Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Dingwall - no more D-Bird...


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Nope not joking at all.

Those are NOT the basses that either Aria or Yamaha are famous for are they?

And the D-Bird is not the design that Dingwall is famous for. It’s their least established model. Dingwall existed for several years, producing only original shapes before even touching on the idea of doing an homage to the P Bass, J Bass and T Bird. And even that came about mostly as a result of so many people asking them to do it. Sheldon Dingwall actively avoided doing so for a long time.

If I’m not mistaken Aria and Yamaha, among other well respected Japanese brands, have in the past been involved in lawsuit cases regarding instrument designs. To hold them up as a squeaky clean example while trying to bash Dingwall is somewhat comical. When selling old Aria and Yamaha copies, sellers often literally include the word “lawsuit” in the sale titles:

https://reverb.com/uk/item/78845-vintage-70s-aria-lawsuit-precision-bass-copy

https://www.talkbass.com/threads/vintage-mij-p-bass-lawsuit-era-yamaha-pulser-bass.940185/

 

16 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

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? 

We all know it’s not that simple though. As has been mentioned, Dingwall is a small company. Even if they know they have a very strong case in court, the legal costs involved in going up against someone like Gibson are far too high to be worth it. Especially not for the sake of a design that isn’t one Dingwall built its success on.

If someone were challenging Dingwall about their AB1/ABZ, Prima or Combustion shapes it might be a different story.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CameronJ said:

We all know it’s not that simple though. As has been mentioned, Dingwall is a small company. Even if they know they have a very strong case in court, the legal costs involved in going up against someone like Gibson are far too high to be worth it. Especially not for the sake of a design that isn’t one Dingwall built its success on.

If someone were challenging Dingwall about their AB1/ABZ, Prima or Combustion shapes it might be a different story.

This is probably the reason.  A lot of small companies will not fight things in court.  The system allows the big companies to be bullies.

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

As said Yamaha SG is a Gibson SG

Yamaha Pacifica - nothing like a Strat.......

Yamaha BBNE - 3+2 head stock, nothing like a Musicman 

Yamaha attitude - completely original shape body and headstock

Yamaha A.R.E and I.R.A - were they the first? Pretty sure John Suhr has been doing it before them and possibly Sandberg before that

Do we honestly need to carry on....?

50 minutes ago, CameronJ said:

Are you joking?

978ACA67-8B61-494A-8A44-81EF2B9E92A8.thumb.jpeg.10f647c56b994fc36f67ac03bc011af1.jpegDCC1585C-E28F-4E98-8A35-5F6B0CC4FB5F.thumb.jpeg.0d63e467f048bbdb5cb61f09a56ae229.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point that needs to be made is that the guitar industry, much like many other industries, is a constant cycle of one person borrowing ideas from another. Improving ideas, developing ideas, making things lighter, faster, stronger. Asking “what if...?”

Just look at the number of guitar companies who have “made better Fenders than Fender” over the years. This obviously was a kick in the teeth to Fender, especially at a time when the quality of their own instruments was poor. However, without that pressure from competitors Fender might not be in as good a place quality-wise as they are now.

There are still countless companies out there who “make better Fenders than Fender”, but at least now that their quality control has improved it isn’t quite such an obvious no-brainer to go with another brand. They still have a long way to go though and I’d prefer to play my Dingwall Super P than an actual Fender Precision, and would rather have a Lakland/Xotic/MTD flavoured J bass than a Fender Jazz all day long.

Apple and Samsung are constantly “stealing” from each other, both hardware designs and software features. They seem to be in a perpetual state of court action against one another but we as consumers benefit from excellent tech and, perhaps most importantly, we get options.

On a legal level, if something hasn’t been explicitly protected then it is fair game for use. Fair enough - if Gibson had defended their intellectual property from the start and people were using their designs I would agree with you @Al Krow, it would be theft. Gibson failed to do so. It’s their mistake. They should learn from it and move on with a view to improving themselves rather than trying to be corporate bullies and blaming other companies for their own shortcomings in the guitar industry.

Edited by CameronJ
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, CameronJ said:

...constant cycle of one person borrowing ideas from another...

"Borrowing" => consent + you're going to the thing give back + hopefully return the favour to the person you've borrowed from.

Did you mean "stealing"? 😉

Edited by Al Krow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

 

"Borrowing" => consent + you're going to the thing give back + hopefully return the favour to the person you've borrowed from.

Did you mean "stealing"? 😉

Nope.

For the sake of argument, let’s call it “taking” then. One can only steal that which is someone else’s property.

Edited by CameronJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think immediately flashing the lawyer card won't help them. Being forced to change or abandon designs, as Dingwall seem to have done, won't address the REAL issue. Gibson have churned out crap for years, the competition build better guitars...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, goingdownslow said:

But has it been stolen if Gibson still have it?

Haha!

"Dear Mr Thicke,

You clearly have the mental capacity your name implies if you think you're going to avoid a $5M payment of damages to Mr Gaye's family just because they still have the original! 

I appreciate you feel you should be able to get that material for a song but, legally, that really would be blurring the lines."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the boutique guitar makers have their own designs, but so they can make any kind of living will also have a take on "Fender" and/or "Gibson" instruments.

The Mike Lull T Birds are so much better than the originals, but I guess he'll be stopping those as well.

As I said, this is not a problem if Gibson fill the void they are creating with great and well made instruments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Al Krow said:

"Dear Mr Thicke,

You clearly have the mental capacity your name implies if you think you're going to avoid a $5M payment of damages to Mr Gaye's family just because they still have the original! 

I appreciate you feel you should be able to get that material for a song but, legally, that really would be blurring the lines."

I still don't see how the Gaye family won this case. It's the same bpm and both use a cow bell but the songs are not the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Al Krow said:

👍

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. 

I'll forward this to Yamaha, Aria, Sadowsky, Maruszczyk, Alleva Coppolo, Sandberg, Mike Lull, and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all for you...just for the Jazzes.

Actually, I won't; the list of recipients would be too long for my email client...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chris_b said:

I still don't see how the Gaye family won this case. It's the same bpm and both use a cow bell but the songs are not the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY

Definitely a lot less clear cut than stealing some else's designs! For some reason the law gives one greater protection than the other, but they both represent creativity in my books.

In the case of that particular song, it's about the bass hook, apparently...our bass lines are more important than our band mates sometimes give us credit for! 

Edited by Al Krow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Daz39 said:

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.'

But that is literally what people want from Gibson / fender etc.

Otherwise its 'oh how could they change the thunderbird, I will never buy another one again!'. People don't like change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

In the case of that particular song, it's about the bass hook, apparently...our bass lines are more important than our band mates sometimes give us credit for! 

If that is true then the result of the case is wrong. Arrangement is not copy-writeable. When Puff Daddy made his version of Every Move You Make, Sting got paid for his song. Andy Summers didn't because, although his distinctive guitar line was used, it wasn't covered by copy-write. The Gaye/Thicke case was never the correct application of the law.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet enough people do like the change to the T-Bird offered by Dingwall for Gibson to perceive it as a threat. I think the earlier point being made was the quality ('sub-par') offered by the original...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, chris_b said:

Most of the boutique guitar makers have their own designs, but so they can make any kind of living will also have a take on "Fender" and/or "Gibson" instruments.

Believe me I, and I hope all of us, would be equally up in arms if Alan Cringean's or Jon Shuker's designs were 'taken' by Fender or Gibson without their consent and no compensation / royalty payments provided to these two wonderful gents for their designs.

But it has to be a two-way street.   

Edited by Al Krow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Believe me I, and I hope all of us, would be equally up in arms if Alan Cringean's or Jon Shuker's designs were 'taken' by Fender or Gibson without their consent and no compensation / royalty payments provided to these two wonderful gents for their designs.

But it has to be a two-way street.   

Hmm - you do have a point. Perhaps some of it is the 'they're too big to fail, they can take it,' thing.

However - partly it's the method. When you have angry videos and threats it puts the back up of users. If all they want to do is say mine, mine and keep their designs then they will find their customer base shrinking. I know plenty don't like change, but they are a dying breed because soon no one will remember a pre-CBS fender or a 70s Gibson because it will be 2055 and there will only be 39 copies in museums or private collectors' hands.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

But it has to be a two-way street.   

Agreed. If the designs are protected. 

If Gibson had done so, there would be no real argument here as they would clearly be in the right and all others in the wrong. Questionable video or no questionable video.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time for Gibson to go after other companies for copying their designs was 60 or 70 years ago.

Gretsch essentially copied the Les Paul shape for their Duo Jet in the 1950s and did the same with the 335  for the 'Country Gentleman ' in the 1960s, both of which are still in production and have a fair bit more in common with the instruments that 'inspired' them than D Bird does with the Thunderbird.

Will Gibson finally now go after Gretsch after all these years?

Probably not. Gretsch are owned by Fender these days and are quite capable of meeting Gibson's lawyers in a courtroom on equal terms, unlike some of the other companies Gibson are going after.

Edited by Cato
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of one of those (Epiphone S310) before... just googling a picture you can tell within 2 seconds that the body is pure Strat, but the headstock is pure Gibson/Epiphone... I kind of like it!

The minutiae of these copyright and IP rules etc. however, confuse me terribly 🤔

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...