Posting images of Rickenbacker copies

[Green Alsatian]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1369227684' post='2086565']
Check that pic of him on stage, where you can se the tail end of his bass. You can see the binding goes a bit under the bridge, rather than stopping right at the edge of the bridge. That's the tell of a copy.
[/quote]
Not a reliable tell - late 70s 4001s had the binding going a bit under the bridge. My 1982 4001 did too. Here are some pics of a 1979 model:

[url="http://bassgarage.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/1979-burgundy-rickenbacker-4001.html"]http://bassgarage.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/1979-burgundy-rickenbacker-4001.html[/url]

A modified 1977 model:

[url="http://cdn1.gbase.com/usercontent/gear/2950852/p3_uiobuszti_so.jpg"]http://cdn1.gbase.com/usercontent/gear/2950852/p3_uiobuszti_so.jpg[/url]

Probably why the copies of the late 70s did this too.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='throwoff' timestamp='1369229606' post='2086611']
I am about to put a bass up for sale. With some clever cropping I think I have avoided the plums copyright claims.

[url="http://s30.photobucket.com/user/throwoff/media/somebass_zps3451763a.jpg.html"][/url]
[/quote]

Is it a special bass of a well known shape?

[throwoff]

Has anyone claimed the use of Reichenbacker yet? If not then I want it.

[flyfisher]

I feel sorry for the guy having to spend all his time policing the internet in an ultimately futile gesture.

Wasn't this sort of thing attempted by some other pnut?


edit: Interesting - for some reason the forum converts 'C n u t' to pnut

Edited May 22, 2013 by flyfisher

[Gust0o]

[quote name='throwoff' timestamp='1369230102' post='2086623']
Has anyone claimed the use of Reichenbacker yet? If not then I want it.
[/quote]

Would probably appeal to Lemmy.

[Rich]

I think this bears repeating:

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1369142884' post='2085354']
Last time we had some grumping about John Hall on a personal level. Seemingly he's active on the forums, so I would ask people to keep maintain decorum with any responses.

Ta!
[/quote]

Please keep a lid on personal comments guys. Thanks!

[rushbo]

As a young and impoverished, budding Bassist, I owned a number of low budget or copy Fender Precisions. When I was able to afford a Fender Precision, I bought one.

As a young and impoverished, budding Bassist, I always wanted a Rickenbacker, but I could never find something in my price range to even try. When I was able to afford a Rickenbacker 4001, I bought a Fender Precision.

[Conan]

[quote name='Low End Bee' timestamp='1369211006' post='2086213']
If you advertise a 'special bass' you could always be PM'd for pics....
[/quote]

[JamesBass]

Personally I agree with JH and Rickenbacker, so long as all the relevant legal stuff is on their side, anything that isn't and well they are in breach of the law, defamatory comments about other people and their products or some such thing I'd imagine! I can see how getting rid of all copies and having a unique instrument for Rickenbacker is desirable, it creates exclusivity and in a time where you can pick up a knock off down the market it's nice to see that someone is sticking up for the true version, we'd all moan if our music was and our intellectual property was stolen as it can amount to a loss of earnings.

Personally I love my Ric, the tone is perfect for me, it cuts and is infinitely more versatile than people seem to think, I'd say to people who can't make it versatile that maybe they might want to look at themselves first. A bad workman blames his tools and all that...

[Conan]

[quote name='Hamster' timestamp='1369213927' post='2086261']For Sale: Fender Jazz Bass (NOT A RICKENBACKER COPY)[/quote]

[Dad3353]

[quote name='JamesBass' timestamp='1369232798' post='2086665']
Personally I agree with JH and Rickenbacker, so long as all the relevant legal stuff is on their side, anything that isn't and well they are in breach of the law, defamatory comments about other people and their products or some such thing I'd imagine! I can see how getting rid of all copies and having a unique instrument for Rickenbacker is desirable, it creates exclusivity and in a time where you can pick up a knock off down the market it's nice to see that someone is sticking up for the true version, we'd all moan if our music was and our intellectual property was stolen as it can amount to a loss of earnings...[/quote]

Good afternoon, James...

Your opinion is worthy, although I disagree on several grounds...

We'll leave the 'intellectual property' part to one side, if you permit, as it's a whole debate in it's own right. I happen to have a different moral standpoint, but I'll let it slide for now...
On legal grounds, and not being a legal expert, I'm not sure that claiming exclusivity many years after the original and similar products have been made and sold, is really defensable. A bit like claiming rights on the wheelbarrow (well, someone must have invented it, and there could well be living descendants...) and barring all sales from all other sources. Not to say the designs are not worthy of protection (another subject...); just that it's too late for [i]existing [/i]products. Maybe new ones (but only maybe...).
What revenue is lost when someone buys a 'knock off down the market'..? Here again, I'd differentiate between a 'copy' (purporting to be the 'real thing'...) and a badged 'clone'. Anyone considering the former, at 'market' prices, is well aware that it's not real. The harm would be if it was sold as 'real', at 'real' prices. It would have to be a darned good copy for that to be worthwhile; anyone with the dough for a 'real' one is certainly not 'down the market' looking at fakes.
In the second case, there's less still defence, imho. Inspired by an original design, but maintaining one's own identity (badged with clone's label, and even with distinctive differences...) no-one (interested in such things...) would confuse one with the other. A sale of such a 'cheap copy' is, again, not a lost sale for the original manufacturer, imho. Quite the opposite; once cash is more available, many 'clone' owners would like to 'upgrade' to the real thing. Instigating legal pursuit of a schoolboy wanting to sell his '70s Shaftesbury, given to him by his uncle, does not seem right to me. Neither the uncle, nor the schoolboy have done anything wrong, at any time. Stopping the transaction seems to me to be a denial of one's right to free trade. The case could be made differently for factories blatantly selling outright imitations, and I won't go further with that line, but the hounding of private individuals going about their lawful private trade is, to me, not right.
Tirade over, as you were.
Respect, just the same; no malice intended.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Dad3353

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='JamesBass' timestamp='1369232798' post='2086665']
we'd all moan if our music was and our intellectual property was stolen as it can amount to a loss of earnings.
[/quote]

Into covers bands being banned then?

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1369236042' post='2086716']
Into covers bands being banned then?
[/quote]

[xgsjx]

I've not read the whole thread, but what if Fender were to do this with the shape of the Jazz body? Infact, I'm off to email them to see if they will.

[icastle]

Kodak were an established business with a brand that was recognised worldwide.

They failed to keep in touch with their customers and the rest of the photographic industry leading to their brief and failed foray into digital photography.

Prior to their collapse they gathered together as many patents as they could lay their hands on in an attempt to capitalise on their IP.

Don't know why that sprang to mind...

[JamesBass]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1369234986' post='2086704']
Good afternoon, James...

Your opinion is worthy, although I disagree on several grounds...

We'll leave the 'intellectual property' part to one side, if you permit, as it's a whole debate in it's own right. I happen to have a different moral standpoint, but I'll let it slide for now...
On legal grounds, and not being a legal expert, I'm not sure that claiming exclusivity many years after the original and similar products have been made and sold, is really defensable. A bit like claiming rights on the wheelbarrow (well, someone must have invented it, and there could well be living descendants...) and barring all sales from all other sources. Not to say the designs are not worthy of protection (another subject...); just that it's too late for [i]existing [/i]products. Maybe new ones (but only maybe...).
What revenue is lost when someone buys a 'knock off down the market'..? Here again, I'd differentiate between a 'copy' (purporting to be the 'real thing'...) and a badged 'clone'. Anyone considering the former, at 'market' prices, is well aware that it's not real. The harm would be if it was sold as 'real', at 'real' prices. It would have to be a darned good copy for that to be worthwhile; anyone with the dough for a 'real' one is certainly not 'down the market' looking at fakes.
In the second case, there's less still defence, imho. Inspired by an original design, but maintaining one's own identity (badged with clone's label, and even with distinctive differences...) no-one (interested in such things...) would confuse one with the other. A sale of such a 'cheap copy' is, again, not a lost sale for the original manufacturer, imho. Quite the opposite; once cash is more available, many 'clone' owners would like to 'upgrade' to the real thing. Instigating legal pursuit of a schoolboy wanting to sell his '70s Shaftesbury, given to him by his uncle, does not seem right to me. Neither the uncle, nor the schoolboy have done anything wrong, at any time. Stopping the transaction seems to me to be a denial of one's right to free trade. The case could be made differently for factories blatantly selling outright imitations, and I won't go further with that line, but the hounding of private individuals going about their lawful private trade is, to me, not right.
Tirade over, as you were.
Respect, just the same; no malice intended.
[/quote]

Good Evening Dad 3353,

I think all the points have picked up on are worthwhile, even if I personally disagree with them, they are all valid and all matter towards a debate, that's what's good about BassChat, no one virtual screams at each other for holding opposing views! And for that I'll tip my hat to the mods and admins as well as saying they've dealt with this issue impeccably!

With regards to having a view point on the clones issue, the existing ones are done, dusted, they already exist so even despite my love for Ricks Mr Hall needs to write them off for now, at some point they'll become forgotten in a loft or lock up like most guitars and basses eventually do when not in the hands of a truly avid person, the issue is the new clones in my mind and if he has the legal paperwork to back up his wishes then so be it, if he fails to run them correctly as a business which this could well cost him to do so, then someone out there with the money and love will buy the brand, it's happened with MANY other manufactures and will happen with Rickenbacker if they aren't careful!

The only way I personally see people getting round selling their existing copies is if they list it as a deal to be down through mediation of mods or PM if that is possible here? I know it takes away from the For Sale section however it would potentially keep Mr Hall away, what he doesn't know won't hurt him and all that stuff!

I think if people are posting a Rickenbacker for sale then where possible, it needs to have a certificate of authenticity, if that's not available then it should be listed as "Iconic bass, PM for more details" Or some such thing? I'd like to clarify that those people who own an existing clone should in my opinion be absolutely fine, Mr Hall should only target the new clones appearing, that should be his perogative as well as some homegrown innovation with the brand perhaps, maybe a MIM esque series, market price of say £500-£750?

But we will have to wait and see how this whole debacle plays out, I for one DO NOT want Rickenbacker to go out of business but I would like to see them protect their name and exclusiveness!

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1369236042' post='2086716']
Into covers bands being banned then?
[/quote]

Now that's a whole different kettle of fish! And in my limited experience all set lists of gigs I've been involved with are submitted to PRS and the like, however I am well aware that others don't do that, but that's their choice. Saying that, I can certainly think of a few cover bands that I'd love to see banned

[spongebob]

These Ric threads tend to follow a similar pattern -

'I hate Rics'
'I love Rics', etc...

It's a bass shape and sound which never fails to fascinate. I gig mine regularly, and it always gets attention. I can guarantee that loads of the posters here, if faced with a Ric, would have their hands on it in seconds, despite protestations!

Like some others, I can see where JH is coming from - not a popular view - but he certainly doesn't help with his tactics.

Maybe I've been brainwashed due to my membership of Rickresource - the only fan forum where anything deemed anti-Ric (even questioning is immediately deleted and removed!

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1369238291' post='2086761']
Kodak were an established business with a brand that was recognised worldwide.

They failed to keep in touch with their customers and the rest of the photographic industry leading to their brief and failed foray into digital photography.

Prior to their collapse they gathered together as many patents as they could lay their hands on in an attempt to capitalise on their IP.

Don't know why that sprang to mind...
[/quote]

OH, burn Ricky!

[SlapbassSteve]

If they're that worried about protecting the brand, and the only reason most Rick copies are still bought and sold is because of the price of the real thing, I wonder why they've not yet thought about bringing out a Epiphone/Squier/OLP type range..? Same shape as a USA 4003 but made in Indonesia, China or Korea from cheaper materials and retailing around £500-600? They'd make an absolute killing. -perhaps buying out Rockinbetter would be an easy way to get started..?

Once these were on the market only enthusiasts would care about the 70's lawsuit basses, and the people who buy fakers purely because of the price of real Ricks(management ethics aside) would happily shell out quarter the price of a USA, same as people happily pay £500 for a MiM Fender rather then a £1000 MiA.



...If Mr Hall happens to read this, I'm currently looking for work and would welcome the opportunity to help make this a reality.

[John Schoen]

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1369237862' post='2086753']
I've not read the whole thread, but what if Fender were to do this with the shape of the Jazz body?  Infact, I'm off to email them to see if they will.  
[/quote]

They tried it with the shape of the Stratocaster and Telecaster guitars and the Precision bass and failed: [url="http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno=246"]http://ttabvue.uspto...pty=OPP&eno=246[/url]

Edited May 22, 2013 by John Schoen

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='John Schoen' timestamp='1369243303' post='2086849']
They tried it with the shape of the Stratocaster and Telecaster guitars and the Precision bass and failed: [url="http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno=246"]http://ttabvue.uspto...pty=OPP&eno=246[/url]
[/quote]

interesting reading. The precedenct of it seems Mr Hall is in a bit of a hard place- in order to keep his trademark for the headstock (and now body) he has to keep opposing copies of them regardless. So in his defence he has to oppose things he sees. Interestingly in looking while the body shape, it's not generic in the same way a fender one and is copyright trademark in the US i'm not sure it is in the EU- how it affects Basschat is quite interesting - anyone know how talkbass have dealt with the same issue?

While I understand that the company HAS to oppose copies, and protect their trademarks, What I do find slightly objectionable though is the fact that the company president sends off whatever nasty emails he does himself (as I presume he does) - he has a UK firm who look after his IP in the EU based in London according to the trademark postings - maybe the site should ask for written legal documentation from his EU based lawyers in order to understand precisely the legal imperatives?


Also in respect to the company generally I found this interesting...
[quote][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1]Rickenbacker ® , the "R" Design, Triangular Name Crescent Design, RIC, Hamburg, Atlantis, Colorado, Dakota, Frisco, Sierra, Liverpool, Shasta, Comstock, Shiloh, Cheyenne, Laramie, Jazz-bo, Laredo, Laguna, Miami, Jetglo, Fireglo, Mapleglo, Autumnglo, Toaster ®, Toaster-Top, Astron, and logotypes are among the trademarks and service marks in the United States and other countries of Rickenbacker International Corporation. This is not a comprehensive list of all trademarks and service marks of [/size][/font][/color][b]RIC[/b][color=#000000][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1].[/size][/font][/color][/quote] How on earth are Hamburg, Altantis, Colorado, Dakota, Frisco, Sierra, or flipping Liverpool a trademark or service mark for them??

[dlloyd]

It's shame... I've always fancied a Ric (330 and 4003), but I'm afraid they're on the list with Monster Cables. No one likes a bully.

[Billy Apple]

Can you post pictures of a real Ric that you have scratched the word 'Hondo' on with a compass point?

[Chris2112]

[quote name='Hamster' timestamp='1369213528' post='2086253']
It may be much easier to make Basschat a totally 'Rickenbacker Free Zone'
[/quote]

I have long dreamed of the day...

[Gust0o]

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1369250412' post='2086966']
Can you post pictures of a real Ric that you have scratched the word 'Hondo' on with a compass point?
[/quote]

Yes. But only on the official Rickenbacker forums.