prowla

You should remove the mute too (or it'll be flopping 'round loose inside), which means taking off the tailpiece, which means de-stringing (well, de-tuning and taking them off the tuner posts, you don't have to pull them out of the tailpiece). Also, the earth wire is soldered to the base of the mute assembly, so you have to shift it. When putting the tailpiece back on, tighten the tailwards 2 screws first and don't over-tighten the 3 screws in the bridge well, or you can cause tail-lift.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Hofner-neck-Bass-project-guitar/202716541065

But then... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Electric-Guitar-With-Case-Spares-Or-Repairs/163754419546

🙂 Are you saying that if you don't pretend the item is a Gibson then it's all OK? I took a look here at the Lanham Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trademark_infringement The element of "confusion" is interesting. If you are using a company's trademarks then when does it become confusion? The Gibson (and other brands) trademarks are more than just the company name, though, so if you produce an instrument which looks really like a Gibson Explorer, then it' doesn't matter what the name on the headstock is. If I were to describe the Dean one as "an Explorer with a different headstock", would that demonstrate confusion? It has the look of something drafted by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers... I'm not an American, so I'm looking from the outside.

I have 3 vintage fakers (2 Japanese, 1 Italian), which pre-date the trademarks, and have had a few more. The most difficult thing is trying to find their original TRCs! I think of them as historical fun (they're 40 years old). I think some people do. I plan to make a bass which looks completely different but has all Ric parts on it. (I toyed with getting a headless one at one stage too!) I've had one faker which sounded remarkably close. Here's a bit of naff unrehearsed noodling on one. I've not had one which feels like a real Ric though. Not even my CMI 33.25 scale thru-neck one.

That was a bit aggressive... But actually I don't understand what you said there. 🙂

The problem nowadays is that you cannot trust anything with "Fender" written on it, because people put logos on things left, right, and centre (including unscrupulous makers). As it stands (apart from some niche craftsmen), there's never been a factory Ric bass copy which you couldn't tell.

There's counterfeiting, which is passing off/misrepresenting an item as if it were from another manufacturer, and encompasses non-registered trademarks. That's separate to straighforward infringement of registered trademarks (regardless of whether the finished product is pretending to be the genuine article) in 3rd party products.

Yup - if they hadn't protected it, it could be argued that they implicitly permitted it.

Gibson's registered trademarks (US): https://www.gibson.com/Registered-Trademarks Fender's: https://patentsrockblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/spotlight-on-fender-trademarks/ Those are the things they can take legal action against.

These are Rickenbacker's EU trademark registration. https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/?fbclid=IwAR0u4vffxj70eIGkAh_R9_cp5T-yminhUtYVv1Kqec3HaXjeGGNXgjS97Yg#details/trademarks/010177038 https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/?fbclid=IwAR2HmeLqCX6nVQ3iBQXNjkUnKBWrevFl4xe_Ks5f5ZpKyvqYUgTTv7UUUIk#details/trademarks/010177004

Here's something to have a go at... Greazy is a good album! (It's on the Naim label if you're into hi-fi at all...) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Greazy-Jim-Lampi/dp/B0000A1LU8

Epiphone is Gibson's Squier - made to a price point. If you want the real pro gear, then £1k or so ain't huge money; I know it's not loose change, but compare it to other professions' kit. But if you take a step back and look at what you are saying, you are justifying Gibson's actions; you want one of their instruments but are buying copies.

I saw them do that on their warm-up tour (before the album they did a mini-tour as Discipline).

Hmmm - need to see if I get a new job...

If it's a registered trademark, then it is theirs.

Trademark is specific and you have to register the designs. Rickenbacker have their headstock, the TRC, and elements of the body shape registered. The companies do have to show they are actively protecting their IP. It's no different really to fake Levis, Louis Vuitton handbags, Mac clones, Concordski, and so-on. (For Rickenbacker there is a bit of hypocrisy though, as they are now selling a treble pickup inner cover which is a straight rip-off of a 3rd party one.)

It's not about people thinking they're buying a Gibbo; it's about another company making things which look suspiciously similar. For it to be trademark infringement, Gibson have to register their features as a trademark. It's not sufficient for something to look like the original (that's copyright which is is different branch of law); for trademark it has to be registered, and in every country. Normally companies register their brand logos, but some do more design features too; in particular Gibson registered their "bookend" headstock and successfully protected it a few decades back (the so-called "lawsuit"). Fender took a different approach to protecting the intellectual property (IP) and positioned the Squier brand to compete with the fakers.

Sigh, maybe one day...

A butchered Squier with a pickup routed using a black & decker, including going right through the body at one point. Plus an extra knob jammed in so it looks a bit wonky. And the neck looks a bit knackered.

Enjoy it - Warmoth make good kit!

The neck looks a bit chunky.

Ah - I was expecting a much more involved story than that! 🙂

Gwonthen - why???

"...tried to fit it on one of my fender jazz basses, turns out it didn’t fit unfortunately..." Hmm - I wonder why this 24-fret neck didn't fit a genuine Fender body?