Official Luthiers Forum! :: View topic

JRE Productions wrote:

For the most part you end up with: \ / or / \ or | | shapes with fancy tops.

With so many headstock designs being made over the years, its hard to be truely unique.

JD

Right you are, Joe. So, certainly one way to go is to use something generic and presumably in the public domain. Or make some small change to establish your own identity.

I recall a story: During a bicycle ride with my club, I chatted with a friend who owned bikes made of titanium, steel, aluminum and carbon-fiber. I asked him what were the differences and what he liked best. He said You know, they are all designed to do exactly the same thing. They are almost the same in stiffness and responsiveness.

Same with guitar design. Designs tend to converge, when they are all trying to do the same thing.

Tony, lucky for us Martin hasn't seemed interested in putting a damper on the industry, at one time they might have!

Author:	Travis182 [ Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Headstocks
Do the big name companies own the rights to their headstock designs? Can I make a sell a guitar as my own, and in now way connected to the big company but use the same headstock?

Author:	Hesh [ Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Headstocks
Travis we all have the right to make a copy of someone else's product for our own use. But when you are intending to sell it trademarked material is trademarked for a reason - to protect the IP of the trademark holder AND to prevent others from using it unless a license arrangement happens. Historically thousands of guitars have been built using the designs of some of the big guys. Think of every OM, dread, X-braced guitar out there. Why no one is filling the courts with the likes of us is that to them we are mouse nuts and inconsequential. So it's your call, there is some risk using the design of one of the big guys and if you use a design of one of the little guys be sure to ask them first AND if granted the rights provide attribution.

Author:	TonyKarol [ Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Headstocks
In a word .. yes. Back in the seventies, Fender sued Ibanez for making exact strat copies. Looking back at the world of classicals, it was the headstock (and possibly rosette design) that distinguished one maker from another. So what happened ... the court ruled that the headstocks were infringing, and all the guitars had them cut off - so Ibanez sent the whole load back to Japan, made new necks with a different headstock shape, and shipped them all back to the US. Supposedly, I read in VG that the company that has the rights to the 60s Vox weido shaped guitars was the last to get a patent/copyright on the body shapes .... no more will be issued.

Author:	SteveCourtright [ Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Headstocks
Like all legal stuff, this is actually quite complex. Hesh - strictly speaking a patented article or method gives the owner the right to stop others from "making, using or selling" that which is covered by the patent. So, while nobody will stop you from making a copy for yourself of a patented article, etc., because it is probably too much of a hassle, the patent holders rights are still being infringed. Tony is correct. Copying a headstock shape (or any other shape) that has come to be associated with a maker is not legal and makers have taken action in the past. One can see that this does not happen often, and historically only in cases where the damages to market share are significant enough to justify action. Lawsuits in this business sometimes sours a consumer's perception of the company, so it doesn't always make good business sense. If everyone makes guitars that look the same or has the same features, it is hard to argue that that feature is only associated with one maker. So, in the case of the dread shape, for example, Martin might have a tough fight in court if they tried to assert that the dread shape only identifies the Martin company, because by now, the shape is probably generic. For Martin, copyright protection has expired on the headstock design, for example, because I think that has been around since the 1800's. Trade dress issues may still exist with respect to some aspects of the Martin designs. I am just touching on some issues, because it is easy to see that this is potentially a rat's nest, and if you are going into business you have to be aware of them. The best and safest procedure is to make your guitars look different, and why wouldn't one want to make their guitars their own? {This is not legal advice.}

Author:	TonyKarol [ Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Headstocks
I read somewhere that Chris Martin said they have no interest in copyright/trademarking their shapes - unlikely they could now anyway - everyone and their brother has copied them for decades. Heck they sell dread and OM kits for you to put your name on ... Plus, this kind of thing is only as good as your willingness to prosecute ....

Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Headstocks http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=19626	Page 1 of 1

Author:	JRE Productions [ Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Headstocks
I find this the toughest part of guitar design. I personally prefer symetrical designs. With the standar placement of tuners and truss rods and string placment etc, the basic design of all headstocks of this type will be very simular. This limits you to what you do to the top mostly. I have been looking thru a ton of guitar books to help come up with a headstock shape. I found one based on a D'Angelico guitar that was not his standard every day design. I changed it a little bit to make it work for my guitars, but it still has a simular look and feel. Par is the course... For the most part you end up with: \ / or / \ or \| \| shapes with fancy tops. With so many headstock designs being made over the years, its hard to be truely unique. JD

Author:	Michael Jin [ Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Headstocks
More often than not, you'll find that it is actually the smaller guys rather than large companies that are willing to take legal action against small businesses or individuals. Large companies for the most part already hold a significant market share and reputation in the community so the amount of damage they suffer at the hands of some guy that is building 20 guitars a year is pretty insignificant and to an extent, the fact that these people are imitating these designs is acknowledgment or a superior design (a form of marketing in itself). Now the little guy trying to work himself up in the world that comes up with a little idea to distinguish himself will often sue the hell out of anyone that imitates his ideas. Why? Because he's the little guy and he probably doesn't have a whole lot of money so he is hurt more by other people imitating his product than a company like Martin. Cases like Fender suing Ibanez are cases of large companies butting heads which is understandable because they represent a significant threat to each other in terms of market share... Quite frankly, unless you plan to do something that will result in some sort of significant loss to the major guitar companies, they probably won't bother with you. There's not much for them to gain by going around suing every little person that may infringe on their patents or trademarks for what amounts to nickels and dimes in comparison to the money they make yearly. I'm sure they have much better things to do with their time.

Author:	jfmckenna [ Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Headstocks
SteveCourtright wrote: JRE Productions wrote: For the most part you end up with: \ / or / \ or \| \| shapes with fancy tops. With so many headstock designs being made over the years, its hard to be truely unique. JD Right you are, Joe. So, certainly one way to go is to use something generic and presumably in the public domain. Or make some small change to establish your own identity. I recall a story: During a bicycle ride with my club, I chatted with a friend who owned bikes made of titanium, steel, aluminum and carbon-fiber. I asked him what were the differences and what he liked best. He said You know, they are all designed to do exactly the same thing. They are almost the same in stiffness and responsiveness. Same with guitar design. Designs tend to converge, when they are all trying to do the same thing. Tony, lucky for us Martin hasn't seemed interested in putting a damper on the industry, at one time they might have! Oh my gosh I am always making comparisons to bike designs since I too am an avid cyclist. ----- I've had customers want me to make an instrument to the specs of the original manufacturer. I just won't do it on principle (plus the instrument is already available from the OM) but you can make some subtle changes in designs to make it look a bit more unique. Some designs are functional like the carved out back body design of a Fender Strat for example but artistic designs are different in my humble opinion. If you really love the headstock design and want to use it I suppose you could contact the OM and ask.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/