...DobroQuote:
Originally Posted by DHopkins
Printable View
...DobroQuote:
Originally Posted by DHopkins
I sort of agree with you. Management skills are management skills but I believe the powers-that-be at Gibson are chasing their collective tail by wasting their resources trying to finance a battle that they're likely to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by T.D.Nydn
As a mostly guitar player, I have never really been a big fan of Gibson. However, I recently picked up a J-45 Standard, ordered through a new Gibson dealer in Fishers, IN. We went through the Custom Shop, with the only "custom" feature being deletion of the electronics. I have to say, the guitar arrived with very good fit and finish, and a very nice set-up. It plays nicely, and is the only mahogany back/sides guitar I own. So right now, I am pleased with it. Of course, this was all done before all of this erupted.
I can honestly say, it will be my one, and only Gibson.
Jim D
Sold his soul? Is it really that dire? Is the man marked for life now? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Br1ck
I'll bet Mark comes home from Gibson every day and is nice to his wife and kids and still smiles when he meets his friends. Just like he did when he worked for Norm's Great Guitars. And I'll bet if the job at Gibson does not work out he'll find another job just fine?
The point has been made and it seems true to me -- Gibson is making great instruments again (mandolins and electric guitars are good examples) and that people at the top do not seem to be causing problems but fixing them? Let's wait and see what the future holds for Gibson?
that should be protected as satireQuote:
Originally Posted by Dillon
...
On the other side of the coin I own 7 Gibson instruments right now and since the early 70's I've owned at least another 30 or more other Gibsons, both old and new, mandolins, mandolas, mandocellos, flattops, arch tops, 12 strings, banjos (tenor, 5 string and MB) I even had a Gibson violin once (really). I LOVE Gibson instruments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim DeSalvio
I don't love everything the company does or has done and for sure and they have made their mistakes and I have called them out many times on this very forum --e.g., for building poor quality instruments, for their lack of customer support, to their shoddy record keeping, and in the past their bullying and cheating small parts and wood suppliers. These are the faults of individual people not the company. Gibson is not perfect but they are not some minor level of Dante's hell either.
Gibson is a great company with roots why back to the days of Orville and Lloyd and owning one means you have a link to America's musical past - just like owning a Martin guitar.
If I keep living I'll probably be owning other Gibsons instruments too. These legal actions (subject of this thread) are not a show stopper for me at least.
Others might see it differently and that is fine too.
Originally Posted by Tom C: "I say we start referring to ALL guitars and mandolins as gibsons. Make it as generic as Hoover is to Vacuum in England.
Couldn't somebody prove that design became generic?"
Well, in a sense the mandolin industry already has...as in "F"- and "A"- styles.
If I understand correctly, most companies pay for product placement in television and movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeZito
I suppose copied forgeries of great work are the most complimentary form of larceny.
To my mind, there is a big difference between the post-post-modern nostalgic referencing of superior precedents, and blatant plagiarism of entire foundational designs created by another artist or business.
Making a "bench-copy" of a great instrument to see if you have the chops to meet the qualities of a top-tier builder is a fine test of skill, but a terribly immoral long-term business plan.
Gibson may be wrong in their approach with this video, but the ethical underpinnings of their message are right-on.
Steve
That might be true, but I hope they check their business model and make sure they are not infringing on anyone else’s trademarks. I know there are some models on their production line that infringe on other makers trademarks. Like they say, people in glass houses should not throw stones. So, if you want to take out the rule book, you need to follow it too.
While I agree with this sentiment, deciding what is treading on another's IP is a slippery slope for sure. How much of an A or F style would it take to violate a trademark (which admittedly doesn't exist YET) may prove to be a very relevant question. But the trademark exists for the scroll peghead and that's problematic for many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Sorensen
Levi's, I wouldn't call great things, I won't buy another pair of their jeans. Whole other topic mostly banned here but if that is what you get with this guy running things then I sure wouldn't expect the best of things with Gibson.
I have nothing to back this up, but I don’t believe this video or Gibson’s desire to retain/regain ownership rights to certain design elements will impact or affect the average stringed-instrument buyer. Someone wanting a Gibson product will purchase one. In my opinion, the information discussed in this thread and within similar threads on other forums just won’t touch most of the guitar and mandolin buying population. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Gibson will feel threatened by handful of folks on a handful of forums expressing indignation.
The folks I feel for are the independent luthiers who may receive strongly worded notification inferring trademark/patent infringement. Such notification could be something that they can’t afford to contest – regardless of whether the allegations are valid. Probably the first counsel from a defendant’s attorney will be how long and how expensive a patent/trademark battle can be.
While I don’t personally know if such notifications have been sent or are even being considered, I do feel a certain amount of sadness that the “shot across the bow” delivered in the video was necessary. I believe in originators’ owning their intellectual properties. I just wish that it had not come to this.
Right, that's the usual arrangement.Quote:
Originally Posted by NursingDaBlues
What may be happening here, is that some film and video companies are taping over the logo on musical instruments because they don't want to make it look like they're getting paid for product placement. Especially if it's an indie film targeted at a certain audience that is very aware of those arrangements. And it wouldn't be just a Gibson logo but any logo. Guitars are somewhat unusual as a musical instrument in having very prominent logos. The only other example I can think of is a piano.
From Gibson's perspective, of course they want those logos visible. They can't force it though. A film or TV production company that was averse to having too many obviously branded items would just choose a different brand.
The way the message is being delivered is tacky. The outrage that ensued surprised the company, and they removed it. Most companies would be doing damage control. Not these guys. They seem to be stuck in the 1980’s.
And if you go over to the electric guitar forums I think you will find Gibson has lost quite a few customers.
There are better ways to build a customer base and safeguard your IP. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I was honored to get the Charlie D. flowerpot cease and desist email long ago, never heard back about the redesigned FUHJ Arizona pipestone flowerpot or the disturbed master scrollectomy model. Just lucky I guess....
Bill.....you ARE the man! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by oldwave maker
I have had a few Gibsons but none were modern. Quality in the modern ones was not there based on the price imho. Don't own one now and after watching that video likely never will again. A manufacturer can build long term brand loyalty based on consistency of quality. They can also destroy future sales by acting like they just did. Oh so happy with my Collings. Bye bye Gibson for me.
I’m thinking this may have set them off and running. Eastman is a pretty big target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Hilburn
Builders may avoid the conflict by modifying proportions. There's famous examples...
https://s.hswstatic.com/gif/1956-ford-thunderbird-1.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/20...99fcd0ed93.jpg
All this really doesn't bother me, I love all my old Gibson mandolins and the like even a modern Harvey signed mandolin. I'm more into the old stuff anyway but as far as their newer mandolins, I think they are building some of the best and have been for quite sometime. I can see their point but it may be too late as everyone/almost everyone has copied the F-5, A-5, flowerpot and fern? Just like Martin I've seen counterfeit instruments "mainly guitars" that say came from China "Chibson's" They even say Gibson on them? I'll always be interested in the vintage Gibson stuff, never really liked their electric guitars as I'm a Telecaster man! To our home grown builders who make F-5's and the like, I think its an honor that they are making instruments to pay homage to Gibson? If you want a Gibson buy a Gibson. I don't think they'll or can go after every builder? As long as say Mr or Miss whoever aren't inlaying the Gibson name in the peg head? I know the first few of America's independent builders did this ages ago like Randy Wood, John Monteleone etc....So in short I won't boycott Gibson products old or new if I can get a deal!
Bill:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldwave maker
You're killin' me, man!
Now everyone is going to want one.
John
The lawsuits have begun:
https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...&utm_campaign=
Looks like leather jackets are the new Gibson uniform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stompbox