Official Luthiers Forum!

So, for the OLF 2012 R2 Challenge, I'm copying a Lowden O-22.
I was at a store and had never played one before. They were definitely doing their own thing. I wanted to find out what made them tick, so I took one home and took a tracing and measured the freqs in order to try to replicate it.
Whereas Collings, Huss & Dalton, Santa Cruz, Bourgeios etc. (and many of us here including myself) are all basically using the Martin as a jumping off point (or not even), Lowden is unlike them in their bracing and plate pitches. So, we feel comfortable copying Martins, Gibsons, Hauser, Torres etc, and we can even get the blueprints for cheap. These guys are all dead and long gone, so their work has basically fallen into public domain. Not so with Lowden, he's still a going concern with family involvement and mouths to feed.
So the question is, where does your moral compass point in regards to making a blatant plagiarism of an existing working builders work? The fact that I'm even questioning it tells me how I feel about. What do you think?

Send George an email or Facebook message. He'll probably give you details....

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Imitation is the highest compliment! Especially if you reference the innovator. Assuming we're talking about designs that enhance tone, play-ability, durability, price etc. Signature aesthetics could be more ify.

You are measuring the freqs as in frequencies?

_________________
Pat

Yup.

If you were copying his designs, setting up a production line, and going to compete directly against him, I see a big problem. If, however, you are making a guitar for yourself, I see no issue. Unless you parade your guitar around and tell people you came up with all of the innovative features of the guitar. Then again, we would have an issue. Short of those two things, I see no problem with making your own "Lowden" since, in the end, it still isn't a Lowden, but a meddlingfool 00.

_________________
http://www.CostaGuitars.com
PMoMC

And that's it in a nut shell I guess, commerce. Even clarifying it in a post helped me realize that of course it's not ok to build a copy of a guitar and then sell it at the same store at a fraction of the cost. Face/palm.
Oh well, back to flogging my plagiarized Martins instead! And a new guitar for myself I guess.

If its not for sale , there is no issue

_________________
The Shallower the depth of the stream , The Louder the Babble !
The Taking Of Offense Is the Life Course Of The Stupid One !
Wanna Leave a Better Planet for our Kids? How about Working on BETTER KIDS for our Planet !
Forgiveness is the ability to accept an apology that you will probably NEVER GET
The truth will set you free , But FIRST, it will probably Piss you Off !
Creativity is allowing yourself to make Mistakes, Art is knowing which ones to Keep !
The Saddest thing anyone can do , is push a Loyal Person to the point that they Dont Care Anymore
Never met a STRONG person who had an EASY past !
http://wiksnwudwerks.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/GatewayA ... rAssembly/

How close do you think you can get to the original?

Give the same plan to 5 good builders and tell them to build as close to the plan they can. Compare the instruments and they´ll probably sound pretty different.
I agree, if having any second thoughts, contact Lowden.

Hasn't the unwritten rule always kind of been, "Don't copy the headstock or the logo".

Well... yeah.
And don't mess with the lawyers for Modulus Graphite....

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Charliewood

I'm having trouble defining the "ethics" or lack of ethics as it pertains to copying bracing patterns. I wonder if patent laws apply but I expect not because you have to define a benefit that an idea provides in order to obtain certain patents.

Tonal benefit? It's kind of a subjective thing to be able to define in precise terms...no?

Kind of hard to suggest what category of patent acoustic guitar bracing might fall into. Mechanical? Not really. Design? Not quite...maybe. Process?

Not being able to categorize the benefit muddies up the 'ethical' water for me. How unethical is it to copy something when it is not illegal to copy it and its benefit is difficult to define?

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

in general copying a product design that isn't protected by patents/copyrights/trademarks is not unethical. one can develop their own ethical framework and come to the determination that it is not a practice that they are interested in pursing, but that will present a multitude of problems upon deeper inspection.

_________________
"All of us contain Music & Truth, but most of us can't get it out."
- Mark Twain

When I want to copy something that someone else has done, I ask. So far the responses have been yes with some folks simply requesting credit when using their ideas. I have not needed to ask any guitar manufacturers though I wouldn't hesitate if I wanted to copy something that seemed to be uniquely theirs.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

From the perspective of a civil engineer, anything that is illegal is also unethical, but there are things that are legal but still unethical.
Since guitars are made of wood, each one is unique and is the sum of almost infinite factors, so imitation of some, but not all, of the factors would not be expected to achieve the same results. It would therefore be difficult to imitate anything to the point that it would be unethical. That would be using the same criteria & methods for wood selection, construction sequence, tooling, finishing process, etc. and then competing in the same market as the product being imitated.
That said, I don't believe that imitating/copying any construction details to be unethical.
On the other hand, imitating/copying any unique cosmetic details (without specific permission) is completely unethical.
Any claim of superiority that cannot be easily tested and verified is unethical. (ie "sounds better than a ___") So as builders, we are relatively free of ethical constraints. As sellers, the ethical constraints are MUCH more significant, and I consider most marketing hype unethical.

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon

But one can acquire a design patent to prevent this. So...if you don't get a design patent and have the expectation that perfect strangers will remain 'ethical' (according to your definition) why aren't you simply being idealistic...since we have laws that address this issue? My comment stems from an observation that many in the luthrie community live with certain expectations that aren't very realistic. You can easily lose your rights to your own intellectual property living in this manner.

Hypothetically....let's say you see something on the internet that grabs your fancy and you want to incorporate it into your guitars. What happens when you call the luthier and he says you can't use the idea...although he has no design patent? I can think of a number of different ways you might respond but if you bind yourself to a sense of ethics that prohibits you from proceeding with that idea...well...you may have a sense of ethical pride but you'll have limited yourself as a builder.

Hypothetically...let's say EVERYONE lived according to the prescribed ethic above which requires permission to use an unpatented, original idea. Seems to me that many luthiers, rather than being open and liberal with their ideas, would then become secretive about their unique creativity. I see anything that thwarts communication as a path backward...not forward.

If you don't want your creativity to join the collective pool of knowledge...it's YOUR responsibility to protect it. Access to your ideas today is a million times greater than when information traveled by mouth. Perhaps the concept of ethics has fallen to the open nature of the communication age.

Just a few thoughts.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

IMHO there isn't much in the guitar world that would be the subject of a valid patent. Trade names may be registered as trademarks, of course, but I don't think may of us are spending hours upon hours building a guitar so we can put some other maker's name on it.

In the world of patents, the idea of "prior art" likely nullifies most claimed inventions or innovations of modern times (for some, lack of a demonstrable will to enforce claimed patents or ownership rights probably also hampers enforceability). It's become fashionable of late to attempt to patent everything under the sun, regardless of whether the patent would actually withstand scrutiny. A good number of those patents get approved. That doesn't mean they are worthless. A patent gives the holder the upper hand when trying to enforce the patent (who among us wants to take on Martin™ in a patent infringement cases?), but with enough time, money, and desire most guitar related patents would likely crumble. I'm not saying there aren't validly patentable ideas in luthiery, but things like body shape/size, bracing pattern/design, and even headstock shapes aren't great candidates.

Whether it's nice, polite, PC, respectful, harms one's reputation, etc. to copy and to what degree is a whole 'nuther puzzle solvable only by the person looking to borrow/copy/imitate.

Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert in intellectual property law. IP is a whole complicated word of its own, so do your own homework or talk with an IP attorney if you are really worried about your designs possibly infringing someone's intellectual property (whether you think the claim is valid or bogus).

_________________
Aaron Craig

Stuart was talking about filing for a design patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent

Lot's of stuff about your guitar could be covered with a design patent. e.g. I think a headstock shape could easily be covered by a design patent.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

I didn't and don't disagree that you "could." My comments were untethered to Stuart's comments, and, upon reading them, I think we aren't saying substantially different things.

The idea of "valid" and "invalid" is probably misunderstood, and my use of the word "valid" as quoted above probably differs from yours and the legal/technical definition. Technically, any issued patent is "valid" till someone cares enough to attack it and win (with the right combo of cash/lawyer/judge/jury, any "valid" patent is at risk of not being so).

I'm familiar with the idea of a design patent. The key is demonstrating that your "design" is original and isn't "substantially similar" (yet another term of art) to some other design patent. I don't know how many design patents have been issued for guitar designs (I know Martin talked about it for its head stock design), but I do know that guitars and guitar-like things have been made for centuries covering a very broad spectrum. I suppose the really smart move would be to hire patent lawyers to run US patent searches for any guitar related patents, design or otherwise, and then just start filing patents on every possible iteration imaginable. Then sue every maker for infringement.

Like I said before, I'm not saying there aren't guitar related things that are patentable. Headstock designs could be unique to the maker, but I don't think many of us have to worry about it. It is highly unlikely a large guitar manufacturer will want to steal your headstock design. None of us are really that important. It is highly unlikely some other small shop builder will either, since that only acts to dilute his or her name/brand/market recognition. So for most of us, this is a non-issue. Martin has indicated that it doesn't like others copying its headstock design, but those complaints probably come 100 years too late to back up (who hasn't ripped off that design?). Lets face it, we all copy/imitate the designs of others to one degree or another.

By all means, patent guitar related ideas and attempt to enforce them. I can refer anyone who wants to do that to some great attorneys that would be very happy to help.

_________________
Aaron Craig

Well, I wasn't referring to patents or legalities, those are easy....

It sounds like you're still confusing design and utility patents. Maybe you do understand but just for anyone else following along, utility patents are really the "idea" patents where design patents are more about cosmetic things.

As to applying, I have no intention to but it really may behoove small builders that are getting a name and have aspirations to become "big small builders" to do exactly that for protection against fraud, forgery or whatever.

To bring it back around - I think what Stuart is trying to say is that if you don't take the active step and cost of registering your design with the PTO, how concerned are you really about people "plagiarizing" your work?

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

Med...
Don't bother with the frequencies, but the body shape and thickness can be copied in general. Tweak the shoulders a bit, tweak the lower bout a bit. It'll effectively be the same general shape.
Besides don't you make guitars because you like how YOU make them? You've made over 60 by now I would think yes? Surely you've got your own tone down or very very close to it.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

This is ridiculous, Andy. I'm not picking on you. If you read the two larger paragraphs, you'd see I'm not talking about utility patents. Regardless, are you trying to say that a person's design is also not his or her idea. I'm not sure that's a defensible position. The entire field is called intellectual property for a reason.

_________________
Aaron Craig

Here's some interesting related nonsense. When I began woodworking, I was a box maker. I found a wonderful book by a lady who made beautiful boxes with her band saw and belt sander. The designs were stunning. At the start of the book, there was the usual disclaimer that the specific designs and techniques in the book were copyright to her, and though plans were in the book, they could not be built and sold. For your own use yes, to give away yes, but not to sell. I think most of the box making books I own have a similar disclaimer, some say you can build one example, or soem such.

Anyway, a few years after her book came out, I started seeing her work show up for sale many places on the net. Except they were not made by her. Other box makers were so takan by her designs that they made them and sold them. In many cases, they looked every bit as good or better than the ones she made.

To me, that was clearly unethical, since the designs were so similar to what was in the book it was obvious, and you would have a really tough time convincing anyone you came up with the same idea at the same time she did.

End result, I think the lady who came up with that wonderful design only published the one book, and may have even had to shut down her web site. A sad ending for her, after taking the art a huge step forward.
(Yes, I have built her designs, and no, I haven't sold them. But I have turned down a few offers.)

So how does this relate to guitars? Same logic. Come up with something good, and people will copy it. Want to have some real fun? Read about the patent battle over mulit-blade razors. I got a real kick out of one where a company came out with a 4 blade desige, then a competitor did. The battle got down to how to define the extra blade. Seems it was something stupid like a 3rd and 4th blades were covered, but maybe not a "second third blade."

_________________
Phil

http://www.oleninstruments.com

"Those who tilt at windmills are only considered insane by those who can't see the dragon."

Again, it's the idea of commercial gains that makes me go hmmm..
I think it's fine to make a few to see of I can get the same general 'Lowdeness', but not to hang them in a store beside a Lowden for pennies on the dollar.

Filippo, all the people you mentioned are dead, except maybe the furniture makers I don't know, which changes things. George is still kicking and doing his own thing. And of course I'll follow my own compass, but sometimes it's nice to know what other people think just as a check.

Rod, the freqs are part of where the Lowdens really stood out in design.
Let me know if you're coming to the show, I'll bring that crystalac. For that matter, I can ship it to you if you like....