our conversation on this topic was very short. We quickly moved on to more important things. We both love mushrooms and were in the process of making plans for our mushroom hunting trips this Spring. I look forward to any kind of adventure that involves spending time with good friends. Kevin knows where the good Morrell sites can be found. Mine are pretty good as well and we guard our sites like the government guards Fort Knox.

 

Kevin has a "Mushroom" edge as he owns a nice bit of property up on the Yaak river, but that's another story. All we really need to know is whatever Kevin does will be amazing and he will always have a soft spot in his heart for Gibson giving him his start in the guitar business.

 

I really didn't mean to upset the good folks here.

[Lars68]

From my personal point of view, I would much rather be the owner of a boutique guitar with its very own unique cosmetic design, than one copying a classic. This goes for guitars from Kopp, Fairbanks, Blazer & Henks, Collings, Santa Cruz etc etc etc. I have no problem with trying to make a boutique guitar sound as close as humanly possible to, for instance, a Banner J-45. However, when it comes to cosmetic choices, not affecting tone, I would rather see something unique, connecting the look of the guitar to the specific builder. In fact, I would be very intrigued by a guitar inspired soundwise by a prewar Martin D-28, but looking very different, when possible.

 

I buy guitars for being more than just instruments to make music. I also want the history and heritage, and that, to me, only comes with the name on the headstock, be it Gibson, Martin, Fender, Rickenbacker, Gretsch or whatever. So one of the recent Martin pokes at Gibson territory would not interest me either (in this case, I actually believe Martin is having a bit of fun).

 

I wish Mr Kopp the best of luck with the changes he now seems to be forced to do. Personally, I hope he takes it further than just the headstock. If he does, he might have me as a new customer.

 

Lars

 

By the way, I'd like to add that I think most, if not all, of these small shop builders doing reproductions of old classics do it out of pure love for their tone, look, and importance to musical history. I don't think for one second that their cosmetic design choices are to gain a competetive advantage.

[rct]

He's a gifted professional acoustic guitar builder, Murph, but not necessarily a ground-breaking designer. There is quite a difference between building traditional guitars well and developing new designs. The acoustic guitar market is extremely conservative: when Gibson developed the Mks 35, 53 and 72, they came up with a very radical design - internally as well as externally. Apparently those guitars sound very good. They didn't sell, though, because they didn't sound or look like the traditional models that people wanted. Like Collings and other boutique builders, I think KK's intent is to produce a homage to guitars by a market leader, but to lavish a little more care on each guitar than is possible in a large-scale company. Discerning customers can tell the difference between the Kopp name and lettering on the one hand, and the Gibson name and lettering on the other. I'm concerned that Gibson see him as significant competition. If their high-end models are good, they shouldn't be concerned: they have the dominant brand and advertising budget on their side even if KK uses the same headstock outline.

 

Clearly you have no idea how copyright, trademark, service mark, or service dress works. Write some songs, I'll make a million off each, you will figure out, find out, and make copyright work for you real fast. Just like Gibson.

 

rct

[j45nick]

I still have to wonder, if his intentions are to build quality guitars bearing his own name, why in the he11 would you not come up with your OWN design for recognition? Otherwise it LOOKS like intent to deceive, whether it IS or not.

 

I simply don't get it.

 

Well, what about Martin's CEO-7 and CEO-8 guitars? They look suspiciously "Gibsonesque" to me, down to the Epi-type headstock and "The Martin" script logo on the CEO-8.

 

Kopp probably should have come up with a new headstock design, but my guess is he was paying homage to Gibson in his own way.

 

I seem to recall Martin doing a J-45 knock-off a few years ago as well.

[rct]

Well, what about Martin's CEO-7 and CEO-8 guitars? They look suspiciously "Gibsonesque" to me, down to the Epi-type headstock and "The Martin" script logo on the CEO-8.

 

Kopp probably should have come up with a new headstock design, but my guess is he was paying homage to Gibson in his own way.

 

I seem to recall Martin doing a J-45 knock-off a few years ago as well.

 

Large manufacturers often run new designs by any competitor they may infringe. As Leo and Gibson learned with the Firebirds and Jazzmaster/Jaguars of the 60's, that simple courtesy can often stop a lot of heartburn. Gretsch and Fender and the name "Broadcaster" come to mind as well.

 

rct

[OldCowboy]

Well, what about Martin's CEO-7 and CEO-8 guitars? They look suspiciously "Gibsonesque" to me, down to the Epi-type headstock and "The Martin" script logo on the CEO-8.

 

Kopp probably should have come up with a new headstock design, but my guess is he was paying homage to Gibson in his own way.

 

I seem to recall Martin doing a J-45 knock-off a few years ago as well.

I believe that was the CEO-5.

[slimt]

I hope Kevin comes up with a nice design that will appeal to folks like us..

 

Ill be waiting it the line for one of his guitars..

 

Thanks Hogeye..

[j45nick]

Large manufacturers often run new designs by any competitor they may infringe. As Leo and Gibson learned with the Firebirds and Jazzmaster/Jaguars of the 60's, that simple courtesy can often stop a lot of heartburn. Gretsch and Fender and the name "Broadcaster" come to mind as well.

 

rct

 

 

In my industry, manufacturers large and small frequently knock off each other's products, but they have never, to the best of my knowledge, run their knock-offs by the original company to see if its ok. If I were the original creator, I would just tell the knock-off guy "if you build that, I will sue you."

 

And yes, there have been a few knock-down, drag-out lawsuits that lasted several years. Some suits have been won by the original creator, others by the knock off guy. The original guy usually wins if it can be proven that the knock-off was made by "splashing" (taking a mold off the original product in order to duplicate it). If the knock-off only contains certain characteristics of the original, the knock-off guy usually wins.

 

The cases can get pretty esoteric at times.

[rct]

In my industry, manufacturers large and small frequently knock off each other's products, but they have never, to the best of my knowledge, run their knock-offs by the original company to see if its ok. If I were the original creator, I would just tell the knock-off guy "if you build that, I will sue you."

 

I guess the guitar companies function at times like it is 1957. A phone call, a letter in the mail, "please don't do that". Like cats and fighting, nobody really wants to get in a big fat lawsuit, so it's best I guess to try to get yer gentleman on.

 

The guitar industry had it's very small lawsuit skirmish a long time ago and the standards were established.

 

rct

[BluesKing777]

Here is my Cargill Custom..

 

While it is really original in appearance and design - the body is loosely based on a Gibson Nick Lucas shape like a L-00 with a deeper body, while the neck is loosely based on my Martin OM18V with V neck, wide nut and bridge spacing, but a multi-piece neck like a Lowden - the fingerboard end over the soundhole tips the hat to a Lowden. Then the woods are different - B/S African Ebony and an Italian Spruce top with Honduras Mahogany neck. Schaller tuners with real ebony buttons like a Lowden, and others. Bridge similar to a Taylor design but straighter if you look close. And it sounds nothing like any of them, which is why I wanted it after playing another similar! (I picked the teardrop Martin OM style pickguard).

 

 

So I think it is very original but drawing on ideas from the best. It sounds great and plays great, so the design is....as the other luthiers would agree - genius! I am so lucky and he is living not far from me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

[scriv58]

 

I really didn't mean to upset the good folks here.

 

 

social media ain't really very social...

[siddhartha]

Would you have wanted it as much if it wasn't styled like a Gibson?

 

Excellent question-for me, it is mostly about the sound of the guitar. It sounds like a great slope-shoulder dread, and I love that sound. In terms of styling, I love it. Yes, looks like a Gibson, so hard to say for sure, but it's a look that works for me. I used to not like the slope-shoulder look at all, and thought guitars should be shaped like a 000/OM, but my tastes have grown/changed.

 

I understand why Gibson would be upset with this, but I wouldn't be in the market for another Gibson of that style (have 2 and love them!), but may have been/be interested in a Kopp K35. Maybe even whatever "look" he ends up producing, if the sound is there

[jt]

I read that cease and desist letter with interest.

 

The Larson brothers used that headstock design before Gibson did:

 

[Hall]

"I really didn't mean to upset the good folks here." Hogeye

 

 

 

Naw!

[62burst]

If I may, pages ago in this thread, Mojorule had posted a link to a reply by JT in the Larson thread in early December. A to-the-point reply by John that may’ve been overlooked, hidden between some video clips: Link. Thought that one line might’ve helped to pull the reins in on this thread a little. It simply stated:

The Larsons did, indeed, pioneer the "open book" headstock design. Gibson later filed a design patent on the form, but I'm confident that, because the Larsons preceeded them, the company does not have an exclusive right to using the design.

[jt]

If I may, pages ago in this thread, Mojorule had posted a link to a reply by JT in the Larson thread in early December. A to-the-point reply by John that may’ve been overlooked, hidden between some video clips: Link. Thought that one line might’ve helped to pull the reins in on this thread a little. It simply stated:

The Larsons did, indeed, pioneer the "open book" headstock design. Gibson later filed a design patent on the form, but I'm confident that, because the Larsons preceeded them, the company does not have an exclusive right to using the design.

Ah, I'd forgotten my own comment!

 

Thanks for the reminder!