Home made 4001

[Prowl]

I actually like this project and I can't wait to see the finished product. I think if he uses RIC parts it would look pretty cool. If he used other parts (ergo, p bass/jbass pickups or some type of humbucker) it would end up looking just like any other RIC "style" bass found on ebay or whatever. I wouldn't say its a direct copy and with the way the fret board is that's a clear indicator. I think it would look really cool in a natural finish. Keep up the good work mate.

[aceonbass]

If you read his build-up you'll see he IS using RIC parts. If you read my post carefully you'll see I suggested NOT using parts sourced through the usual channels. Originality wins out over copying any day, and where I'm from, copying is NOT good work.

[bobbolux]

I understand how this might rub some people the wrong way, but you might be missing my point of all this. It's not my first bass build, and of the dozen one's I've done from the ground up, it is the first one that is NOT my own original design. I see this one as a bigger challenge to me personally, and something that is just more interesting to me. I am finding it really interesting and a huge learning experience to sort of reverse engineer a 4001. I am definitely coming out of this with a wealth of knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of the 4001/Ric evolution. everything I have learned by doing this will benefit me in every build I attempt from here on out. I spent about 4 months trying to find a destroyed 4001 to restore and reconstruct, but never found one. Finally it dawned on me I could just start my own. It may get lost on some people here, but for someone who loves vintage basses of all makes and designs, this is incredibly fun for me, and that my friends, trumps all. agreed, I could go a hundred different ways with this project to make it more unique, this is just what I WANT to do now.

[Renfield]

Now that I've waded through the off-topic rant on Safari (mine did not crash), a few thoughts on the Stethenbacker.

1. RIC no longer makes this style bass (no binding, no triangle inlays, classic bridge/pup/pickguard layout). Thus, building your own is the only way to get what you want, if you want NEW. I fault RIC for discontinuing this configuration, I balk at the premium price demanded for dwindling stock of their vintage reissues, and I applaud your taste.

2. I don't understand why you'd outsource the pickguard. Easily the simplest component to create.

3. Unless you are building with the intent to sell, modeling your creation after an industry icon is no different to me than covering, say, a Beatle song. And if you DO cover another artist's song for profit, you pay a royalty. I have covered many songs at home in Garageband for my own personal amusement. It can be a very satisfying/humbling experience. Much like building a bass, I imagine.

Good luck, and press on.

[aceonbass]

1. GM no longer makes '69 Camaros.This doesn't give the right to someone else to make one without paying for that right. Those that make restoration parts to fit one, including the newly re-pro'd body shell, pay a licensing fee.

2. The pickguard is the easiest part to make, and creativity here would have been a good idea. The cutaways should have been made deeper for access to the extra notes, and a new pickguard inspired by the original would have been interesting to see.

3. That this bass isn't being built to sell makes no difference legally. When Howie Epstein, bassist for Tom Petty, had a custom made bass built to resemble a RIC 350 guitar with all the "correct looking" components, he had no intention on ever selling it either I'm sure. After his death, it went up for auction and ended up on Rickenbacker's radar with predictable results.

Considering the fact that a neck and all of the parts were outsourced, this wasn't that hard of a project to put together. Those of us that have been on this forum for several years have a respect for RIC that extends to their legal right to protect their trademarks and such. Stealing is stealing, and those with a little less wobbly moral compass with get that.

[cjj]

3. Unless you are building with the intent to sell, modeling your creation after an industry icon is no different to me than covering, say, a Beatle song. And if you DO cover another artist's song for profit, you pay a royalty. I have covered many songs at home in Garageband for my own personal amusement. It can be a very satisfying/humbling experience. Much like building a bass, I imagine.

Well, you pay a royalty if the owner of the copyright allows it. If the owner doesn't allow it, they can demand that you destroy all recordings, etc. and pay them various damages, never allowing your cover "for profit" to be used at all.

Now, with copyrights, there is the notion of "fair use", which generally covers playing copyrighted songs for your own enjoyment, etc. not for profit.

Then there are trademarks. Trademarks are quite different from copyrights. There is a fair use clause in trademark law as well, but this generally covers things such as using a trademarked name or logo in an article such as a review of a product. I'm not sure that making a copy of a trademarked design for your own enjoyment/education, etc. constitutes "fair use". It may, but it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't. I don't know the answer to that, I'm not a patent/trademark attorney...

[cangaroo]

I see the whole thing from a more "arty" point of view : to me building from scratch a Rickenbacker-Like Bass is like someone doing a reproduction of a well known painting for his/her personal enjoyment, and to see "how it's done" ... after all Rickenbacker Basses are also art masterpieces.

Anyway i'm curious to hear how the final result will sound like, i'm sure the guy was in good faith.

[jingle_jangle]

Dane's points are all valid.

In this case, it's not really an issue of opinions of whether it's "cool" or "uncool" to do this--RIC owns the trademarks and to steal their property, no matter the justification, is an act of bad faith, not a "tribute".

There's our love of Ricks, and there's the law. RIC has received protection, and the law exists to provide just that.

If you like Rick basses, buy one.

WOOF!!!

[jps]

Hey, Dogface!

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

where the sanding never stops, and your nose gets clogged with black walnut dust !!! been there, done that.

[jingle_jangle]

Ah-CHOOF!!!

[cjj]

Ya see? That's what happens when you try to "hold in" a sneeze...

[Renfield]

That this bass isn't being built to sell makes no difference legally. When Howie Epstein, bassist for Tom Petty, had a custom made bass built to resemble a RIC 350 guitar with all the "correct looking" components, he had no intention on ever selling it either I'm sure. After his death, it went up for auction and ended up on Rickenbacker's radar with predictable results.

Considering the fact that a neck and all of the parts were outsourced, this wasn't that hard of a project to put together. Those of us that have been on this forum for several years have a respect for RIC that extends to their legal right to protect their trademarks and such. Stealing is stealing, and those with a little less wobbly moral compass with get that.

Ahh. At last, we have an actual legal expert on board.

And an expert on the intentions of Howie Epstein to boot!

Did Rickenbacker use your services to prosecute Howie Epstein? Did they sue Howie at all?? Are you really suggesting that the builder of this bass should be concerned where it ends up after his death???

I've owned my RIC longer than this forum - or the internet - has been in existence. The company gets all of my respect that it deserves. But I'm sure they'll be happy to have you on board to prosecute pro bono on their behalf, since this guy obviously is intent on overthrowing their empire with a one-off custom. Wait 'til the folks in China hear about this project!!!

As for how difficult it is to build a bass of ANY kind, I suggest you show us photos of all the basses you've personally built before you step outside your expertise as a trademark lawyer.

My wobbly moral compass is pointing to a person in desperate need of a chill pill.

[rickenbrother]

George, if RIC does not actively defend their trademarks, which they have full legal rights to do so, they will lose that right.
Many of us, including myself agree with and support the right for RIC to defend their trademarks.
Dane's point is valid and I don't think he's in need of a chill pill.

I think that's enough of this topic, before EVERYONE needs a chill pill.