Fender and Gibson Copies--Ethical Questions

[ch willie]

We all know that some companies make "Les Pauls," "Strats," "Teles" that sometimes surpass Fender and Gibson models. I've been looking at what's come out at NAMM, and it strikes me that so many of the models are unabashed copies or very close to being copies of Gibsons and Fenders.

While I wouldn't mind having a Suhr, I started thinking that if I were the owner of Gibson or Fender, I'd feel pretty pissed off that so many companies were taking my designs and making money off of them. And I'm surprised that Gibson and Fender don't sue more often for trademark infringement (or whatever the legal term is).

What do you think in terms of ethics when it comes to these copies? It must be legal, but is it ethical?

[Offshore Angler]

In the case of Heritage, you actually have the original Les Paul (with a modified headstock) whereas the current Gibson is the knockoff.

The only time I know of Gibson going after someone was Tokai, who produced a lovely, lovely Les Paul copy. Love Rocks rule and they're becoming prized on the secondary market.

Suhr? I don't think the people walking into Rudy's and buying Suhr are in the same demographic of the typical Fender buyer. They're either pro musicians or extremely well-heeled hobbyists.

[S. Cane]

No.

in my point of view, strats should be made by Fender, Pauls by Gibson, and so on. Period.

Or their subsidiary companies, which make them cheaper and more affordable.

I wouldn't buy an expensive, non licensed copy like Suhr and Hoeg make...even if they're legal.

[renderit]

Many of the "copies" are of type. There are only so many pleasing variants of body shapes. The Suhr in question is different to the most undiscerning eye. Shape of the horn, head, and other differentiate them enough it does not bother me much. Most "new" body shapes hit our fugly receptors pretty quick probably because we accept Fender and Gibson on sight. I had to swallow bile for a year before I bought my Collings 360 ST. Turns out it is one of my top 5 guitars and easily outdoes that which it was designed to do. It became a whole new thang in my head because of it. Then acceptance set in.

[Don]

Fender and Gibson have control over their headstocks because they're trademarked. I think they slacked off on protecting the general shape of their guitars too long ago to do much about it now.

To be honest, I only own 1 piece of Fender gear- my 1966 Vibrolux Reverb. My Tele clone is a USACG body and neck, my Strat clone is an MJT body and USACG neck (both necks have the USACG headstock shape and logo on them), My Princeton Reverb and tweed Champ clones are Mojotone kits and my tweed Deluxe clone was built by a friend with parts from various sources. Only the tweed Deluxe clone has a Fender logo on it. The rest do not.

I like these guitars and amps because they're built exactly how I want them, I enjoy building them and they cost much less than what Fender offers. When I built my Tele clone, Fender did not make an affordable blackguard style Tele with the features that I wanted.

I don't feel as though I have done anything unethical in buy, building and owning these instruments. I also don't think the manufacturers have either (unless they mislabel the product) because the designs have been around so long and have become somewhat generic.

Whatever helps me sleep at night, right?