Relicked Basses and copyright issues...

[peteb]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1403706792' post='2485486']


It's not somebody else's gunge on the bridge and tuners - it just [i]looks [/i]like somebody else's gunge...
[size=4]Quite strange unpacking my new Limelight Jazz today - it looks 50 years old, but it smells of new paint! [/size]
[/quote]

I understand that they leave the hardware soaking in salt water overnight

[quote name='karlfer' timestamp='1403731526' post='2485820']


The invariable result of them having a pop at this particular maker would be them pissing off people who PROBABLY have other Fenders in their armoury.
So, if Fender did take action, I would be very unlikely to buy another. As is the case in this modern world, there would inevitably be an internet bunfight and Fender may end up losing a couple of hundred of previously loyal fans.
A drop in the ocean to them of course.
The question Fender, with all their resources should be asking themselves is, "why have we not got this section of the market?"
[/quote]
I understand that Fender did threaten to take action against Bill Nash, forcing him to change his operations and only use Fender decals on 'bitsa' basses that he puts together from genuine Fender parts!

[Conan]

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1403732297' post='2485836']
For a company like Fender who have designed an instrument that can be mixed and matched easily (bolt on necks which can be switched around, easily changeable hardware etc) they are surprisingly limited in the options they offer to customers, hence this niche that Mark has exploited. I think the way Limelight works shows us that that some of us want the flexibility to customise aspects of our instrument without having to go to the Fender Custom Shop (which still has too many restrictions for some of us!).
[/quote]

Spot on! That is exactly how I feel too.

I think it will only be a matter of time before Mark's operation appears on Fender's radar. After all, this forum has quite a significant readership in the US and some of those guys are very nationalistic... In their eyes, a small UK builder "ripping off" their iconic US brand would be unforgivable.

It is an interesting situation!

Edited June 26, 2014 by Conan

[Conan]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1403735847' post='2485884']
I understand that Fender did threaten to take action against Bill Nash, forcing him to change his operations and only use Fender decals on 'bitsa' basses that he puts together from genuine Fender parts!
[/quote]

Maybe one way around it would be for Mark to ship the basses without decals, encouraging customers to source their own?

Not sure about the headstocks though...

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1403766626' post='2485964']
I think it will only be a matter of time before Mark's operation appears on Fender's radar. After all, this forum has quite a significant readership in the US and some of those guys are very nationalistic... In their eyes, a small UK builder "ripping off" their iconic US brand would be unforgivable.
[/quote]

FWIW, I posted a thread on TB and it was very well received.

But yes, I suppose there's always they chance someone out there will raise a red flag and spoil the fun.

[ead]

I think in some ways the older 'traditional' brands that have not really moved with the times and/or their customers should take a good hard look at this. While [u]I [u]do [/u]not in any way[/u] endorse passing off (i.e. selling something as a Fender that isn't a Fender), the 'tribute' thing is different and Limelight very clearly say exactly what you are buying etc.

How much more money could the likes of Fender have made if they had:[list]
[*]spotted and acted on a clear opportunity;
[*]not taken the p*$$ on pricing; and
[*]done something about the uneven QA (not part of this thread but worth saying).
[/list]
It may be that the Limelight flame burns brightly and dies, but there is clearly a demand for this type of thing out there. If Fender don't pick it up others will.

Edited June 26, 2014 by ead

[discreet]

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1403733451' post='2485861']
It's not just the logo, the headstock shape is protected too.
[/quote]

Don't think that's true any longer. [url="http://www.jemsite.com/forums/f13/big-news-fender-loses-trademark-case-88745.html"]http://www.jemsite.c...case-88745.html[/url]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1403733451' post='2485861']
Fender don't have Microsoft money, but they can still afford to go after someone with £400 per hour city lawyers. If you are on the receiving end of that you might as well just hand over the deeds to your house.
[/quote]
[quote name='ead' timestamp='1403767324' post='2485975']It may be that the Limelight flame burns brightly and dies, but there is clearly a demand for this type of thing out there. If Fender don't pick it up others will.
[/quote]

Unlikely that FMIC would litigate immediately. They will start with a cheap and easy 'Cease and Desist' letter. It ultimately wouldn't make much difference to Mark's business, imho - he'd need to market himself slightly differently à la Nash and Bravewood (and with Limelight's price advantage) - but I'm delighted with my new bass and think it is excellent in its own right. I'd be proud to own and play it with a 'Limelight' decal on it and I'm quite sure Mark's basses will succeed on their own merits.[/font][/size]

Edited June 26, 2014 by discreet

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1403769126' post='2485993']
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Don't think that's true any longer.
[url="http://www.jemsite.com/forums/f13/big-news-fender-loses-trademark-case-88745.html"]http://www.jemsite.c...case-88745.html[/url][/font]
[/quote]

I might be wrong (it frequently happens) but I think that ruling applies only to body shape. The headstock shape is still Fender's.

[discreet]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1403769341' post='2485998']
I might be wrong (it frequently happens) but I think that ruling applies only to body shape. The headstock shape is still Fender's.
[/quote]

D'oh! You're right.

Edited June 26, 2014 by discreet

[Geek99]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1403735847' post='2485884']


I understand that they leave the hardware soaking in salt water overnight


I understand that Fender did threaten to take action against Bill Nash, forcing him to change his operations and only use Fender decals on 'bitsa' basses that he puts together from genuine Fender parts!
[/quote]
Since the hold the trademark I don't think that's an unreasonable settlement legally. He's still got a business and they still keep their IP and design rights

[skej21]

Like discreet, I'm just glad I got my order in quickly!

[Weststarx]

I really don't see the massive fascination around a 60s bass or guitar.

You're basically paying thousands of pounds for something thats over 50 years old, and I cannot imagine that they are very reliable at that age.

If I can get a brand new bass thats been built in the last year or so for half or quater the price it's a no brainer to me.

On topic:

I don't understand wanting a bass that looks like something which it isnt, (Like made to look like its from the 60s) i'd have to know its the real thing - I would just feel fake.

I'm seriously interested however in these Limelight guitars however, I've always wanted a surf green P Bass, I know they do the FSRs but the Jazz pickup , Jazz neck and maple fretboard is of no interest. Can he send shiney ones?

Edited June 26, 2014 by Weststarx

[Geek99]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1403769341' post='2485998']


I might be wrong (it frequently happens) but I think that ruling applies only to body shape. The headstock shape is still Fender's.
[/quote]
It talks about outline shape too. If this ruling existed only about body it wouldn't be hard to extend it to headstocks since bodies and necks are functionally integral

[Cairobill]

Having a relic job is a very personal choice I think (I have had a few - 2 Nashes and 2 Bravewoods so I am absolutely fine with relics) and anyone getting upset over another person's choice has too much time on their hands

As far as Limelight goes, based on viewing their website, I think their relics vary in quality - The Ps and Js look pretty good but there's a strat on the website that looks terribly bad…a naff sander job by the look of it...

http://www.classicandcoolguitars.co.uk/guitar/limelight00123s.htm

[Happy Jack]

Quite surprised at some of the comments on this thread, particularly about Fender themselves. The Fender Custom Shop is apparently the 6th largest manufacturer of basses on the planet, so I'm guessing they have most customer demand pretty well covered.

A decent relic is almost certainly the result of close personal attention by a skilled luthier. If you turn any skilled luthier loose on any custom job you tend to get a high-quality instrument, in fact you'd be disappointed if you didn't.

For personal reasons I don't like fake (basses, watches are OK ) and I don't do relic'd. But I've owned a Bravewood and a Crinson, both of which were simply superb, and in a week of trawling around NYC last year the single most exceptional bass I picked up was a Fender CS Dusty Hill Precision.

Go figure ...

[Mattmit]

I just think there's no magical fairy dust that means this guy cant make a great fender shaped bass as good as they can. I don't care if he puts a limelight logo on the front, I'd still play mine. If someone asks me if mines a real 70s fender I tell them nope. I like how it looks and I like how it plays and I like how it sounds, shiny new P basses don't look right to me.

His pickups are really good too.

[BigRedX]

So how much work would actually be required to turn one of these "look-alikes" into a full blown fake?

There's plenty of photos on the internet showing what the various date stamps and other markings look like and where they go. Getting stamps made up is cheap and easy.

I don't like it.

[discreet]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1403779651' post='2486197']
There's plenty of photos on the internet showing what the various date stamps and other markings look like and where they go. Getting stamps made up is cheap and easy.
[/quote]

You'd still need to source genuine pots with the correct serial numbers though, wouldn't you? And have the proper cap and wiring in place. The pups are identifiable, too. I suppose it may be worth doing on a $10,000 bass but it would have to be good.

[karlfer]

Whilst I have contributed to this thread, I'm now of the opinion it is getting a bit dangerous for one person so I'm going to delete my previous contributions.
I don't want to cause him problems.
At the risk of being a censor perhaps the Mods may want to give some thought as to possible implications for BC.
I wouldn't be gutted if the thread vanished.

Edited June 26, 2014 by karlfer

[Wooks79]

Just a quick question - ball park estimate, what's the cost on these limelights that everyone has?

[wateroftyne]

I don't think there's grounds to delete it.

But, I do think it's a shame that rather than discussing an exciting new-ish supplier of very nice basses for reasonable money, so much of the conversation has focussed on recycling the bleedin' obvious. Especially as no money has changed hands on the understanding that these are anything other than Limelight basses.

But, c'est la vie.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Wooks79' timestamp='1403780889' post='2486211']
Just a quick question - ball park estimate, what's the cost on these limelights that everyone has?
[/quote]

Knock yersel' oot:

http://www.classicandcoolguitars.co.uk/basses.htm

[fretmeister]

[quote name='Geek99' timestamp='1403771087' post='2486034']
It talks about outline shape too. If this ruling existed only about body it wouldn't be hard to extend it to headstocks since bodies and necks are functionally integral
[/quote]

I remember reading all the PRS -v- Gibson stuff. Functionality didn't come into it.

Gibson lost because their lawyer famously told the Court "Only an idiot would get confused at the point of sale" on account that the PRS Single Cut and the Gibson Les Paul are actually very different and have their own names on the headstocks and the different shapes. Point of Sale doesn't have to be from a shop - it can be any subsequent sale as well.

But the Limelight ones use Fender's proper logo and headstock shape. I can't imagine that scribbling Limelight on the back in biro would be enough.

I don't like it. It's too easy for the next owner to remove the Limelight bit and try and flog it as a proper Fender.

[discreet]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1403781357' post='2486220']
I don't like it. It's too easy for the next owner to remove the Limelight bit and try and flog it as a proper Fender.
[/quote]

I refer you to post #42...

[Geek99]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1403781357' post='2486220']


I remember reading all the PRS -v- Gibson stuff. Functionality didn't come into it.

Gibson lost because their lawyer famously told the Court "Only an idiot would get confused at the point of sale" on account that the PRS Single Cut and the Gibson Les Paul are actually very different and have their own names on the headstocks and the different shapes. Point of Sale doesn't have to be from a shop - it can be any subsequent sale as well.

But the Limelight ones use Fender's proper logo and headstock shape. I can't imagine that scribbling Limelight on the back in biro would be enough.

I don't like it. It's too easy for the next owner to remove the Limelight bit and try and flog it as a proper Fender.
[/quote]
I do agree about creating fertile ground for fakes, but I was talking about a future argument not some past argument.

I'm not sure that I could tell the difference between a limelight with the marker pen removed and a real fender.

If he was to metal stamp "replica by limelight" into the back of the headstock, neck pocket and under the pickguard then I would have no problem with his work and neither would fender, I imagine

[skej21]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1403781357' post='2486220']


I remember reading all the PRS -v- Gibson stuff. Functionality didn't come into it.

Gibson lost because their lawyer famously told the Court "Only an idiot would get confused at the point of sale" on account that the PRS Single Cut and the Gibson Les Paul are actually very different and have their own names on the headstocks and the different shapes. Point of Sale doesn't have to be from a shop - it can be any subsequent sale as well.

But the Limelight ones use Fender's proper logo and headstock shape. I can't imagine that scribbling Limelight on the back in biro would be enough.

I don't like it. It's too easy for the next owner to remove the Limelight bit and try and flog it as a proper Fender.
[/quote]

That would be a fair comment IF Mark didn't list the basses specifically as Limelight instruments, not include any dating stamps on neck/body or pots AND included close-up shots of the Fender decal in the photos of he listed item.

Mark does none of this and is very clear that you are not buying a Fender. You really would have to be an idiot to think you were. As for resell 'fraud', that's not really an argument. I could buy a Squier bass and put a Fender decal on and sell it as a Fender. There nothing Squier can do about that, I'd be responsible.