Thomann Sues Fender on Behalf of "Everyone"

[japetus]

Whatever he did he didn’t protect it. The law says if you don’t defend your copyright you lose it. Why do you think John Hall was always such a dick about Ric copies? He did protect them and to this day he can and will sue your ass off and win if you copy them.

This is a very fair point. Look at public domain laws with music, and a lot of art.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

some are obviously a stretch; some are damn close. for example...


K-Line S-Type? on ebay now

View attachment 451040

Schroeder S-Type Fiesta Red - on CME now

View attachment 451041

another K-Line; Springfield model; on Reverb.


View attachment 451042


not a Fender, not a Squier or Fender product; on sale new at SW:


View attachment 451043


not a Fender, on sale new at SW

View attachment 451045


Harley Benton, on sale new at Thomann

View attachment 451046


I'm sure there are more...

These I can understand Fender making a case they are copies. They would fall under the same thing as the way Rickenbacker defends the 4001 design.
I know I gave a more radical design in the generic Strat shape, but what about something more reasonably close; like an Ibanez S? The design is not very far off where it could be argued it is a copy because of the general body shape. At the same time there are enough differences where it's not really a copy; different contours, carved top, humbuckers, all things not associated with a Strat. As I originally said, that's my point of contention. Where do you draw the line? General body shape or nuanced differences?

 

[itsme]

So Dimarzio can claim a double cream pickup as their own and no one else can make one, but Fender designs/creates an epic guitar and everyone has the right to make an identical copy. Seems fair

 

[rsm]

Copying isn't stealing. It's copying. And patent trolling is repulsive and uninnovative, except there's no patent so Fender is just trolling. I hope Thomann kicks their butt.

copying isn't original.

copying original designs without permission of the creator is a form of stealing. even if the creator can't protect it. Fender is not going after a patent this time, and it's a legal longshot for Fender to prevail.

doesn't change what I posted. Fender created / invented these body shapes and designs. Many others copied them from Fender.

 

[vultures]

At the end of the day Fender not owning the shape is better for everyone in the industry, including Fender (if they care about making instruments and not continuing to be a "lifestyle" brand). If Fender cared about quality, kept up with what the modern player wants and employed musicians in their corporate offices, people would buy their guitars over competitors. The fact is they have put out subpar instruments for years now and the Silversky outsells strats because it's what people have been begging Fender for; an affordable, consistent, quality instrument. The competition should drive them to making something better, instead their resulting to bologna lawsuits.

I've worked on thousands of Fender Custom Shop, Production and Squier guitars for years now and they are almost always dogshit. If someone's looking for a Strat I recommend a Japanese Fender or a Silversky. Expensive tastes? Anderson & Suhr. But hell, Fender keeps me employed when I have to fix their poor fretwork, shoddy electronics/wiring, poorly fitted necks, badly cut nuts, etc.. I almost get bummed when someone buys something other than Fender, because I won't see them again for a while.

 

[rsm]

These I can understand Fender making a case they are copies. They would fall under the same thing as the way Rickenbacker defends the 4001 design.
I know I gave a more radical design in the generic Strat shape, but what about something more reasonably close; like an Ibanez S? The design is not very far off where it could be argued it is a copy because of the general body shape. At the same time there are enough differences where it's not really a copy; different contours, carved top, humbuckers, all things not associated with a Strat. As I originally said, that's my point of contention. Where do you draw the line? General body shape or nuanced differences?

View attachment 451069

I don't think the type or style of pickups matter; it's the shape of the body design they're going after. I like EBMM Majesty guitars, who knows what the courts will decide. It's not going to be easy for Fender to prove on some designs

 

[Geo]

At the end of the day Fender not owning the shape is better for everyone in the industry, including Fender (if they care about making instruments and not continuing to be a "lifestyle" brand). If Fender cared about quality, kept up with what the modern player wants and employed musicians in their corporate offices, people would buy their guitars over competitors. The fact is they have put out subpar instruments for years now and the Silversky outsells strats because it's what people have been begging Fender for; an affordable, consistent, quality instrument. The competition should drive them to making something better, instead their resulting to bologna lawsuits.

I've worked on thousands of Fender Custom Shop, Production and Squier guitars for years now and they are almost always dogshit. If someone's looking for a Strat I recommend a Japanese Fender or a Silversky. Expensive tastes? Anderson & Suhr. But hell, Fender keeps me employed when I have to fix their poor fretwork, shoddy electronics/wiring, poorly fitted necks, badly cut nuts, etc.. I almost get bummed when someone buys something other than Fender, because I won't see them again for a while.

I don't work on guitars for a living but it seems they stepped up the quality on the Ultra series.

And I concur on the Japan Fenders, they have always been better made IMO.

 

[rsm]

At the end of the day Fender not owning the shape is better for everyone in the industry, including Fender (if they care about making instruments and not continuing to be a "lifestyle" brand). If Fender cared about quality, kept up with what the modern player wants and employed musicians in their corporate offices, people would buy their guitars over competitors. The fact is they have put out subpar instruments for years now and the Silversky outsells strats because it's what people have been begging Fender for; an affordable, consistent, quality instrument. The competition should drive them to making something better, instead their resulting to bologna lawsuits.

I've worked on thousands of Fender Custom Shop, Production and Squier guitars for years now and they are almost always dogshit. If someone's looking for a Strat I recommend a Japanese Fender or a Silversky. Expensive tastes? Anderson & Suhr. But hell, Fender keeps me employed when I have to fix their poor fretwork, shoddy electronics/wiring, poorly fitted necks, badly cut nuts, etc.. I almost get bummed when someone buys something other than Fender, because I won't see them again for a while.

what's better or not for everyone isn't the question. There are two questions:

1) Who created / invented these body shapes / designs? Answer: most agree and accept Fender created / invented these original body shapes / designs.

2) Does Fender, as the original creator / inventor of these guitar body shapes / designs, have legal ownership of them? Answer: the courts will decide (and we know courts never let subjective opinions influence their decisions, right? /S)

 

[rsm]

Whatever he did he didn’t protect it. The law says if you don’t defend your copyright you lose it. Why do you think John Hall was always such a dick about Ric copies? He did protect them and to this day he can and will sue your ass off and win if you copy them.

Agree. I think this is going to be Fender's biggest issue in court, at least one of them. It's a longshot for Fender, depending on the courts to make a good decision is a roll of the dice.

I'd still like to see Fender prevail; not that i matters. I have a Fender Strat and a Jag; ; owned a few over the years. Whatever happens to Fender's case is interesting to me, that's about it. Win or lose their case, nothing really changes for me.

 

[rsm]

You hit my point about copyright. I don’t support theft at all. Neither do I support bullies (Fender in this scenario), but I do support innovation, quality and I’m also pro choice.

Gibson had issues with their copyright claims when looking to cast a monopoly. Fender don’t even have a copyright as such and are trying to stifle creativity and forward thinking, especially when they don’t offer options that many players want.

Fender has its work to do; it's a legal longshot.

Copying Fender's original body shapes and designs from the '50s and '60s are not "creativity" or "forward thinking". Far from it.

Replacing a single coil or two or three, with a humbucker isn't rocket science.

 

[BlueParfait]

what's better or not for everyone isn't the question. There are two questions:

1) Who created / invented these body shapes / designs? Answer: most agree and accept Fender created / invented these original body shapes / designs.

2) Does Fender, as the original creator / inventor of these guitar body shapes / designs, have legal ownership of them? Answer: the courts will decide (and we know courts never let subjective opinions influence their decisions, right? /S)

A) Leo Fender did and he's in the ground. Not a single money-grubbing, hand-rubbing desk jockey at FMIC got near or were tangentally involved in designing ANY of the guitars the company is selling

B) the courts can decide, like when they decided to acquit OJ, or when they put that cop in jail to avoid a riot.

Stop talking about corporations like they're people lmao. They don't have feelings, egos or a self. They are just legal entities through which people conduct business. "Nintendo" doesn't actually cry tears out of its office windows because some guy tried to play a long-dead game through an emulator, and "Fender" doesn't get stabbed in the guts because a few of their previous masterbuilders went and made similar guitars after they left.

Imagine if Indians from India moved to Anadarko en masse, completely replacing everyone, then they go squat in the reservations and say "hey we are Indians. Give us handouts and reparations", are you gonna honor that because they're collectively "legally" on Choctaw land and are called Indians?

FMIC is squatting on a legacy they did not build, talking about "heritage" they did not shape, and I hope they get ridiculed in every single court they kvetch to.

 

[rsm]

A) Leo Fender did and he's in the ground. Not a single money-grubbing, hand-rubbing desk jockey at FMIC got near or were tangentally involved in designing ANY of the guitars the company is selling

B) the courts can decide, like when they decided to acquit OJ, or when they put that cop in jail to avoid a riot.

Stop talking about corporations like they're people lmao. They don't have feelings, egos or a self. They are just legal entities through which people conduct business. "Nintendo" doesn't actually cry tears out of its office windows because some guy tried to play a long-dead game through an emulator, and "Fender" doesn't get stabbed in the guts because a few of their previous masterbuilders went and made similar guitars after they left.

Imagine if Indians from India moved to Anadarko en masse, completely replacing everyone, then they go squat in the reservations and say "hey we are Indians. Give us handouts and reparations", are you gonna honor that because they're collectively "legally" on Choctaw land and are called Indians?

FMIC is squatting on a legacy they did not build, talking about "heritage" they did not shape, and I hope they get ridiculed in every single court they kvetch to.

you sound emotional, is it that time of the month? "corporations aren't people" - not what the US law says: corporations are considered "artificial legal persons" and have some rights.

who built what doesn't matter, who owns it does.

you don't buy a business to give away what you own. If you own the business you want to monetize and maximize the assets you own.

welcome to capitalism.

 

[Rackman]

copying original designs without permission of the creator is a form of stealing. even if the creator can't protect it.

I'm curious if you actually believe this? Do you think for example your pants are a stolen design from some central Asian egghead from about 3000BC? Should his heirs be suing Levi Strauss & Co over the artistic double legged shape of their trousers?

Or do designs become the collective property of society over time?

 

[vultures]

what's better or not for everyone isn't the question. There are two questions:

1) Who created / invented these body shapes / designs? Answer: most agree and accept Fender created / invented these original body shapes / designs.

2) Does Fender, as the original creator / inventor of these guitar body shapes / designs, have legal ownership of them? Answer: the courts will decide (and we know courts never let subjective opinions influence their decisions, right? /S)

1) ok
2) The trademark Trial and Appeal Board did decide in 2009 after Fender Filed in 2003. They denied Fender's request. Copyrights/trademarks are time sensitive. Fender not taking action for 50-70 years will not be in favor for them in court. They have a history of licensing headstocks thru USACG, Warmoth, Musikraft, etc.. Them not pursuing this for the body shape for 70 years will not be in favor for them in court.

 

[rsm]

1) ok
2) The trademark Trial and Appeal Board did decide in 2009 after Fender Filed in 2003. They denied Fender's request. Copyrights/trademarks are time sensitive. Fender not taking action for 50-70 years will not be in favor for them in court. They have a history of licensing headstocks thru USACG, Warmoth, Musikraft, etc.. Them not pursuing this for the body shape for 70 years will not be in favor for them in court.

True, but Fender isn't going after patent or trademark this time. Not defending their ownership for decades doesn't help. Still a longshot to win.

 

[vultures]

I don't work on guitars for a living but it seems they stepped up the quality on the Ultra series.

And I concur on the Japan Fenders, they have always been better made IMO.

Build wise they're the best MIA stuff.. but I still replace a ton of S1 switches for normal pots. The Jazz Bass Ultra active electronics are also very faulty.

 

[Rackman]

It's extremely unlikely they win. They're just wasting everyone's money including their own. Which is what happens about 95% of the time when people get lawyers involved.

 

[Massarea Whippins]

...Should his heirs be suing Levi Strauss & Co over the artistic double legged shape of their trousers?

They do dumber stuff in Brussels.

 

[rsm]

It's extremely unlikely they win. They're just wasting everyone's money including their own. Which is what happens about 95% of the time when people get lawyers involved.

even if they win, it will be challenged. The only winners are the law firms.


Still, I'd like to see a Fender win; I can imagine the response....the meltdowns will be epic and entertaining.

 

[VonBonfire]

copying original designs without permission of the creator is a form of stealing. even if the creator can't protect it.

Agreed. I released an EPK in 2015. The person who printed the CD and artwork sold all my data to China and I found copies selling for $5 on ebay from Shanghai. It cost me around $5 per unit to make the CD so I'd definitely call that theft. I guess that's why they call it getting Shanghai'ed. I guess I could've reported it to ebay, and they would've taken the ad down, but the seller just creates another account and does it again, and again, and again so I couldn't protect it in actuality.

So assume the strat shape had just been made today. There would be a chinese company ripping it off and selling it on temu, and some TGP rejects would be defending that behavior. Communists never create, they only steal ideas from those who do.