-
News from the Daniel Slaman website.....
"The Gibson Company has, by power of attorney by Bates & Bates (Atlanta), asked Daniel Slaman Guitars (September 2016) to cease and desist using Gibson trademarks on instruments, comprising of the dove wing shape headstock and the bell shape truss rod cover. Daniel Slaman Guitars will comply and no longer use these trademarks on the guitars."
See what happens when Pat Metheny starts playing one of your guitars.....
on trademarks. On 2016 Winter Sale now at 20 % below List Price.
-
01-13-2017 11:08 AM
-
As much as I'd love to own a Slaman and as much as I sympathize with Daniel, I cannot blame Gibson here. The only thing I don't understand is why the usage of the L5 tailpiece isn't part of the dispute. I find it pretty odd to see that tailpiece on a Slaman. Especially since Daniel has that wonderful S400 style tailpiece that isn't just a copy but a perfect derivative, and enormously pleasing to the eye.
-
I don't know Daniel personally, but I would guess he probably thought Gibson wouldn't worry about a (in their terms) very small one-man luthier outfit. I'm not saying its ok to infringe copyright, and, in fact I prefer his more recent modified headshape. As you say, the Pat Metheny connection. Maybe Gibson ought to think seriously about re-issuing the ES-150 CC. A limited issue of maybe 100 (as ES-275) would probably be popular enough to sell - especially in a 15/16" body size.
-
Ever walk around NYC and try to find Ray's Famous Pizza? So many ersatz copycat establishments around, nobody even knows what the original is.
Slippery slope problem with copyright and trademark issues. Also once the original holder fails to protect it, at some point it may lose its legal protection. Sorry, can't fault Gibson on this one.
Easy enough to find new truss rod blanks and to change the headstock design.
PS: I like the "Batman" Heritage Head stock. Makes me think of Catwoman or Barbara Gordon every time I pick up my 550.
-
The open-book headstock is a Gibson trademark.
Gibson did reissue the ES150CC in 2000. Only 10 were made; I have one of them. Daniel Slaman made and makes the much more faithful reissue than Gibson did. That's the irony.
Lots of good-looking headstock designs to be had and a few ugly ones, too. I like the simple reverse taper squared off CF Martin headstock which is not a CF Martin trademark.
Tokai Gakki and Deviser Bacchus/Momose get away with the open-book headstock in Japan where Gibson tried and failed. The Epiphone Byrdland Elitist made in and for Japan carries the open-book headstock. From the distance, it looks exactly like the Gibson Byrdland.Last edited by Jabberwocky; 01-14-2017 at 08:10 AM.
-
The funny thing about trademarks and patents is they patent and trademark the wrong things.
At IBM they patented the wrong I/O bus and microcode leaving everything else public domain for cloners to run free. See where it got the IBM PC?
With guitars they protect the HEAD??? What??? A Strat, or Les Paul Body is as much IP as anything else. IMO that is... their loss not mine.
-
What do we look at first usually when we spot an instrument ?
The headstock and the logo...no wonder that is what is trademarked.
If headstock shape were not protected, some companies would not need to come up with argument of functionality over esthetic for it lol
-
I'm sure Heritage will let Slaman copy their headstock.
-
Fender also trademarks their headstock & logo, I think that's the only thing Fender has trademarked. I've read Gibson has also trademarked other features of the Les Paul including, IIRC, aspects of the body shape, contour & control layout - which were used in the PRS lawsuit.
These copyrights seem silly until you think of a parent or spouse unfamiliar with guitar specifics buying a gift for a loved one only to find out they bought a fake.
The issue to me is why guitar players put so much emphasis & support into 3rd party reproductions instead of supporting 3rd party innovation - Slaman is an outstanding luthier, he should be rewarded for his creativity instead of his ability to clone.Last edited by MaxTwang; 01-14-2017 at 12:52 PM.
-
I couldn't disagree more, IMO it's like saying the tires and wheels on a car have more design appeal than the car itself. Nothing sits on the body like a Strat, and yet the body style is unprotected, NAH the guitar corporation attorneys F'ked up IMO. Look at all the look alikes, does the HEAD sell them? Of course not.
Originally Posted by vinlander
Would THIS or any other clone sell if it didn't have a Strat or Tele, or LP body? I SERIOUSLY doubt it.
-
This was his original design, before his 'New Vintage' series guitars: Originally Posted by MaxTwang
-
The peg head is important because it identifies the builder no matter what the rest of the guitar looks like. Gibson has a LOT of very different guitars using the open book peg head and you know immediately at a glance the tit's a Gibson no matter what the rest of the features are. That kind of brand identifier is incredibly valuable and Gibson has long protected it as aggressively as they could.
-
Quite possibly the reasons why headstock shapes and logos receive more emphasis with trademarking than body styles are:
1. The majority of branding happens on the headstock, and
2. Major companies like Fender and Gibson likely feel that the only part of the guitar market that they can realistically control is the want for their original products, and that they will benefit from some aspects of copied products. Thus they will allow for body style copies because it helps with the general recognition of their products, and lead to the desire for one of their original products. Hence they also charge more for their products than any kind of facsimile.
It is not too difficult to see how companies like Fender and Gibson have taken this to the point to where they offer a lot of lower end products to try and hook customers to eventually buy into their brand and upgrade to their more lucrative original products. Affinity, Squier, Bullet, Epiphone, etc. are all products that are stepping stones to the original Fender and Gibson brands, but so are the glut of other similar products from Jay Turser, Cort, etc.
-
All very valid points raised above.
Personally, I think I might be more sympathetic to Gibsons position if,
a.) they had prioritized action against the more blatantly fraudulent "Chibsons" which do pose a much higher risk to the inexperienced buyer, and,
b.)they actually made products to cater for the same market sector which Slaman serves,
just for the sake of discussion, there's an interesting article here,
The TTABlog<sup>(R)</sup>: Fame of Gibson Guitar's "Dove Wing Peg Head" Design Brings TTAB 2(d) Victory
-
This. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
And Gibson is highly conscious of this because it abandoned one of the great headstocks of all time . . . the opposite of that much-maligned Heritage design:
The Snakehead. Two or three brilliant years in the 20s and then gone!
Notice who Gibson did NOT chase, because they knew it was a lost cause?
Last edited by Sam Sherry; 01-14-2017 at 01:34 PM.
-
I don't think that my ego is involved, but that is one reason why I have liked to build partscasters and use the innovations available to come up with something tailored to my needs. They aren't really repros, but they do use some licensed parts modded for my needs. Originally Posted by MaxTwang
Maybe not, but would a person that bought this want to eventually own an actual Fender Strat. Maybe. Originally Posted by GNAPPI
...
Would THIS or any other clone sell if it didn't have a Strat or Tele, or LP body? I SERIOUSLY doubt it.
-
[QUOTE=pubylakeg;730341]All very valid points raised above.
Personally, I think I might be more sympathetic to Gibsons position if,
a.) they had prioritized action against the more blatantly fraudulent "Chibsons" which do pose a much higher risk to the inexperienced buyer, and,
b.)they actually made products to cater for the same market sector which Slaman serves,
/QUOTE]
On your point b), in fairness, Gibson do exactly that!
I have a feeling that, ironically, this isn't going to do Daniel Slaman's business any harm at all..
-
Respectfully, I would be inclined to disagree, particularly when it comes to buying outwith the USA. Originally Posted by Franz 1997
To clarify, Slaman does seem, in the past few years to have emphasized instruments inspired by the "golden age" of Jazz Guitar, particularly non cutaway, electric guitars, featuring single coil pickups, whereas, aside from the batch of Gibson built ES-150's circa 2000, Gibson hasn't offered a non cutaway electric since the middle of last century.
Even a search for a single coil equipped Gibson full hollow body with a cutaway is "needle in a haystack" scenario.
-
surprised it didn't happen sooner, I mentioned it in a couple threads in the past.
after owning several Zeidlers through the yrs, when John made my last one he had to change the headstock after getting the letter from big G. He fussed w/ so many designs before he settled on what he liked.
-
I wonder if this one is up for grabs....
-
Before Gibson trademarked the "moustache" headstock top, it was in public domain as it was very common on many brands. Stromberg (in Elmers days) and Epiphone (before the Gibson takeover) are just two examples. I have always wondered how Gibson got away with trademarking such a widespread design detail which had been used by so many for so many years.
-
Guild also used that headstock style in the 50's through early 60's.
Thanks John
-
I've been drooling over Slamans site ... but his sales pitch was basically I make fantastic copies of Gibson guitars that are unavailable now.
Couple with the exposure from working with Metheny ... can't expect Gibson to react in any other way, can you?
The question is if having a different headstock will hurt Slamans sales. It shouldn't, but if it does then it only adds weight to Gibsons case.
-
What? Gibson found a headstock commonly used in the public domain and then used it, trademarked it, so only they themselves could legally use it? Originally Posted by oldane
If that's true I'm shocked not a single person on this board has ever mentioned it! And if it's true how lame of Gibson to do such a thing. They stole it, and then filed a patent to prevent anyone from using it!?
-
The two guitars currently in stock for sale on the Slaman website have had their headstocks reworked in response. I think they look great.
Last edited by David B; 01-14-2017 at 05:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos