lpnv59
All Access/Backstage Pass
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2001
- Messages
- 10,725
Dunno, depends on what your definition of issue is. LolThat's not the issue, is it?
Dunno, depends on what your definition of issue is. LolThat's not the issue, is it?
Dunno, depends on what your definition of issue is. Lol
The only person you are trying to convince that this is not a trade mark infringement is yourself.
It might be the greatest guitar in the world, but it is not a Gibson and if they come calling with their legal team, you will have a hard job convincing them otherwise.
What other reason is there to put Gibson on the headstock other than to give the impression that it is one.
Did you bother to read what you just quoted from me? At the very top of it I said it is obvious that these are not legally produced. I am absolutely aware of the copyright infringement. My part of this whole discussion has been based on the moral issue. I understand that intent is not part of the law but it is has everything to do with how I feel about owning and playing these things. And I've explained a million times why it is not a moral issue for me personally but I certainly don't have a problem with others that don't agree. And if you have to ask the question what other reason would there be to have that name on the headstock other than an intent to defraud, well then you either have not read much of the discussion here at all or you really don't know much about these replicas or the people who build them or the people who buy them.
I understand that intent is not part of the law but it is has everything to do with how I feel about owning and playing these things.
Don't think that is going to get you very far if Gibson were to take legal action.
agree, Gibson would be foolish to try and sue an owner of such a replica and that is why they won't do it, they will issue a cease and desist to known replica builders (note that they do no sue, they merely issue a cease and desist)
I think we all can agree that the current shareholders to the company hold the legal right to the name and other trademarks but due to gibsons marketing (getting close to a 59 but still off ) they have created this market and they are the only ones who can undo this.
Ahhh, I see. Its all Gibson's fault. Good argument that.
Not directly but they are milking buyers by upgrading them slightly more accurate every year - it's marketing - if every year is built more accurate there is more of a reason to buy one
Don't think that is going to get you very far if Gibson were to take legal action.
Yeah you got me real scared now. By the way just curious how many '59 reissues have you bought? Since 1994 I have bought over 50. Yes five zero. I've made a nice little donation to Gibson. Now I'll buy and play what I want, thank you very much.
Yeah you got me real scared now. By the way just curious how many '59 reissues have you bought? Since 1994 I have bought over 50. Yes five zero. I've made a nice little donation to Gibson. Now I'll buy and play what I want, thank you very much.
Well I would say why not put it in on the headstock? For you the answer may be obvious. It's a forgery, it's a fake. But if the intention of the builder is to make a replica of a great guitar which in many ways is a tribute to that vintage guitar and to not lie to people and tell them that it is a real Gibson, then is it really that big of a deal? 10 guitars in a year certainly wont hurt Gibson's business. And if anything the attention to detail on these helps push Gibson further to getting their details closer. I would never in 1 million years expect to try to pass mine off as a real 59, and there's no reason to try to pass it off as a reissue because in my opinion it surpasses a re-issue so why would I need to do that? Here's another analogy. My all-time favorite muscle car is a 1971 442 convertible. Fully restored they go for over $100,000. I could never afford that. But in a heartbeat I would pay $25,000 for a so called tribute. A cutlass supreme with the 442 hood, trim and striping and all of the 442 badging. It is not a real 442 and if I owned one I would never try to pass it off as one. I would simply enjoy driving a replica of a car that I actually could never afford to own. Just as I enjoy playing a replica of a 59 Les Paul I could never afford to own. I'm only living once on this earth so I'm going to do what makes me happy and I have no intentions of any unscrupulous behavior. I understand your point, so don't buy one or play one, but I hope you can at least see mine.
I don't want to speak for Ed, but this builder's guitars come with CITES paperwork. No issues at all.
So if the Gibson logo completes the build as a replica, no harm.
Yeah you got me real scared now. By the way just curious how many '59 reissues have you bought? Since 1994 I have bought over 50. Yes five zero. I've made a nice little donation to Gibson. Now I'll buy and play what I want, thank you very much.