Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Gibson sends out a warning to copycats


Rabs

Recommended Posts

I find it genuinely interesting the challenges of internet promoting videos. For instance, there was a video of a presentation of Paul Reed Smith and Tim Pierce that went a bit wrong. Paul’s eccentric enthusiasm was interpreted by some as being disrespectful and condescending towards Tim. Then several others who read the comments started to agree and picked up their pitchforks. Tim pitches in sayin Paul was a friend and he didn’t feel disrespected, but the damage was done. 

In hindsight, it wasn’t the right business decision to post that video. We’re now discussing business instead of guitars because of it. However, I think some of the things people are getting angry at is being blown out of proportion. For instance the the play authentic comment. A lot of people are trying to promote their YouTube channels by jumping on the bandwagon and reading too much and extrapolating on what’s been said. Some of them surprised me, because I rather enjoy some of these channels. 

One example that comes to mind is The Guitar Geek. To be fair, people started attacking him for being excited about Gibson’s new direction after his interview with JC. He needed to distance himself from Gibson to stop the attacks on him. However, I watched his video where he claims that JC lied to us, but I really don’t understand how he arrives at that conclusion. Good guitars and better QC doesn’t mean no lawsuits or the absence of that video featuring Mark Agnesi. How does the Gibson lied to us conclusion make any sense?

Several people are reporting good things about the new guitars. However, there are still some people finding dogs. Were people expecting the QC to be completely fixed this fast? If so that is a bit naive. I believe it has improved, but it can improve even further. There is no way JC comes in implements a few things and all of a sudden QC is absolutely perfect. It sucks if you end up with one of the dogs during the transition period, but a transition period is inevitable. Things, specially at this scale, don’t just get fixed from one day to the next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll preface my comments by saying I never watched the video because I wasn't really that interested, now it's been pulled and I can't find it anywhere.  

Anyway, I'm not an attorney but I understand that the precedence is that the body shapes can't be trademarked but the headstock can.  In a way this makes sense.  Most headstocks are unique identifiers of a brand or model.  However, I think that the courts may have been wrong about the body shape.  My recollection is that  they said something like these are all shapes that that people would have come up with eventually anyway, therefore they aren't really unique, or something close to that.  I don't think I agree with that.  It would almost be like saying you could make a car that is exactly like a corvette but just put a different logo on it and you're good. 

Just because the court(s) made a decision doesn't make it correct, it's just the current precedent.  If you can come in and make a better argument then precedent doesn't matter.  I think the body shapes are complex and unique and I think these should be protected.  I do see the problem as it relates to acoustics.  For them the shape is really part of the function of the instrument, and they've been around so long who knows who came up with them first.  Also, I don't know that it's ever been specifically challenged, maybe it has.  But, for electrics, the body shape doesn't really have much to do with function, it's all pretty much aesthetic.  As such it should be protected.

Personally, I don't really care very much one way or the other.   I was never going to buy a Dean guitar before and I'm still not gonna buy one now.

 

Edited by Black Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I'll preface my comments by saying I never watched the video because I wasn't really that interested, now it's been pulled and I can't find it anywhere.  

Anyway, I'm not an attorney but I understand that the precedence is that the body shapes can't be trademarked but the headstock can.  In a way this makes sense.  Most headstocks are unique identifiers of a brand or model.  However, I think that the courts may have been wrong about the body shape.  My recollection is that  they said something like these are all shapes that that people would have come up with eventually anyway, therefore they aren't really unique, or something close to that.  I don't think I agree with that.  It would almost be like saying you could make a car that is exactly like a corvette but just put a different logo on it and your good. 

Just because the court(s) made a decision doesn't make it correct, it's just the current precedent.  If you can come in and make a better argument then precedent doesn't matter.  I think the body shapes are complex and unique and I think these should be protected.  I do see the problem as it relates to acoustics.  For them the shape is really part of the function of the instrument, and they've been around so long who knows who came up with them first.  Also, I don't know that it's ever been specifically challenged, maybe it has.  But, for electrics, the body shape doesn't really have much to do with function, it's all pretty much aesthetic.  As such it should be protected.

Personally, I don't really care very much one way or the other.   I was never going to buy a Dean guitar before and I'm still not gonna buy one now.

 

 

If I want a guitar shaped like a Les Paul, I will buy a Les Paul. If I want a guitar shaped like a Stratocaster, I will buy a Stratocaster. Both Fender and Gibson have cheap versions of their "iconic" brands. Epipihone, Squire, yada, yada, yada. I never been drawn to Dean, their guitars are made to appeal to the  Metal Heads.  I'm in your camp, I don't give two shitz about the law suit, but I do find the approach stupid.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally can't care less about Dean guitars, etc. - shared sentiment here on that topic.  It all came down to the idea that they are taking a threatening approach and involving the average Joe on a public released video broadcasting (hinting at) they are going to sue and enforce the consumer to play authentic because they're going to sue - or come after them somewhat paraphrased to what Mark said in the video.  I don't condone that behavior at all.  They are discouraging competition by this action - where competition invokes innovation that Gibson has had no part with innovating with the same guitars made 50 plus years ago.  But that's what's strange as the base likes the traditional models only - we all know how change is taken at this company.  Whatever on this. 

If people want to stand by this company, go for it.  I don't care what they do, I care about what I do.  I just put out the crap as I see it.  Gibson doesn't care about anything but money.  I get it they are a corporation and profits drive the business, but the consumers generate profits, and you need to listen to them, not bully them into playing authentic.  Some aren't bothered by this but lately the more I read about this stuff and listen to the sentiment, I agree with the discontent. 

Gibson, just make good guitars, people won't worry about buying the LP "copy" or whatever it is.  I hope they weren't expecting to get people excited to buy their guitars by this video...  It inspired the wrong sentiment, that's for sure.  If they wanted to take legal action, don't make a video in public domain involving average Joe, and don't advertise that they are going to start taking action to protect what they feel is rightfully theirs.  Just do it then. 

My question is who else does Gibson want to go after?  Seems to be their priority to "protect" and go after the little guys than making great guitars.  And they want to obviously grab the market more so that they can start to make the consumer pay more for "authentic" stuff.  I mean, what other reason is there for suing for a measly potential $14M???  To me it is a bunch of BS.  Really didn't need to do this.  Perhaps my mind ws infected with the discontent from the countless videos I have seen on this and the other forums making a big deal out of this, but the arguments seem logical and seem to put Gibson in the "bully" shoes - where they are bullying the market around which makes us, the consumer, pay more for a $2.5k guitar that still needs a setup and fretwork.  I firsthand know what you get from this company for the money.  I used to not get on the QC hate train, but you know, those claims weren't all BS...  Like TONS of people were talking about it, and yet some choose to ignore this placing these guys in the "hater" group.  Again, not selling my Gibsons as all but 2 were bought used, but to consider another new Gibson is just not going to happen for me.  Not turned off to the idea of buying used, because most used Gibsons are selling for great prices if you look carefully enough. 

Edited by NighthawkChris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NighthawkChris said:

...letting you know YOU need to play authentic and we are going to make sure only authentic stuff comes out because we are taking legal action...

 

Yes! We all have to play 'Authentic', don't we, Mr Agnesi?

So, Mr. Agnesi, please have a look at these two acoustics. The one on the left was made by a company who introduced the Dreadnought to the world in 1931. The other by a company who shamelessly copied the original, for the first time, 30 years later in 1960 and which has now been selling many variations on the others' original - 'Authentic' - theme  for some 60 years.

J-60-dps.jpg

The phrase "Kettle calling the pot black" springs to mind. 

Pip.

Edited by pippy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not that guitar shapes cannot be considered a trademark. Although that was what apparently took place with the Fender lawsuit, that wasn't the deciding factor on Gibson vs PRS. The link bellow contains an article that details the court decision in the Gibson vs PRS case.

https://www.socsci.uci.edu/lawforum/content/journal/LFJ_2007_wie.pdf

Gibson actually won, but PRS won the appeal due to a different interpretation of Frisch factors, which grossly speaking is a list of guidelines regarding trademark infringements. Gibson then appealed, but lost the appeal. 

I think realistically, they are not going to be successful with the V, explorer and ES-335 shape, because Dean has been making that shape for too long and the statute of limitations might prohibit them from getting the 6mil regarding those shapes. However, the SG shape is a much newer thing that Dean has been making and the Hummingbird name is probably protected by trademark. The headstock shape could go either way. 

I'm not a JD so take my comment above with a grain of salt. 

I did watch the video, more than once. Although in hindsight I disagree with business decision of posting the video, I did not see anything intrinsically wrong with it. Although, as I said above, I'm not a lawyer, but I am an economist and economically speaking, the idea of trademarks and patents are to create controlled monopolies. The reason behind it is to allow for product differentiation and, in case of patents, protect companies that incurred the research and development costs. As for product differentiation, each market participant essentially creates a very localized and specialized monopoly, however, because there is availability of substitute products, it does not create inefficiencies like a traditional monopoly. In terms of guitars, that's because you can get a other options of,  say, solid body electric guitars with a fixed bridge and two humbuckers that aren't Gibson or don't look like one. 

I still don't get how asking for consumer support by playing authentic is attacking consumers or the regular Joe. 

As for the Gibson alternatives, I think some of the things that are being claimed are a bit exaggerated. I've seen for instance, talk about how a sub 2k Eastman LP type guitar were better than the 2.5 Les Paul Standards. Sure some of the features are better and some of the attention to detail is amazing. Personally I really like how lightweight they are despite not being weight relieved. However, when out of curiosity I went to play a couple, the fret job on some of them were absolutely atrocious. I actually played one that was borderline unplayable because of the 9th fret being too high. Also some of the frets weren't flush against the fretboard.

I know that Heritage guitars are a completely different beast, but I tried a couple, because people were saying tey're on par with Gibson Custom Shop. However, when I went to play one, I thought it was on par with the Standard 50s and 60s, but not the Custom Shop. The bridge is a Nashville style bridge mounted on metal bushings that are recessed into the top, just like the Standard 50s and 60s. I actually preferred the Gibson stock pickups to the Heritage Guitars. However, let's say it was a tie, both guitars retail for 2.5k. Then there is Harley Benton, I might have considered a Harley Benton back when I was a grad student, but personally I much prefer what I've played from Epiphone. They're a really nice guitars for the money, but there is no comparison to an Epiphone. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pippy said:

 

Yes! We all have to play 'Authentic', don't we, Mr Agnesi?

So, Mr. Agnesi, please have a look at these two acoustics. The one on the left was made by a company who introduced the Dreadnought to the world in 1931. The other by a company who shamelessly copied the original, for the first time, 30 years later in 1960 and which has now been selling many variations on the others' original - 'Authentic' - theme  for some 60 years.

J-60-dps.jpg

The phrase "Kettle calling the pot black" springs to mind. 

Pip.

How about this then?  Did they steal the LP shape too?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is that this is a bloody mess here.  The buzz going around for Gibson isn't good...  I'm not losing sleep or anything over this, but not too thrilled to want to pick up a Gibson guitar these days. 

And to add to the point, I choose to play a fancy Gibson because I have played for nearly 25 years, and I like their stuff - not because it's "authentic".  Given the state of things right now and what has been going on with this company, it's clear to see the direction is driven by the shareholders and such.  This company we thought was finally listening to us hasn't really.  This clearly shows that they are in it for the bucks and they are telling YOU what to play - authentic.  Dealing with paying thousands for their stuff and fixing up their "minor" issues with guitars north of $2k, I believe as a paying consumer, I can form a pretty good opinion of what this place has been offering to us.  To me, they have no wiggle room to talk.  Just make guitars and dig, dig, dig out of your hole and stop acting like an arrogant company that is in it to please the shareholders and not the consumers who make you the "iconic" guitar company they think they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Rabs said:

How about this then?  Did they steal the LP shape too?

 

Famously Paul Bigsby made this in 1948 for Merle Travis. He could probably sue both Gibson AND Fender for stealing his ICONIC designs!

Bigsby-Travis.jpg

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pippy said:

 

Famously Paul Bigsby made this in 1948 for Merle Travis. He could probably sue both Gibson AND Fender for stealing his ICONIC designs!

Bigsby-Travis.jpg

Pip.

Man they really have opened the proverbial can of worms here haven't they...  

The thing is that the shape of a Les Paul isn't that different if you were to take the cutaway away its basically the shape of an acoustic anyway.....   If anything at least Fender were more original with their body shapes.

Edited by Rabs
adding extra comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Big Bill said:

 

If I want a guitar shaped like a Les Paul, I will buy a Les Paul. If I want a guitar shaped like a Stratocaster, I will buy a Stratocaster. Both Fender and Gibson have cheap versions of their "iconic" brands. Epipihone, Squire, yada, yada, yada. I never been drawn to Dean, their guitars are made to appeal to the  Metal Heads.  I'm in your camp, I don't give two shitz about the law suit, but I do find the approach stupid.

 

 

Agreed.  Except that, apparently, when I want a Fender shaped guitar, I buy a Warmoth.   [smile]

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean if we're all honest here, almost every other brand of electric guitar maker has pretty much copied Gibson and Fender. And Gibson has copied other guitar makers before it.  So what.  There's enough market for everyone out there.  I don't care one way or another really.  And Dean pretty much did flat out copy Gibson. Let's be honest on that. But again, so what.

 

If Gibson really wants to go after other brands so to speak, then start making more affordable entry level models that compete with those brands. One's that compete on the same level as them. And Epiphone doesn't count as entry level Gibsons. People that want a Gibson don't want the headstock to read Epiphone on it. Make the headstock have the epiphone headstock shape but just read Gibson on it. They can still be made over seas, and that headstock shape could be a way to tell the cheaper models from the more high end USA models. Also obviously make them come with cheaper pickups and electronics like the Epiphones already do.  They could be made in the same factories as Epiphone. They could even still make the Epiphone brand, and just have the entry level Gibsons be a slight step above them and cost slightly more than the Epiphone models.  Basically if you want the name then pay a little more type thing.  I guarantee you it would boost their sales. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, didn't the 2016 Studio Faded T go for like $699 or $799?

http://legacy.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2016/USA/Les-Paul-Studio-Faded.aspx

They were cheaper than Chapman Guitars, some PRS SEs, LTDs, just to name a few, and around the same price point as some MIM Fender. 

Yet some people complained that the lineup was too complicated unlike, according to them, Fender, and they wanted bindings and more color options. Some even said they were too obsessed of having a guitar at every price point and there differences across models were too marginal.

Take the 2017 lineup, for instance and let's forget the T vs HP for a second. Essentially you had a "light"/modern (Faded, Studio and Standard) and a "heavy"/more vintage (Tribute, Classic, Traditional) lineup. I can see why some people might think the T and HP things could be confusing, but apart from that I think it was super simple. 

Eastman is made in the far east, yet their MRSP for the nitro finish LP shaped guitars is around $1,799 new, granted a lot of that is due to the amount of manual labor. You can't have both ways. The more intricate it is to produce a guitar the more it'll cost even if the guitar is made in Asia.  

Why doesn't Epiphone count? I'm genuinely curious. Although, I do agree that despite Epiphone's headstock being closer in appearance to the original old mandolin headsocks, I much prefer the look of the Gibson headstock. It would be cool if, at least for of the LP and SG, they had some models that said Epiphone on the headstock, but it was shaped like Gibson's like they did with the MIJ Epiphones. Much like on this

https://reverb.com/item/3814359-epiphone-les-paul-standard-mij-japan

I think that if Epiphone had a few LPs and SGs with the Gibson open book headstock at the price point of an Epi LP Standard/Standard Pro/Custom, they would sell like water. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Agreed.  Except that, apparently, when I want a Fender shaped guitar, I buy a Warmoth.   [smile]

 

I'm actually considering the idea of building one myself. I've played a few CS that were amazing, but I'm thinking some roasted maple goodness for less than half the price 🙂 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pauloqs said:

 

I'm actually considering the idea of building one myself. I've played a few CS that were amazing, but I'm thinking some roasted maple goodness for less than half the price 🙂 

 

Not to hijack the thread, but...

Yeah, people complain about Gibson's being overpriced, but I think Fender prices are outrageous.  Especially the Custom Shop.  This new Warmoth Tele I put together is a really sweet handling guitar.  Feels great.  Nice fret work.  Sounds incredible.  Now, I have three Gibson Custom Shop Historic LP's which are in a whole different league, but the tele is a really good guitar.   I hope this doesn't sound ridiculous but I think I'd put my Warmoth up against a Fender any day.  And yes, less than half the price if a Fender Custom Shop guitar.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I just really slow out of the starting blocks and the last person to have read about Fender buying-out Bigsby?

http://www.bigsby.com/vibe/2019/01/13/fender-musical-instruments-corporation-announces-acquisition-of-bigsby/

:-k

Mentions, in their resume,  of Gretch and even Ted McCarty but, oddly enough, no mention of Gibson?

"Well, knock me down with a feather, Clever Trevor" as one sadly-missed genius once wrote.

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Big Bill said:

I want that!!

 

Weird.....

Paul Bigsby made quite a few similar instruments to order.  There is / was a great snap of four similar-but-different guitars lying around on a carpet but I'm buggered if I can find it on-line now. I do believe that, when I was originally looking / researching the Bigsby guitars several years ago "they" mentioned that, from time to time, small production runs were executed and that it was possible to pre-order / buy a replica of some of the early Paul Bigsby instruments but I've had bugger-all success in tracing all that info as well.

Perhaps it was all just a dream?.......

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

 

Not to hijack the thread, but...

Yeah, people complain about Gibson's being overpriced, but I think Fender prices are outrageous.  Especially the Custom Shop.  This new Warmoth Tele I put together is a really sweet handling guitar.  Feels great.  Nice fret work.  Sounds incredible.  Now, I have three Gibson Custom Shop Historic LP's which are in a whole different league, but the tele is a really good guitar.   I hope this doesn't sound ridiculous but I think I'd put my Warmoth up against a Fender any day.  And yes, less than half the price if a Fender Custom Shop guitar.

 

Too late, highjack already in full effect 🙂 

I was thinking a Strat, because I don’t have one. The only thing stopping me is that I’m not a Strat guy. Teles on the other hand are just up my alley. The reason I don’t go for a Warmoth Tele is that I’m happy with my reclaimed redwood hot-rod 50s Limited Edition Fender Tele. I got it used for a very reasonable price, but when they came out they were about 2k. Yes the neck is phenomenal and the fret work was absolutely perfect, but 2k for a non Custom Shop Tele seemed a bit steep. 

xfvgx5h.jpg

Back to semi-on topic, I never got why Gibson is often judged on a different curve when it comes to price point. For instance, 2016 and 2017, both the Faded and Tribute were going for less than 999, which was the most affordable MIA Fender, the American Special series. Furthermore, the LP Studio went for the same price as the American Professional series. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he likes Ibanez and Deans?  so the vids show.. 

its amazing how a promotion to higher standards can change.. 

 

 

I was hoping that maybe Gibson would go in a Positive direction  .  

Edited by slimt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, pippy said:

 

Yes! We all have to play 'Authentic', don't we, Mr Agnesi?

So, Mr. Agnesi, please have a look at these two acoustics. The one on the left was made by a company who introduced the Dreadnought to the world in 1931. The other by a company who shamelessly copied the original, for the first time, 30 years later in 1960 and which has now been selling many variations on the others' original - 'Authentic' - theme  for some 60 years.

J-60-dps.jpg

The phrase "Kettle calling the pot black" springs to mind. 

Pip.

 

When Gibson copied that in 1960 they made it iconic. Now that the guitar is iconic you can’t sue

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, slimt said:

I think he likes Ibanez and Deans?  so the vids show...........its amazing how a promotion to higher standards can change..

 

I think it's even more fundamentally basic than that.  Working on the old Pied Piper of Hamelin principle of  "He who pays the piper calls the tune"  Mr. Anesi's loyalties (I use the word advisedly) have simply shifted in alignment from one employer to the next.

Not very principled, perhaps, but unarguably pragmatic.

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dub-T-123 said:

When Gibson copied that in 1960 they made it iconic. Now that the guitar is iconic you can’t sue...

 

[laugh]

And here was I sitting here under the illusion that it was C.F. Martin who made it Iconic. Silly Me!.........[laugh].........

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...