Snide basses and ridicules prices ?

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='SubsonicSimpleton' timestamp='1418986864' post='2635460']
So what happens if you make a bitsa using a genuine fender neck sourced from a genuine fender instrument, but fitted to a body of unknown origin with aftermarket hardware, are you then obliged to scrape off the fender decal and remove the production date stamps etc?
[/quote]

This is where it gets cloudy. Production date stamps are not an issue (unless they're trademarked?).

Using official Fender parts in a bitsa is complex. [i]My[/i] understanding is that so long as you describe it as "a guitar made from Fender parts" and not a "Fender guitar" then its OK. Fender are the ones who put their trademark on that neck, so its allowed to be there.

You may (but I may be wrong) also be obliged to not show photos of the trademark (ie headstock) in any sale (I remember there was some suggestion that selling Ricky copies on basschat would be OK so long as the trademarked bit (the headstock) was not shown).

Of course a lot of this is just legal pedantry and Fender clearly aren't too bothered about individuals doing this. I definitely think its wrong for small builders to do it though---if you take money for it you shouldn't be using another companies trademark.

[SubsonicSimpleton]

At what point do you consider intent, and who really gets hurt?

What is worse morally, what is worse for the consumer and what is worse for the manufacturer.

A supposedly reputable dealer to rebuild instruments using genuine parts from stolen instruments to hide their identity, and defraud the customer while profiting from stolen goods.

A chancer deliberately rebadging cheaper goods with the express intention of duping potential buyers into thinking they are getting a premium product when in fact they are getting something else which is less desirable/valuable.

A manufacturer mass producing inferior copies of another companies product and selling them at a cheaper price.

A manufacturer mass producing better quality copies of another companies product and selling them at a cheaper price.

A small builder making quality period replicas and selling them as such.

I would argue that replica instruments do not hurt the brand image or profit margins for Fender, as they are really in competition with the second hand market, and they don't hurt the consumer either if they are good quality in themselves and not misrepresented. All the other instances are bad news for the consumer and/or the companies profit/brand image, lawsuit era instruments were great for the consumer, but hit Fender/Gibson in the pocket quite seriously, and yet we don't see a sudden angry mob of villagers with torches and pitchforks demanding that Tokais and other lawsuit era instruments be banned from the for sale section of the forum and smashed up and burnt as fake trash because the companies who produced them copied the originals with the express intent of stealing their customers.

[Chiliwailer]

Going back to earlier comments, a debate I've enjoyed, I find it funny how 10 years ago everyone was praising the Japanese Fender domestic market for making such amazing varieties of vintage and modern Fenders and questioning why the then current USA and Mexican range was so limited. Now that they have a huge range, catering for all sorts, a lot of players are now stating that the current range is too big! One extreme to other, at least it looks like they are now leaning towards a middle ground.

What bothers me, is that on the Fender website it's never clear where the instrument is made, unless you keep referring the product code, and that list never seems to be in my pocket when I need it!!!

Fender logos on non Fender gear? Not for me but I don't care if people go for that, I get it. What winds me up is a BMW M3 logo on a badly done up 318, and im not even a car nut!!

[thebassist]

[quote name='Chiliwailer' timestamp='1418998640' post='2635590']
What winds me up is a BMW M3 logo on a badly done up 318, and im not even a car nut!!
[/quote]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Oh I don't know, a BMW M3 logo on a badly done up 318 amuses me.[/font][/color]

[Billy Apple]

Has the title of this thread been reliced?

[Chiliwailer]

[quote name='thebassist' timestamp='1418998937' post='2635593']


[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Oh I don't know, a BMW M3 logo on a badly done up 318 amuses me.[/font][/color]
[/quote]

Haha, fair play, you're quite right!

[karlfer]

[quote name='thebassist' timestamp='1418998937' post='2635593']
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Oh I don't know, a BMW M3 logo on a badly done up 318 amuses me.[/font][/color]
[/quote]

Especially with one little tailpipe!

[spacey]

[quote name='Marc S' timestamp='1418985680' post='2635441']
Also re copyright issues,
What has not been mentioned here,
is that Fender themselves "stole" / "borrowed" their headstock design from Bigsby,
Who had themselves stolen / borrowed the general headstock design from very early Spanish acoustic guitars

Here's a link to the BIgsby site
I'm searching for a pic of that very early Spanish guitar - but I have seen a pic
and a museum article on it.... if anyone else remembers where this is, please feel free to post
I think the instrument was dated around circa 1880, if my memory serves me.....

[url="http://bigsbyfiles.blogspot.co.uk/"]http://bigsbyfiles.blogspot.co.uk/

E[/url]DIT: I say this, fully realising that copying a logo and copying an overall design may be regarded as two different things
but copy the basic design of the headstock is what Fender did....
[/quote]
Its who hold the patent that matters.
Rickenbacker invented the Humbucker pickup but never patented it, they also let the guy leave with the basic Musicman design, What Rickenbacker made a music man ?
Yes in a primitive form and it hangs on the wall.
Yet they dont hold the patents so those that do call the shots.

[Billy Apple]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1418989253' post='2635490']
You may (but I may be wrong) also be obliged to not show photos of the trademark (ie headstock) in any sale (I remember there was some suggestion that selling Ricky copies on basschat would be OK so long as the trademarked bit (the headstock) was not shown).
[/quote]

When JH originally started his action with BC there was some confusion over what parts of the 4000 series shape were trademarked. This led to an early decision to allow the sales of Rickenfakers with the head-stock hidden from view. Subsequent correspondence revealed that RIC owns the trademark to the shape of the head-stock, body and truss rod cover of the 4000 series shape. Hence the complete ban on sales of Ric copies and the posting of links to them elsewhere.

[Marc S]

[quote name='spacey' timestamp='1419001096' post='2635620']
Its who hold the patent that matters.
Rickenbacker invented the Humbucker pickup but never patented it, they also let the guy leave with the basic Musicman design, What Rickenbacker made a music man ?
Yes in a primitive form and it hangs on the wall.
Yet they dont hold the patents so those that do call the shots.
[/quote]

... but was it not also said (including by you?) that this was a question of "morals"? ("patents were not mentioned at the time hmmm....)
Although Patents have been in place where morals existed,
history is replete with examples of patents being applied for by someone who stole the originators' ideas......
Or those who could afford to pay for the application!

Another point that hasn't been discussed, is that of young players, who own copies, because that is all they can afford....
My first bass was a terrible Rick copy. I aspired to the "real thing" - one day
I later had a fantastic Rick copy - but I still aspired to owning the real thing
.....Which I later did

All of my young pals at the time, had copies,by all manner and standards of builders
At the time, these copies were all they could afford
and every one of them really wanted to get their hands on the real thing, one day, when they could afford it etc etc
And those who continue to play have all done so...

So my point is, if manufacturers prevent copies of their instruments being built / sold
Are they not missing a trick, by discouraging younger players from aspiring to their "real deal" instruments?

Rickenbacker are a real case in point here
There are very few Rick copies out there by comparison with Gibson or Fender
So young players grow up playing Gibson or Fender copies (licensed or otherwise)
so when they can afford the real thing - what do they buy?

This has also been borne out by music shop staff I know.....
(one of whom is a very good friend, and we have discussed this very fact)

[tauzero]

[quote name='Wilco' timestamp='1418976100' post='2635313']
Relicing seems inherently linked to Fender instruments
[/quote]

Maybe it's because the finish is rubbish and Fender owners don't bother taking care of their instruments (why bother, they're only Fenders)?

[Musky]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1418979200' post='2635343']
If you put build a "bitsa" bass and put a Fender logo on it then the problem is that its technically illegal. You're breaking the law if you try to sell it, regardless of whether or not you're open about what it is. The guy selling it now might be honest about what it is, but the next guy might not be, which is why disclosure doesn't affect the legality.

I've C&P'd this from elsewhere, but Trading Standards are quite clear about this:

1. Using a logo/trademark that doesn't belong to you is illegal unless you have permission or a license to use it
2. Using a disclaimer ("this is not a real Fender") is not a legal defence in Trade Mark / Copyright law
3. Counterfeit goods (like Bitsa basses with Fender logos) cannot be legitimately sold, even with a disclaimer.

Now, personally I don't really care if someone wants to build themselves a bitsa, thats fine by me. But the law is what it is.

Again, more C&P:

Fender sell replacement necks with logos to be fitted [b]only[/b] to Fender guitars.

Warmoth (and others) sell licensed (non-logo) Fender style necks which can be put on anything you want.

It is the addition of the Fender logo on a guitar that was not made by Fender that puts you on shaky legal ground. Adding a Fender logo to your homebrew bitsa is probably fine for your own personal use, but selling it becomes dodgy.
[/quote]

Private sales of goods using others' trademarked designs are fine in the UK. Trademarks in this country apply to those who manufacture, import or distribute goods by way of business.

As far as counterfeits go, the CDP act does apply to the resale of goods but only if you're benefiting commercially or have reason to believe they may be counterfeit. The sale of goods act would also apply (for mis-description), but obviously if you've made it clear that it is not the item it's aping that won't come into play.

So private sellers are good to go.

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1419002464' post='2635636']
When JH originally started his action with BC there was some confusion over what parts of the 4000 series shape were trademarked. This led to an early decision to allow the sales of Rickenfakers with the head-stock hidden from view. Subsequent correspondence revealed that RIC owns the trademark to the shape of the head-stock, body and truss rod cover of the 4000 series shape. Hence the complete ban on sales of Ric copies and the posting of links to them elsewhere.
[/quote]
Initially RIC didn't have UK registered trademarks over most of their design (I can't remember what they did have registered but it wasn't much - just the logo and headstock I think). They then registered the marks for other parts of the design and jumped on BC. I think JH commented something along the lines of "It's not up to me to keep you up to date with registered trademarks"...

[lurksalot]

[quote name='spacey' timestamp='1418915813' post='2634810']
The one I initially saw was unbranded, I was not stating that Limelight are the ones responsible for the counterfeiting ? I was of the impression that they were bista basses and people were applying their own logos ?
Surely they are not leaving the workshop branded ?
Some suggest they are ?
[/quote]
[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1418916001' post='2634814']
They used to, but I think Mark very has sensibly decided to leave it up to the buyer.
[/quote]
[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1419019345' post='2635837']
Private sales of goods using others' trademarked designs are fine in the UK. Trademarks in this country apply to those who manufacture, import or distribute goods by way of business......

So private sellers are good to go.

[/quote]

So , it seems that the buck can be passed after all , it makes sense now

[rodney72a]

[quote name='spacey' timestamp='1418840666' post='2633988']
I would say the second the Fender logo is applied it steps from replica to counterfeit, I would think that is a good description of a counterfeit instrument[/quote]

This.

I remember seeing a Bravewood replica of a '66 Fender Jazz on Ebay some time ago, where the photos showed that the builder had also faked (sorry, I mean replicated) stuff like the neck date stamp - in other words, components you can't actually see unless the instrument is dismantled.

I'm not implying any intent to deceive but once an instrument changes hand a few times over the years, it could get messy if someone tries to pass it off as original, possibly out of ignorance.

[wateroftyne]

To those who disagree with these basses on moral grounds, I have two questions:

1 ) How much money do they think Fender lose every time one of these basses changes hands?
2 ) Have they every downloaded an MP3 or copied a CD illegally, depriving the creator of a little bit of income?

FWIW, I have no argument with people who don't get relic'ing, and and agree entirely that Fender have every right to protect their trademark. And obviously these basses should NEVER be passed off as the real thing (but if, as some people suggest, it's a £150 bitsa attacked by a belt sander, that shouldn't be possible anyway).

[rodney72a]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1419059628' post='2636091']And obviously these basses should NEVER be passed off as the real thing (but if, as some people suggest, it's a £150 bitsa attacked by a belt sander, that shouldn't be possible anyway).
[/quote]

At least the Limelight finishes don't look much like the originals which in this context has to be a plus. Whereas the Bravewood guy is pretty good, especially when he goes easy on the termites.

Edited December 20, 2014 by rodney72a

[LemonCello]

I've had a lot of P basses including a 70's. My Limelight beats them all hands down (leaving the reliced looks apart) and was cheaper than most of the others. I know it's not a Fender but it's the most Fendery non-Fender I've owned. And if it had Gibson on the headstock....well that would be silly wouldn't it?

By the way...I also REALLY rate my £200 Squier CVP!

[skej21]

The OP claims that the second a Fender decal is applied, it becomes a 'counterfeit'... What a load of rubbish! At the end of the day, a limelight PLAYS and FEELS like a vintage Fender. It DOES NOT, in any way, stand up to a thorough test. The pots are not date stamped, neither is the neck or body and there is nothing that is trying to trick anyone into thinking it is an actual vintage Fender when it is being sold (by Mark or by basschatters).

Anyone with even the slightest knowledge would pick it out as a non-Fender miles away. Unless it was sold on gumtree/ebay etc as a vintage Fender and someone stupidly payed £3000+ for it without asking for any info that would show it to be non-original (which in my opinion is very stupid!) then I'm pretty sure that there will not be a situation in which a Limelight (even with a Fender decal) would ever be missold to another person as a vintage instrument.

Anyone looking to buy a vintage original Fender would have enough sense to do some basic checks to see if it's genuine before parting with their money that a Limelight would simply not pass.

[Bassassin]

Registered trademark headstock profile, registered trademark logo = counterfeit. That'll be the law, that will.

Jon.

[chrisanthony1211]

I did think that reliced basses looked pretty good, however I now have a couple of vintage precisions, an 83 and a 71, the 71 I managed to pick up for less than 1k which I'm really pleased about, for me, one of the reasons after all the basses I have owned, that I now have 2 vintage Precisions, is that they are just about the only basses which will go up in value, you buy anything else and you lose money as soon as you leave the shop, the first time you get a dink, you're really pissed and you've just lost even more cash, my 71 is in pretty good nick, but I'm not concerned about the occasional knock, it's still going up in value! And it's not necessarily because of any mojo (although there is plenty!) it's because it's an antique, just like an antique chair may be worth more than a new chair that looks the same, and even though it may not be as good, it's an antique, and it deserves to be worth more for having survived ! these reliced guitars fit a niche, I can understand where they fit, but I can't say I've ever looked at one and thought "there's a vintage fender", I always thought that "someone's had a right good go at that!"

Edited December 24, 2014 by chrisanthony1211

[Beedster]

[quote name='chrisanthony1211' timestamp='1419445642' post='2640099']
...you buy anything else and you lose money as soon as you leave the shop, the first time you get a dink, you're really pissed and you've just lost even more cash....
[/quote]

Not if you buy a used relic, the dinks just add to the effect

[chrisanthony1211]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1421181911' post='2658236']


Not if you buy a used relic, the dinks just add to the effect
[/quote]

Good point well made! But there's not much that will go up in value once you've bought it, infant it may be worth a thread, which guitars are good investments!

[Beedster]

[quote name='chrisanthony1211' timestamp='1421308577' post='2659547']
Good point well made! But there's not much that will go up in value once you've bought it, infant it may be worth a thread, which guitars are good investments!
[/quote]

Always buy used basses and you will likely not lose out when you're selling, unless you buy something unwisely or at a silly price. Buy very wisely and it may just go up in value, especially if you've a nose not only for a bargain but for what's hot and what's not

I think the point I was making in the previous is that a used but mint bass might lose value if dinked, a used relic probably won't. It's a safer investemnt all other things being equal.

[cybertect]

[quote name='Marc S' timestamp='1418912113' post='2634753']If you restore an old MG sports car, with 3rd party body parts (to replace the rusty MG ones)
.... does this mean your car shouldn't be wearing an MG badge anymore???[/quote]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1418947523' post='2635222']Very poor analogy. That's the equivalent of starting with a Fender and then replacing (say) the BBOT and pickguard, in which case no-pne would argue it shouldn't still have a Fender badge. A better analogy would be building a Caterham or Westfield kit car and sticking a Lotus badge on it.[/quote]

Quite. For MG owners' reactions to such things, see here...

http://www.mg-cars.net/mgtd-mgtf1500-bbs/another-fake-201305142258108864.htm

[tauzero]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1421313629' post='2659624']
I think the point I was making in the previous is that a used but mint bass might lose value if dinked, a used relic probably won't. It's a safer investemnt all other things being equal.
[/quote]

I wonder when we'll see the first bass being advertised as a mint relic.