Just when I thought I'd seen them all . . .

lyle_from_minneapolis · Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:34 am

You're right, Paul. The more I think about this, the less I can justify building the same product design without prior permission. When I record a Beatles song, I wouldn't dream of putting it up for profit without permission. So if I were to create a Rickenstein, I also would never attempt to sell it.

But I could never destroy that bass now. Some things should not be created...just ask Mary Woolstonecraft Shelley ("Frankenstein"). And if someone were to clone me, could I kill that clone?

The right thing to do would be to contact Rickenbacker and work out a deal. Legally I would think Rickenbacker has at least equal dibs, and business-wise, they might even opt pay a modest price to get it. The very existence of the thing creates a thorny predicament now.

One thing is certain: labeling it a Rickenbacker is just plain fraud.

blazer · Post by **blazer** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:41 am

And that's why I did NOT label my bass as such.

ram · Post by **ram** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:34 am

I’m sure Mr. Hall and his lawyer know the legal envelope as well as what they are willing to accept within that envelope as a ‘flattery’ type copy and not. For Wouter’s bass, I don’t think anyone would mistake it for a RIC and there is no pretense that it might be a RIC. But when you go sticking a TRC with the Rickenbacker logo on the instrument; that is implying that the company made it or authorized it. And that is fraud.

I’m not sure where the size, shape and contour of an instrument fit into trademark and copyright stuff. But there has to be some difference between someone making one for themselves or another person and marketing a line for sales to the world. So it seems to me, if I had a 4 string 4003 and paid someone to convert it to and 8 string – all well and good. But if I turned around and tried to sell it as an original Rickenbacker 8 string bass then that is fraud. If I sell it as a converted 4to8 RIC - not fraud. Likewise if I make a look alike 4003 bass myself or for another person – that should not be a big deal as long as I don’t try to say it is a RIC. However if I start producing and kind of numbers of these look a likes then there is a problem… Anyone know if I am even close on this?

ram · Post by **ram** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:00 pm

Never mind I just saw John Hall's post on Rickenbackers for Sale>This could be bad..

a good read.

rickon · Post by **rickon** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:40 pm

You could make a look-alike instrument for someone else as long as you gave it to them for free. Was that the case with this bass?

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:57 pm

It is not a matter of money changing hands. It is that it exists at all. The fact is that JH is obligated to take action whenever he becomes aware of a faker. Intellectual property must be consistently and jealously guarded per the terms of the copyright, patent, or trademark. Failure to do so can lead to the item defaulting to the public domain. It does not matter if it is made by some huge Asian company or some guy in his garage. Naturally the big operator is more of threat. JH has hinted and said that if he does not know about it he does not have to do anything.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:06 pm

Jim, I'm not sure that's entirely correct, as there is always a possibility that the person to whom it is given would elect to flip it for a profit; since it was a gift, anything it would sell for would be clear profit.

myfretless · Post by **myfretless** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:23 pm

As an attorney, I think I'll throw my two cents in here (which may be exactly what it's worth).

Depending upon the applicable laws (if this sale crosses state boundaries, then Federal law applies, if it is completely within the state, whatever state it's in, then that state's law will apply. Each state has different laws, although some have adopted common or standardized codes. Here in California, we insist on being avant garde and do things differently.

The Howie Epstein bass clearly cannot be sold with the Rickenbacker TRC. Clear violation. Fraud. All that jazz.

What if you take off the TRC? This makes things much more interesting.

RIC doesn't make a bass in the shape of the HE bass. It never has. There do not appear to be any plans to do so in the future. Therefore, the pertinent question is whether the sale of the bass could reasonably detract from possible sales from RIC as a result. Probably not. This is probably and arguably a collection piece and admittedly unique.

On the other hand, it appears to be a copy of a protected shape and design of a RIC guitar. The question of fact that would be the issue at trial is whether the obviously protected guitar shape, extends to the protection of it applicability to a bass.

To that question, I do not have the answer. I'm willing to bet Mr. Hall knows whether such a ruling has been made, and in what jurisdictions. I am going to guess that it will depend upon the jurisdictions distinction as to how different an instrument a bass is from a guitar.

myfretless · Post by **myfretless** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:24 pm

Pardon my typos... I don't have a secretary post for me...

rickon · Post by **rickon** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:53 pm

I guess my point was that I can create an exact replica of a Picasso legally for my own living room. Once it goes up for sale then that's another matter. And that is now the case with the bass in question.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:39 am

I don't believe the metaphor stands. There are different protections for works of fine art and utilitarian objects.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:14 am

RIC doesn't make a bass in the shape of the HE bass. It never has. There do not appear to be any plans to do so in the future.

I've gone though the subjects of trademarks and copyrights (and their differences) with the IP manager of the company I work for. It doesn't matter whether it is a bass or a guitar, just that someone copied a RIC trademarked shaped to make a musical instrument is enough to be an infringement on the trademark.

ram · Post by **ram** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:37 am

The IP part is starting to make sense to me as applied to instruments. I'm still a little fuzzy as to the look or form of the instrument being a trademark... The headstock I see as seemingly unique to most brands. But like a lot of electric guitars seem to have some kind of horns. When would the silhouette go from being similar to trademark infringement?

Any thoughts?

This is all academic as I have no desire to or am able to think of doing anything close to this. Just trying to understand a little better.

Man I’d hate to be someone who had to crusade for this everyday just to keep another from stealing my IP.

12stringbassist · Post by **12stringbassist** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:52 am

The bass is obviously modelled on the Ric look.
The look of one of their guitars, not a bass.
Small point and not hugely relevant, perhaps.

No-one who has much idea about Rics would be fooled into the idea that the HE bass is actually a Ric until things get just a bit complicated by the sneaky addition of a Ric TRC. That was NAUGHTY. Yes, it was.

However, it's a total one-off and not a production model and while I can see that Ric would be a bit annoyed by it and that allowing these things to circulate can possibly set a precedent that they can't really allow, it IS a flattering tribute to Ric.

1) Destroying it or 2) Ric seizing it are both not really options. I am sure that the HE estate would really be overjoyed to see that happen and I sincerely doubt that Ric would ever think of being so insensitive.

The bass is most likely going to end up being bought by a big Tom Petty fan who will just hang it on the wall and never use it on a stage. Although I could well be wrong. It's lovely and I wish I had the bucks!!

Perhaps Ric could send a blank TRC and show some customary goodwill in this case (I don't pretend to know what their attitude actually is in this instance, but I would hope they wouldn't upset a dead man's folks). It's the mass-prducing companies they are going after, not small luthiers, doing a one off suggestive (and how suggestive is THAT bass???) model for one man who loves the look of a Ric.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:29 am

I'm not sticking my neck out very much to say here that there is ittle possibility of RIC showing any positive reaction to this situation, or encouragement to its ilk, lest these things begin to propagate.