Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Dingwall - no more D-Bird...


Recommended Posts

Gibson threatening to tear down everybody else's house rather than getting their own in order. 

 

The new model is barely changed though, just about enough to prevent Gibson's lawyers having anything to work with. Good luck to Sheldon, I'm sure his customers will support him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

In their dreams that Gibson could ever manufacture anything that good.

This seems to be the defining sentiment shared by most of us witnessing this whole “Play Authentic” debacle. No doubt also shared by the various guitar companies out there who are under threat from Gibson, Dingwall included.

Gibson should be grateful that a company like Dingwall, well-known for producing such high quality instruments, would even consider one of their designs as worthy of tribute. Furthermore, the D-Bird (or D-Roc) sounds nothing like a Thunderbird. They almost couldn’t be more different in terms of pickups and electronics, though I doubt a judge would appreciate that as a major factor in court.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with a Gibson "copy" on their catalogue had better be reassessing their instrument line up, because Gibson is coming for them.

The new Gibson management are trying to dig their company out of the hole the previous management left it in, and re-establishing their copyrights/patents, whatever legally covers this thing, has to be high on their, very long, to do list.

It might be annoying to players but as far as Gibson are concerned, rescuing their designs has to be part of any good business plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Gibson have dealt with these legacy issues, they have to ensure that they put the quality (that's been missing for a decade or two) back into their instruments and that price points are realistic.

I know 2 guitarists who started buying Gibson copies from Japan because they wouldn't live with the shortcomings of Gibson instruments. If Gibson can get guys like this back then their company might have a future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're simply taking someone else's design you should at the very least pay them a royalty for doing so.

Intellectual Property, which includes design, theft is well, er...theft isn't it?

How would any of us feel if we'd written a song and someone else stole it?

Dingwall clearly know that they are bang to rights here and have been 'getting away with it' for too long, otherwise they wouldn't have made the above changes sharpish would they?

Aria, Yamaha etc have all come up with their own designs and made a great success of the their bass ranges over many decades without simply plagiarising Fender's designs. 

But as Chris rightly says, unless Gibson get their act together just pursuing copycats alone isn't going to save their brand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure it's that simple. Dingwall pay a license for every bass sold to the Novax family for the fan fret design. 

Perhaps they did ask Gibson if they could license the T-Bird design? Perhaps the original design was to their mind far enough different to be ok? 

I am not sold on the redesign, but that's partly because my brain is used to the old one. If the redesign had come out first I'm sure it would have been met with acclaim too.

I don't see what Gibson are so mad about - Dingwall have taken a shape, and made a better bass. Would all of the D-Bird buyers have bought a T-Bird if there was no other option? I doubt it. Gibson ought to be asking Dingwall how they made it better and apply that to their own design, instead of churning out the same sub-par rubbish with a massive price tag and saying 'It's iconic.'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Daz39 said:

... Dingwall pay a license for every bass sold to the Novax family for the fan fret design. 

👍

That is all that's required. Don't steal. Pay folk what's due. And we can all get on with making a fair living from our creative efforts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can’t deny the influence of Fender and Gibson. Yamaha designs aren’t that far removed from their counterparts and clearly they have been influenced by these companies, their SG guitars even have the same name as the Gibson inspired design.

What have Dingwall been getting away with for so long? I’m baffled by this statement as Dingwall aren’t famous for the D Birds and have been innovating for many many years and pay for their use of the fan fret and credit the designer. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't played a Thunderbird in a while but I tried a D-Bird last weekend - while the shape is very similar the shaping and contouring must be vastly different. I guess the Gibson patent is on the silhouette of the shape and not the execution.

 

For anyone interested GuitarGuitar Glasgow have an aquamarine triple pickup model in stock for £1400 - £400 less than the blurple finish. Great bass and now going to be very rare.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, krispn said:

One can’t deny the influence of Fender and Gibson. Yamaha designs aren’t that far removed from their counterparts and clearly they have been influenced by these companies, their SG guitars even have the same name as the Gibson inspired design.

What have Dingwall been getting away with for so long? I’m baffled by this statement as Dingwall aren’t famous for the D Birds and have been innovating for many many years and pay for their use of the fan fret and credit the designer. 

Fair. 

In which case if Dingwall with the D bird don't feel they have done anything wrong and have been playing by the book why bother changing? 

Maybe this is not a Gibson rip off issue after all? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that simple. IP protection requires that the holder takes prompt action when there is a breach.

 

Gibson have decided to take action about 40 years too late.

They already lost against PRS when their own lawyer admitted that only an idiot would confuse them at the point of sale. 

 

At the moment the decisions of the courts in the US basically says that the headstock is protected but the rest isn't, and Gibson just lost the copyright on the Flying V in the EU as well.

 

In their main action against Dean, Gibson have gone further and claimed that Dean are actually trying to pass themselves off as Gibson products. That might be the most stupid idea I've ever heard.

I've also never played a Dean that was as variable in quality as a Gibson.

 

The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. 

 

Philips lost the rotating / circular razor copyright, and Lego lost their brick / connection design when they tried to stop "compatible" products being on sale.

 

I can well imagine this being a massive own goal with the Courts confirming explicitly that there is no copyright in a guitar apart from the headstock. Then all the makers who have already shifted to a tweaked design may go back to making the older shapes again.

 

Gibsons are getting more expensive by the minute, and the competition are cheaper and often better built. They need to concentrate on making a good and value for money product again.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

It's not that simple. IP protection requires that the holder takes prompt action when there is a breach.

 

Gibson have decided to take action about 40 years too late.

They already lost against PRS when their own lawyer admitted that only an idiot would confuse them at the point of sale. 

 

At the moment the decisions of the courts in the US basically says that the headstock is protected but the rest isn't, and Gibson just lost the copyright on the Flying V in the EU as well.

 

In their main action against Dean, Gibson have gone further and claimed that Dean are actually trying to pass themselves off as Gibson products. That might be the most stupid idea I've ever heard.

I've also never played a Dean that was as variable in quality as a Gibson.

 

The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. 

 

Philips lost the rotating / circular razor copyright, and Lego lost their brick / connection design when they tried to stop "compatible" products being on sale.

 

I can well imagine this being a massive own goal with the Courts confirming explicitly that there is no copyright in a guitar apart from the headstock. Then all the makers who have already shifted to a tweaked design may go back to making the older shapes again.

 

Gibsons are getting more expensive by the minute, and the competition are cheaper and often better built. They need to concentrate on making a good and value for money product again.

All good points.

 

Even if a little widely spaced 😁

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...