Re: New Vessel Loar A5 tribute
Originally Posted by
Bernie Daniel
I think you are making the point that there was no attempt of deceive?
I think I am making the point that the absence of an intent to deceive nullifies the definition of forgery which you shared.
Originally Posted by
Bernie Daniel
In fact, I would agree that is probably the case -- the builder was not trying to deceive anyone. Likewise, I don't believe I actually said the mandolin was a forgery. I think that I said it could easily be considered one though -- especially from a legal point of view.
You did introduce introduce the term to the conversation:
Originally Posted by
Bernie Daniel
Putting "The Gibson" on the head stock and signing Lloyd Loar on the label would under most situations constitute what would be called a forgery?
And the boldface type was your choice as well.
Originally Posted by
Bernie Daniel
I was arguing that the attempt to sell, was not part of the definition of forgery. In fact, I believe that I acknowledged that I did not believe that it was the builder's intent i.e., to create a "forgery". If that was not clear then I state it again here.
The “attempt to sell” was your own phrase, perhaps your interpretation of barry’s “attempt to pass it off as the original.” You are correct that “the attempt to sell” is not part of the definition; however, “for the purposes of fraud or deception” is part of the definition.
Originally Posted by
Bernie Daniel
My main point was that the builder's intent in making the mandolin and/or the builder's skills as a luthier would likely not matter if legal action were to be taken by Gibson. If action were taken by Gibson only the facts, that a copyright was violated, would matter as it would enter the realm of law/litigation.
The facts are (and everyone acknowledges this point) a copy of a copyrighted item was made apparently without permission and, as others have noted already if Gibson were it take an interest in this mandolin it could be unpleasant -- especially if the "hammer" came down. The intent and skills of the builder would likely not matter. Others have pointed out, and I concur, it was a risky thing to do and then to discuss in a public forum like this. Those seem to be points escaping many in this discussion?
Many on this forum -- for good reason -- have been very vigilant and vocal about violations of copyrighted music or other artistic efforts -- how is this matter any different? Copyrights apply to other parts of society in addition to artists and songwriters. Whether one "likes" Gibson, or not, is irrelevant to the legality.
I don’t think that anyone here has disagreed that Gary is incurring a certain amount of risk with this tribute, particularly given the litigious nature of Gibson.
Originally Posted by
Bernie Daniel
As to the definition that I quoted, I repeat, it come verbatim from an on line dictionary version -- I think it was Merriam-Webster.
I don’t doubt the accuracy of the quotation or the authority of the source, just its application to this case. To quote the great Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
1924 Gibson A Snakehead
2005 National RM-1
2007 Hester A5
2009 Passernig A5
2015 Black A2-z
2010 Black GBOM
2017 Poe Scout
2014 Smart F-Style Mandola
2018 Vessel TM5
2019 Hogan F5
Bookmarks