Jens Ritter has a word with chinese copy guy....

[Kiwi]

IIRC they trademarked their headstock design

it's difficult to prove in a court that something is identical when there's a small change

and then translate that small change into a $ value unless trademarking/copyright protection is used which establishes a set of legal principles which can be referred to

[waynepunkdude]

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1327452778' post='1511682']

Besides which, the aforementioned manufacturers do make quality instruments rather than cheap looking tat made out of balsa wood.
[/quote]

Have you ever played one?

[mcgraham]

[quote name='muttley' timestamp='1327480555' post='1511809']
FTR, you can't copyright an object.

Copyright exists in the [i]drawings[/i] for that object, as it does in any other creative work. It doesn't matter what's on the drawing, original or not. Therefore, if a Chinese copyist company created Engineering drawings of a Ritter (or any other) bass then the Chinese company would own the copyright to that drawing. Sounds odd, I know, but that's how it works. A similar analogy is the copyright protection afforded to [i]recordings[/i] of cover versions of songs.

Products are protected by [url="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-designright/d-designright-get.htm"]Design Right[/url]. This works in a similar way to copyright but it is separate IP. AFAIK, Design Right is a fairly recent development.

Of course, this only applies if the Chinese recognise international laws on the protection of IP. I'm not sure about that bit.

HTH .
[/quote]

Muttley, you're more or less right here, but copyright CAN subsist in something other than drawings, e.g. a physical object. The divide between copyright and design is slightly more confusing to understand than that, and needs to be considered on a case by case basis. There are provisions in the UK Copyright and Designs act that stipulate the conditions on the divide, i.e. where one subsists the other doesn't and where/why (so people can't have two bites at the cherry in litigation), but it isn't always as clear cut as the above... even on a case by case basis it can be a touch confusing. For example:

[url="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-artisticworks.htm"]http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-artisticworks.htm[/url]

Basically copyright subsists as soon as the work is recorded in material form, which is generally drawings, but can relate to works of artistic craftsmanship, e.g. sculptures, works of artistic craftsmanship... which I imagine Jens could seek protection under. The onus would be on Jens to show copying which could be easy/tough depending on the circumstances.

Please note although I work in intellectual property, I'm not an expert in copyright (and even the experts have arguments based on interpretation of the facts) but I can say unequivocably that - though you are generally correct in most cases - copyright CAN subsist in something other than drawings, i.e. a physical object, and that this subsisting copyright can also protect 3D copies of 2D recordings w/ subsisting copyright... or 2D copies of 3D or 3D copies of 3D or 2D copies of 2D. It's a fairly robust right, provided copying can be shown.

[mcgraham]

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1327483692' post='1511882']
IIRC they trademarked their headstock design

it's difficult to prove in a court that something is identical when there's a small change

and then translate that small change into a $ value unless trademarking/copyright protection is used which establishes a set of legal principles which can be referred to
[/quote]
Kiwi, it doesn't necessarily need to be 100% identical, you just need to show copying. It's a subtle difference, but the point is to stop others copying your intellectual property. Yes, if they modify it further this changes the game somewhat, and this can be slight or radical, but fundamentally if they've copied it then there's a good starting point to get them to stop/claim damages, etc.

[leschirons]

[quote name='waynepunkdude' timestamp='1327483802' post='1511884']


Have you ever played one?
[/quote]

Funnily enough, a guy I know here bought a Chinese Les Paul standard. Complete with Gibson logo'd headstock and case, pucker glued neck the lot. Even had Made in USA on the reverse and a serial number.

We seriously took the piss, until it was plugged into a boogie Mk1V and sounded great. Even with the £5 pickups. He changed the tuners and still plays it. Chinese manufacturing has come a long long way.

Not condoning this though in any way.

[EBS_freak]

I don't know why you would want to rip a Ritter design? They haven't got the mass market appeal of the J, P, Rics of this world... so I can't imagine them shifting that many units. If every up and coming band was using a Ritter, then maybe... but currently?

[muttley]

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1327484542' post='1511894']
Basically copyright subsists as soon as the work is recorded in material form, which is generally drawings, but can relate to works of artistic craftsmanship, e.g. sculptures, works of artistic craftsmanship... which I imagine Jens could seek protection under. The onus would be on Jens to show copying which could be easy/tough depending on the circumstances.
[/quote]

That's an interesting observation. Ritter basses are hardly generic objects and (beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that) could certainly be categorised as works of sculpture or related artisanship.

As you've probably guessed, I don't work in IP. However, in my job (product development and R&D) I had to have a good working knowledge of the patent process but other IP issues did crop up from time to time.

[mcgraham]

Yea, it's a pretty grey area copyright... hence I only know enough to realise I simply don't know anything... and how to point out how most of it is a massive grey area.

For example, there was a famous 'star wars' case in the last few years relating to the stormtrooper helmet and the guy who designed it and was selling reproductions in the UK (IIRC, please feel free to correct if I am mistaken). I don't know all the ins and outs but a lot of it hinged on whether it was considered a 'sculpture' or not. You can imagine that whether something is determined to be an article in the sense of design right or a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship in the sense of copyright can totally change the ballgame, and still further affect the outcome of the decision within that case.

[mcgraham]

[quote name='muttley' timestamp='1327488958' post='1512021']
That's an interesting observation. Ritter basses are hardly generic objects and (beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that) could certainly be categorised as works of sculpture or related artisanship.
[/quote]

Yes! Exactly. He could argue 'I designed it to be a piece of art, like the Mona Lisa, and each one is a unique piece of art stemming from my field'

But at the same time they could argue 'well you churn out loads of them and sell them as reproducible products and not as art, it's clearly intended as a product that should be protected by design right'.

[apa]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1327490802' post='1512071']
They took it to court and it was deemed they didn't protect them enough so the designs became generic so they lost them.

Is going to a salesman and asking who designed them protecting his design ??

I actually think he looks a bit of a tool in the video. Either he knows he hasn't a legal leg to stand on so is doing it for drama and the oh woe me look how awful this is these guys are costing me money ripping off my deigns blub blub and the publicity of a viral video. Or he hasn't a set of balls big enough to actually confront someone ripping off his design.

I think it's just two faced the way people are fine with countless Fender and Gibson copies. People on here deride John Hall and the Rickenwaffen for the way they get on on despite possibly not having E.U. copyrights for what he protects. We even have a thread dedicated to rickenfakers with people asking questions like whats a decent Rickenfaker? Who does a good one now?

Why isn't Sheldon Dingwall getting abuse for making a P bass or Warwick for making a EB style bass in their relevant threads . We've had threads asking whats the best Non-Gibson Thunderbird and no one has batted an eyelid.


What makes Ritter so special that he deserves the collected outrage of the community. Especially when it seems he hasn't the interest intaking the necessary measures to protect his designs anyway. So if he isn't worried why should everyone else get worked up by it?
[/quote]

Exactly (the bit about Ritter confronting the guy) If he realy wanted to make this a big issue he would have ask the guy outright what they are doing and told him who he is. Then he would have gone to the NAMM organisers and told them whats on the Tang stall. (Because the NAMM organisers whouldnt have a clue who Tang are and what they make now whould they!!!) This wasnt an expose it was an amateur ill thought out half assed poke. Why not get all the evidence take a lawer and slap the papers down infront of the guy if you can. Oh hold on he has a stall himself at NAMM.

As for copying others designs. As far as Im conserned its a bit of a red herring talking about Lakland etal copying Fender. It doesnt say fender therefore its almost an advert for them or if Fenders were as good as Laklands then Lakland would go out of business. Its when Trade Tang go putting logos and serial numbers on thats the prob.

FYI I work as a packaging designer. We copy each other all the time. Move one little bit and were safe. On the odd occasion we do copyright its usually a waste of money. One or two companies have been succesfully sued but very few. Its very common for a customer to send a pack in and say 'Can you copy this?' We do and someone else does as well. Its the lowest commercial price that wins.

A

[mcgraham]

Johnston, I see what you're saying but I disagree.

Firstly, the Fender problem lay in that they didn't defend their rights. IIRC it is a valid defence to argue that 'well you let company A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H etc make them for years and you never batted an eye lid, suddenly we company X start making them and its a problem?!'. Basically the rights work both ways - you should be entitled to stop third parties making something that falls within your rights, but third parties should also be able to work out what they are going to be allowed to do and what they are not going to be allowed to do. Therefore if you don't enforce your rights properly or at all, there is an acquired expectation by third parties (and the law) that it is acceptable to work within the realm of your rights. It also wouldn't be in good faith to let loads of people 'infringe', not do anything for years, THEN take them for infringement/damages once their businesses are in full flight. So the law is also set up to protect third parties in that regard.

Secondly, trademarks, designs and copyright (and patents) are all very very different rights designed to protect different things. Trademarks need to distinguish goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, and as long as they do that (amongst other things) they can be renewed and kept alive forever... provided those trademarks don't lose that distinctiveness in that industry... so I can see how Fender could have lost that if they didn't work hard to keep the distinctiveness belonging to them, e.g. again, not defending their rights properly/at all. Designs have time limits on them, copyright isn't registrable so you need to show copying but the above posts follow that train of thought, and patents I don't think would generally apply, but anyway also have time limits on them.

Thirdly, with all this in mind, Jens is more or less at the beginning of his tradecraft. His company doesn't have a history of 60-70 years behind it, nor a long established customer base. He is at least implicitly drawing attention to this theft of intellectual property, and doing what Fender should have done right from the outset and had the right to do from the outset. The outrage is justified (IMO) because no-one else has done it and he has never let anyone get away with it before, unlike Fender, who - looking back on history - forewent their right or tried to enforce it far too late in the game... therefore he is justly jumping to point out his intellectual property at the stage where he can make the difference.

Again, all IMO and IME, etc.

[mcgraham]

Johnston, good points, very good points.

There's two types of design right - registered and unregistered. Unregistered doesn't require registering (well, duh!) but the onus is on the claimed owner of the unregistered right to show copying. Jens will have that/have had that in Europe. Whether it has expired or not is another matter. Registered costs money, but can last longer, and gives prima facie evidence that you have the right. Jens may have this, he may not. Therefore the onus is on the alleged infringer to show they didn't copy, etc.

[mcgraham]

Sure. I don't really have the inclination to look it myself, he may well have registered his rights in the US, but they don't last anywhere near as long as registered rights in Europe. I was just trying to point out he likely does have rights at least in Europe.

And yes, I would certainly love a more affordable version of his instruments! They are works of art IMO!

[shizznit]

Nice one Jens, though I have always thought he ripped off Carl Thompson with the Okon model that he builds!

[mcgraham]

*shrug* maybe he likes Trigger Happy TV?

[Mr. Foxen]

The bass hanging up their is probably as much to show what they can do as to be a saleable item in itself. Kind of the point of trade shows.