I was thinking the same thing when watching Glen's video. They have to tell them to stop or lose the trademark. As always KDH is here to explain it clear as glass. Class youtube channel!
His shouty, screeching, over emotional shtick and smug self regard are insufferable. I gather he occasionally says something useful in regards to recording, which is fair enough. But I can't sit through his videos long enough to find out.
Thanks for that. I was thinking of commenting on Glenn's video, because he didn't seem to know about how trademarks can be lost. Either you just give up the trademark entirely, or you have to send out C&D letters to protect it. It can come off as a bit unfair, because it's often a David vs. Goliath situation like you said. My favourite C&D case has to be Deadmau5's Nyan Cat "Purrari", which got him in trouble with Ferrari for altering and using their trademark. Obviously Ferrari isn't worried about Nyan Cat themed supercars usurping the market; they need to do this because otherwise an *actual* competitor will take advantage, and cite this as prior evidence that the trademark isn't being protected.
@CaptainCraigKWMRZ In America you can quite literally sue anyone for anything, winning is a different story. Just keep in mind, frivolous lawsuits in anti Slapp states will backfire on you.
When it comes to Glen, I take his advice when it comes to recording without reservation. I do not go to Canadian metal heads for legal advice (well except for Viva Frie ... and i guess Runkle of the Bailey ... ok I guess there are quite a few Canadians worth taking legal advice from. Just not Glen).
It's good to see someone who is not as biased as Glenn on this subject. Hating Gibson is his fetish and makes for a lot of clicks. He's a drama queen...
If the sniffers stopped sending him hate messages and comments he would have nothing to hate on, it's you that make it this way. Keep hating and fueling his hate.
If you’re going to charge a 2000 buck guitar, pay employees as little as 17 bucks an hour in a city like Nashville, and then pump out sloppily made guitars. Granted they might play nice, but if I’m spending 2000 bucks on an instrument, I would expect the guitar case to be clean instead of dusted with little pieces of wood from the sloppy job they did on the neck joint. I love Gibson guitars, but the stuff that’s coming out of the factory now is a crap shoot. The bottom line is I just want every Gibson guitar to look and play perfectly with how expensive they get especially when they can get overshadowed by their little brother Epiphone. If you keep defending mediocrity, you’re going to get mediocre products. I just want Gibson to do better. Don’t we all?
Glenn gets clicks from bending over and whoring himself out to whatever pedestrian opinion is out there and warping it to fit the topic he wants to make, not the topic at hand. Then all the shit he talks about Bassists. That shit gets old REAL fast.
Can't stand Glen Fricker. He makes good points every once in a while, but it's far too annoying to have to go through all his self-serving dribble to get to something that's ok.
Glen himself has admitted he basically plays a character for his Channel, and is far less abrasive and loud away from the camera, and this seems backed up by other UA-camrs who've hung out with him.
As a sub, I will admit he doed get tiring to listen to. His tests I agree with but the way he presents his content some people will either love or hate.
@@pauln6803What he’s like off camera is irrelevant. His content is what we have to go by and his content is insufferable. For someone who hates Gibson as much as he does, he sure drops their name every chance he gets.
What makes me laugh is... these so called "builders" can't come up with a new design? It's pretty pathetic to copy other people's work then get upset when they call you out on it.
this builders guitars do look nothing like any of the Gibson V's. KDH does adress this: trademarks are there to stop customer confusion in the market. So: for customers to not buy any other builders guitar by accident when they actually wanted a Gibson. Which is, of course, ridiculous to argue about shape trademarks. Shapes should only ever generic - as should letters and simple note melodies. All stuff that scum of the earth US trademark holders did try to claim copyrights to.
Especially when PRS have become HUGE off creating shapes that were new and original. Other companies create and sell new shapes as well, so I agree with you; you can't steal other people's IP and then whine about it when you are instructed to stop... regardless of how "small" your business is.
IP attorney - this is a solid analysis, KDH. In addition to not knowing if there is a cease and desist, you don't know if they reached a private settlement with these companies and allowed them to keep selling.
The Jackson King V started out as the signature guitar of Robin Crosby of RATT. Mustaine saw one liked it and started using them around the Peace sells era of the band.
Case in point: I am a small single-person builder, and I wanted to use the Music Man 4x2 headstock design. I contacted Music Man, and was told (1) it is indeed their trademark, and (2) I am NOT allowed to use that headstock design on any guitars I build. So, I designed my own 3x3 headstock.
Ah, I see where you went wrong. You should have travelled back in time before 1984 when Music Man released their BS patent, and made some 4-2 head-stocks, JUST LIKE TEISCO DID. If your company is liquidated, say, 7 years prior to the patent, (just like Teisco) then you should be fine 🤔🤔🤔
Glen is both a Canadian and former auto worker, so he's pretty much an anti-big business union lefty (not a criticism, just a description). Your take is pretty much my take. I agree that Gibson could defend their IP in a less jerk-like manner (and if they did so they'd be heroes), but they're not required to.
Yeah, this is pretty clear cut. Trademarks have to be defended or else you lose them. It’s baked into the system that way so if you don’t go after a small builder doing this, it opens the door for a much larger company to do it and then legally challenge you in court and say that you weren’t defending the trademark, so they thought you didn’t care!
Except everyone makes V guitars, like everyone makes Strat and LP shape guitars, and the law's concern is - will a customer think it's a Gibson? This kind of thing has already been through the courts, and the law said basically no reasonable person would think it's a Gibson just coz it's shaped like an LP. This is why Gibson isn't already taking the tonnes of companies who make V's and LP's to court, they know they'll lose - they are totally picking on the small guy. Glenn is right and KDH is wrong.
I hope they also lose the trademark for the Explorer, so that Maybach guitars can produce that one, they make a V called the Jetwing, using Korina with Nitro lacquer and it's reliced/aged for a whopping $2240.
I commented on Glenn’s video that I didn’t think that Gibson could do anything about Vicious referring to their guitars as V-shaped. But I assumed Vicious must have been using the term Flying V and this was the “verbiage” that attracted the cease and desist. Good video. Keep on keeping on.
Wow, I had forgotten this dude from Canada completely. He asked for a dollar from his subscribers so he could swear freely on his videos because of some sensorship issue
and yet he doesnt upload to other sites like Odysee or Rumble, where he could easily swear and he could easily make uncensored videos from his mothers basement.
He uses that "censorship" fear that some people have to continue to gather money and more followers. Simple as that. The guy that shouts to the heavens that he's being silenced is always the loudest.
Just to clarify, the James Hetfield MX*250 (Not EX) is still being produced by ESP Custom Shop in Japan for its domestic market. You can ABSOLUTELY buy one at "retail" if you have a dealer in Japan you are friendly with.
More surprised Gibson hasn't used their Nite-V trademark. Gibson owns Kramer as well, and has for the past 20 years. When Mustaine came to Gibson? They wouldn't do his pointy V with a Gibson name, but instead, used the Kramer name brand. Thank you for sharing your take on all this!
Fender didn't only lose individual cases in court, but one judge high enough up in rank (Wherever that is) deemed the fender Stratocaster design "Public Domain", and with it any law suits from Fender over it, and all but it's model names "Stratocaster", "Strat", and "The Strat" (yes these were used officially as models) indicated and their logos which they did protected more vigorously (Also a trademark/copyright issue).
Errr, pretty sure Glenn covered how Gibson lost trademarks for not upholding them. So they HAVE to. I'd like to think anyone with any sense immediately realised this.
So glad you posted this! I hate and I mean HATE it when people have no clue that this is what Gibson MUST do to keep their intellectual property or trademark.
You can dislike him (I kinda do) but almost every piece of information he provides about the recording process is based on factual and supportable information.
I love this, as insufferable as Glenn is, he made an IQ filter for guitarists. You literally cannot disprove his high gain pickup claims because those tests can be easily replicated and will almost always have the same or very similar results. The exception is if you allowed your bias to change parts of the test, such as not keeping a stationary mic position between all of the pickups tested. Glenn says some dumb things sometimes, like his inability to see the pros of Windows over Mac, but that doesn’t mean his audio engineering experiments are incorrect. That’s a fallacy of composition, just because he was wrong about one thing doesn’t mean he’s wrong about everything.
I think it was a mistake to not mention that vicious has changed the design since the cease and desist into something very unique and fun. The new Stealth looks amazing and it's a shame you didn't at least show it off in the video to show that the builder has since moved on and is making something completely free of the "stealing" accusations some of the commenters here are saying. I still think Gibson, as a company is extremely out of touch and heavy handed with their brand protection. No one looking at a gibson flying v and the old vicious v are going to say they're the same after looking 2 feet upwards and seeing the headstock, which I also feel was a bit of a mistake to not show in the comparison. I understand why they sent the cease and desist, but no amount of brand protection is going to undo their ageing and dying user base, their floundering QC, worsening build quality, decade old specs and increasingly unaffordable prices. You said it best a year ago when you likened gibson to a luxury brand. You pay extra and buy a gibson for the history behind the brand, because some of histories most famous artists used one. If you want a solid modern guitar, you buy a Korean or Indonesian made guitar with better specs and more consistent build quality for $1000.
A note on the ESP Eclipse, the 4 and 3 knobs existed at the same time! they did however stop producing it shortly after either a Gibson C&D to them OR the PRS lawsuit/C&D issue with their singlecuts
I commented something similar on Glenn's video tbh. The reality is US law is based on precedent and if they loose the TM in the US would be devastating to their bottom line.
Thanks for this measured and unbiased take on things. Your content always stands out with its genuine investigative journalism. In response to some of the comments - Glenn's OTT shock jock delivery definitely grates at times with me too, but I equally welcome his "cut the cr*p" approach and how he calls things out as he sees them. I'm not a metal player, but I still find value in his takes on the music industry - and his often brutal, but fair, advice about recording etc. His on-screen persona is a character he plays - and I'll bet most of his detractors would have a different opinion of him if they could meet him and have a chat over a coffee or a drink.
Just very few of us commented these same ideas on both of Glenn's videos. I'm glad you made an extended video on the topic, developing it further. What's clear to me is unfortunately Glenn can't understand what industrial property is, he didn't seek for expert advice before any of both videos, and we failed at our attempt to educate him on the topic.
To me it seems Glenn thinks intellectual property (copyright) and trademark are different terms for patents. And even he doesn't understand how patents work either.
@@BrunodeSouzaLino Yeah, many people think patents are forever, while they're (very roughly) a license limited in time to exclusively exploit something, they expire after a number of years. While it's industrial property/trademarks that don't expire if you keep using them (again, very roughly).
It's important to clarify one thing: while you are correct in stating that words can be trademarked, it's not as broad as that. The Fine Brothers tried to trademark the word "React" and the trademark office refused their application because that's a generic word. Leonard French, a copyright attorney, did a whole video about this very case some years ago explaining how trademarks work, what can and cannot be trademarked, etc. The US trademark office also has quite extensive literature explaining trademarks as well.
I like Glen, bad takes and all. He's a great entertainer and musical equipment educator. KDH is 100% right. Gibson has to send C&D's to anyone that might be violating their TM's. The Gibson executive team would get sued by the shareholders if they didn't.
As a primary school teacher, I can confirm that we teach the shapes ‘Square’, ‘Circle’, ‘Rectangle’, and ‘Triangle®’. Edit: Bass’ trademark is the first registered _in the uk_
I just googled "who owns the first registered trademark" and the hit is below (oddly, when I searched a few hours ago, Bass brewery was the first hit, although I do recall them saying it was the oldest in the UK. Google is certainly unreliable and the information definitely requires confirmation from a more trustworthy source. 1870 Averill Paints obtained the first registered US trademark. Lowenbrau claims to have the oldest continuously used trademark in the world - 1383. Stella Artois - claims continuous use of its mark since 1366.
Fender did not lose against Win-D-Fender (Wind Defender)... you know, that company that makes windscreens for flutes... just like Fender? What's that? They don't? Then why nearly destroy a small business?
As a professional trademark expert, I can state that you are absolutely right and well informed. Guitar builders have sufficient options for dexigning a ghitar. Vicious can be successfully sued for infringement on trademark and even on slavish imitation.
I couldn’t agree more. KDH is fairer than he’s given credit for - everyone thinks he’s the shock jock of guitar news. He’s not. He’s fair, analytical, and usually correct (he’s said when he was proven wrong). Great guy! I enjoy Glenn too, but he’s mostly incorrect on this one. Glenn responded emotionally rather than with factual information as Kaiden provided.
I really hope Gibson ultimately loses in court against Dean. Sure the V and Explorer body shapes are the same, but the headstocks are so different. Plus, they have been selling them worldwide for years. I hope we get to a point where courts take the legal interpretation that they have in Japan and the EU. In the end, I prefer Deans take on the two shapes. Give me a Dean Z with the crazy headstock, a Floyd Rose and a set of EMG's over a Gibson Explorer all day, any day.
As someone who insists on scientific testing for every little bit of a guitar, Glen seems to have no problem with emotional and hearsay responses for everything else. "I like this guitar better because I like it..." "Prove it with testing!" "This is a legal IP and trademark that we have to defend otherwise what's the point of being a business" "you're so unfair" A great response and made a lot more eloquently than I could have.
Gibson may win lawsuits. That said, I’ll never ever buy a Gibson going forward because of their corporate strategy. They are losing their market share. This won’t save them. A Flippin V is a generic shape in the public mind at this point.
I still think it's either overstepping or there is the imbalance in how they're happy to threaten smaller ones but ignore some bigger players like Schecter (and IMO it was way more similar to Gibson's version than some of the others you claimed to be more similar, but I guess that's subjective) or at least exactly guys like Schecter are confident enough that Gibson won't actually follow through with the threats or if they do they'd lose, but from a small builder's perspective a letter like that IS TERRIFYING. And also I think the size of a business also matters, it's different when something is mass produced, thenI say send C&D all you want, but in case of ultra small handcrafted stuff... Think how Disney is famously zelalously overprotective of their IP but still you can get Disney themed items in Etsy that I BET aren't licenced and yet theycan operateand nobody has any problems with it... At least for as much asI can tell. Anyway, I'm not a legal expert, but I'd say tributes and fanart should be legal to make AND SELL for as long as they're at a microscopic scale like that, not large volume assembly line production if you know what I mean. So there's this kinda moral aspect to it as well why I think this does fall under bullying, cause I can't believe a tiny Canadian workshop could cause Gibson to lose the trademark in the US.
I think that there's more differences to set the Vicious apart from the Gibson? Like the controls and pickguard. But that may not be part of the shape?
@@castleanthrax1833That's not the point though. The point is that the two of them are nothing alike. Sure, the shape is similar, but in terms of specs, they're completely different. To claim an item is a copy, implicates that it's a perfectly identical 1:1, which Vicious' model, very clearly isn't.
@@castleanthrax1833who is this someone? Do you know who this “someone” is or do you value faceless billion dollar companies so much? Are you going to claim mooching off Leo fender too? The dude is dead.
@@areallyboredguy5825 Seth Lover designed the Flying V, but the "someone" who owns the trademark is Gibson. This has nothing to do with how much a company is worth, or are you of the opinion that it's ok to steal as long as who you're stealing from is worth millions of dollars?
Great video, a fair and balanced review of the situation. It’s easy to join the trend of slating Gibson without recognition of an alternative viewpoint.
I have a question. Why aren't the entire shape taken into account? I mean the neck shape, the headstocks, and the electronics configuration. Why is it just the body? And as a small business owner myself... it is personal. I'm not messing with you! Don't mess with me! That being said Gibson made it personal as no-one who is buying a custom build is even looking at Gibson. That buyer want's more than what Gibson offers us everyday people. Of course they will give mustaine whatever he want's but I guaranty that Gibson would'nt give me or you a second thought. Anyway... I was just wondering. Thank you KDH
The most protected part of a guitar legally is the headstock. It goes back to the Spanish luthiers having a "gentlemen's agreement" to each have their own unique design and this became enshrined in law. So the reason Gibson lost the case in Europe to Dean for example wasn't because of actual body shape or the thing as a whole but rather the headstock. Which of course is wildly different! So that answers the body part for you. When it comes to "not messing with each other" its simply a fact that Gibson (or whoever owns a trademark) HAS to send cease and desist notices to all and any infringements or they face the possibility of losing theirs. So this is why Gibson and Fender and other companies all "pick on the small guy". They would really not have to bother! They are merely protecting what is theirs as the law compels them to. Hope that all helps!
Great comprehensive video! I'm the first to criticize if you're talking out of your ass but I don't think anyone could reasonably expect a more linear and well thought out explanation than this... excellent job dude!
22:43 it's important to note PRS has grown substantially since the early '00s when the singlecut lawsuit began. I've even heard stories of Paul being bullied by Henry Juszkiewicz to change the pickup wiring of the old Custom 24s because they had an out of phase option.
While I agree about the company enforcing their trademarks, I do take issue with the custom guitar that Glenn Fricker is holding. It does not look like a Gibson at all. In fact, I hate those curved edges at the ends of the "V", it's absolutely appalling, and can't stand it. Gibson should be sent a "cease and desist" for ruining the first letter of my name. And it's a custom guitar, it doesn't look like a Gibson nor use any on the other constituent part that make up a Gibson, Gibson aren't losing a sale, so, I think this is a frivolous law-suit. As for stifling innovation and competition that's *exactly* what copyright law is for. You have to "truly" innovate otherwise your up shite creek. I have a 7 string BC Rich V, with a floating bridge with Fishman Fluence pickups, and string pegs all on the same side and Gibson can stick it wherever they want because it's not a Gibson, and thank God it's not.
Only slightly on topic, but the design change for the ESP Eclipse is a goddamn tragedy. Loved the neck and playability of every Eclipse I've come across, but as someone who primarily plays LPs, I'm too used to the typical 4 knob LP layout. And the current horn shape is just neutered looking. Hell, the original knob placement looks better aesthetically to me too. Been looking for an original style Eclipse for ages, but they're always out of my price range on the rare occasion that they show up. If they released a new EC-1000 or something with that original layout though, I'd get one immediately.
Thought I ought to make this known as KDH actually does hit the nail on the head about this point but, as he doesn't directly mention it and he - sorry to have to point the finger here KDH as love your vids, they're great - gets it wrong with his Kiesel example, I felt it important for this subject's context. In a nutshell the reason why Gibson lost their case about solely owning the Flying V shape in Europe is due to the legal systems of those countries basing their law on, shall we call it "historical", practices. So, in ;ye olde' times of guitar making, originally in Spain, it was hard to tell one classical style guitar from another. So the luthiers started to make their own headstock shapes unique to them. And there was a "gentleman's agreement" not to infringe upon a competitor's shape or design. This was later enshrined in law. But body shapes were never, as it was an impossibility, included. So forward to this century and the later part of the last one the likes of Gibson could defend their headstock very easily. Body shape? Not so much. And THIS is the reason why KDH lists all the different manufacturers such as Schecter, Jackson etc... etc... and why they can stop certain ones (Kiesel's headstock was almost exactly like a V) and not others (Jackson had a pointy 6-in-a-line headstock and Sharkfin - not V - shaped body). This is why PRS makes their single cut models. Of course there are other factors in all these many cases and cease and desists as KDH succinctly explains - but - when it comes to the guitar, legally at least, the headstock is the most protected property.
To be fair, if i want to identify a guitar from a silouette the headstock is normally the first place I am looking. Put BC rich, ESP, ibanez, Jackson and caparison super strats next to each other and the headstock is easily the most immediately identifying feature. So it makes sense why from a trademark sprspective that would be protected since unlike odies which are tied to function and ergonomics, the headstock can be shaped in a wide variety of ways.
@@ericpeterson9110 That's exactly it. It wasn't that these firms were "lazy" or too slow to act as KDH alludes. Its because the quirks (for want of a better phrase) of the law defeated them over the headstock shape. I only know all this as I was sales manager for a musical distribution company for many years and one time we got some Flying V copies made in Indonesia in stock. Within about 4 or 5 days of them appearing on our website here in the UK we received a cease and desist letter from Nashville and we had to bow to Gibson's demand as these were exact rip-offs.
How does fender deal with this? I've only seen fender defending their headstock, and with the plethora of strats/teles I'd have thought fender would go after them more
He mentions Fender early in this video. Seems fender lost trademark disputes in court because they didn't vigorously defend their trademarks previously.
The odd thing about all this is the US courts must believe that US citizens are complete morons. The Japanese and European courts have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of their citizens. Yes, we guitarists are kinda stupid on some topics, but to confuse $3k guitars is not one of those topics.
The issue Fender and all the other "big boys" have is that the headstock is the only really fully copyrighted part of a guitar. It dates back to the Spanish luthiers all having a "gentlemen's agreement" to all have a unique headstock design which later became enshrined in law. So if you and I make some "Strat" or "Tele" shaped guitars we are fine as long as we have a unique designed headstock. Its why such as Charvels have the disclaimer note printed on the back of their headstocks. Of course it works the other way too... if Fender brought out a new guitar copying our design we HAVE to send them a cease and desist to protect ours. Which we "copied" off them in the first place!
I overall like a lot of things he shares, but this was definitely a stinker. Glenn seemed to ignore my comment that spelled it out, despite saying in the followup that he closely followed comments. I don't know if he simply didn't see my comment, but am not entirely sure it wasn't rejecting a more fully formed opinion he didn't like. My comment was from 12:18pm EST the day it came out, so it was definitely early enough to be there before masses of comments and long before the followup. I pointed out the "Flying V" trademark vs "V", which is why "King V" and "Rhoads V" are fine. I pointed out the shape has to be reasonably exact such that it causes confusion (identical except 4" radius vs 3" radius on the wings would not be enough to differentiate), but pointed vs round was different. Another piece is that ergonomics can't be trademarked, but the V isn't an ergonomic shape that will get that exception the same as a belly cutout, lap shaped carving before the lower horn, and a fretting hand cutaway. This video clearly shows - not just tells - all those details out. Solid as usual.
Gibson did the same thing to Reverend a few years ago with their Volcano & Ron Asheton sig. models. They had a distinct asymmetric V shape. Gibson are sue happy.
The actual reason legally why Gibson was successful against those companies was due to the headstock. The headstock is the most protected part legally of a guitar (dating back to Spanish luthiers all having a unique design each) so this law carried on through the centuries. The actual V of the body isn't copyrighted as such. But as KDH says they HAVE to defend their Trademark or they lose it. End result? Casual observers deem them "sue happy" so gives them a bad name. For doing what they legally have to do!
Glen Fricker is a stain on the music world. He spouts nonsense and ridiculous statements 24/7 and only manages to look like an offended ex Gibson player.
Gibson knows what they're sending out these C&D's for are overly broad interpretations of what their trademarks cover, which is why they are sending them to smaller builders who lack the legal war chest to challenge it. Bigger companies, like ESP or Fender, are selling "V" guitars just like these smaller brands, but Gibson doesn't go after them, because losing to a company with a comparable war chest would be too risky. Getting smaller companies to knuckle under or even lose in court gives Gibson that precedent they want to embolden their trademark claims.
The V's a funny one. They'd taken it out of production for a very long time, they made the first one of course. A lot of the rock and roll general public forgot Jimmy played one, and unless they were also blues, people didn't know about Albert King. But the one that really broke it open for the V I think was a v-shaped body with a Danelectro neck made by Karl Sandoval. It put the V on the map for the 80s and beyond. Of course Rick Nielsen played a ton of Gibson's, and has a whole library of them, but he's more well known for 40 different guitars, multi neck, vividly painted ones etc., just the love of guitars in general.
Think so, just realized I deleted the sentence with saying that V with the Danonneck was Randy Rhoads. It's funny that the LP, the Explorer, the V even the Firebird weren't popular enough when introduced to be considered successful and most to stay in production. The guys that made them iconic often got them because they were cheap in 2nd hand stores or sat on walls collecting dust. They brought them back into production after the young broke rock players became rich and famous and made them iconic. A few of the smaller brands started as mod shops for those old guitars, doing up Vs and Les Paul's. Many of today's iconic guitars were short run stinkers, some ahead of their time, that some poor kid found in a second hand shop cheaper than the rest and rode to fame and wealth. Which splashed back on the makers who brought them back to production. Grunge, indie and shoegaze made successes of all the non T and S style Fenders years on. Where many were Luke warm and discontinued, some considered commercial failures. Put a couple out, cancel, wait for rarity and nostalgia to kick in.
I have an Eastwood Corona w/ humbuckers (SG). It’s lower bout is slightly offset like the Guild S-100, except it curves in more where the S-100 curves out. The year I got it, they made a DC Les Paul Special(P-90’s), a non-reverse Firebird (P-90’s) and mine. They still make the “Stormbird” and even offer it in a few more colours. No idea why they cut the other two.
They just need to change the shape a bit more. I bet if Glenn invented the V, he’d be pissed too. Notice how Gibson isn’t suing Guild for the S-100 (SG).
I guess this is a case of "hate the game, not the players". Gibson might be doing the most logical thing in this particular case, but I can understand the overarching criticism from Glenn that the system is designed to protect big entities rather than small independent manufacturers and/or creators (mostly because the former can afford legal teams). And I think the different treatments in EU and in the US are a bit revealing of the different approaches to economical liberalism, where Europe, inheriting from German theories, is a bit stricter when it comes to preventing monopolies.
@@sagittated Did it help the guy who got a cease and desist for making a higher quality product? NA courts suck and everyone living here knows they suck. The rich and the large corporations barely have any rules since even if they, oh I don't know, coordinate with eachother to fix the price of bread and drive up grocery costs for every Canadian in the country, they only get fined $50 million while generating over $1 billion in revenue. A drop in the bucket that all they need to do is slash their workforce a little and the CEO and other executives are still able to buy their yearly yacht, so that fine is just the price of good business for the last decade. Billy Mitchel weaponizing the courts to silence people who call out his blatant and well documented cheating to try and sue them into bankruptcy because he simply has the money to keep attempting to do that and the courts refusing to call these the SLAPP suits that they are. Should we be thankful that american pharma companies hold trademarks on life saving medicine and prevent competitors from making generics of the same medicine to justify selling insulin for $700 a month when it costs less then $5 to make it? No, because they're indirectly murdering people. In the same vein, how is gibson sending a cease and desist to a small company making a better product than they are, helping anyone other than the big company clutching their pearls? Now, NO ONE is getting that better product and are now stuck with an instrument with specs that were outdated a decade ago, has unacceptable QA issue for the price you're paying for it, and can be outdone by products made in countries that actually give a shit about the consumer.
@@sagittated I'm not saying trademark law is bad or illiberal, but the fact that you have to actively defend them means only bigger players can afford to fight for them, thus favoring them over small companies. Both the EU and US are very liberal economically, it's just that the EU is a little more watchful when it comes to big business accumulating too much power (hence their attempts at reining in Google Facebook etc...with data protection law, attempting to tackle tax evasion etc...)
Its not hard to see that he just altered the original Gibson shape. Id bet my next paycheque that it was designed by actually tracing the shape of a real flying v or at least he did this digitally. Its not sorta the same it is exactly the same and he just altered the ends by taking away material, if he had added material, followed different lines, chosen 1° of body angles in the difference, sized it differently...he'd get my support but as far as i see he plagiarized the shape as his own.
It's not "exactly" the same. The two are fundamentally different due to having different specs. More than that the headstock shape on the Vicious model, is entirely different. Similar body, sure. 100% 1:1 identical copy? Not a chance.
Gibson does use litigation to bully smaller brands and to maintain market dominance. I am a lawyer. I absolutely get the issues...but that does not mean we need to respect Gibson's behavior. Gibson is a company for old, wealthy, hobbiests. That's totally fine, but it would be cooler if Gibson had enough confidence to compete in the market...no one will accidently mistake a Vicious V with one of Gibson's sad old model, you know the one...small, Nickel frets...overpriced, etc.
The usable guitar shapes that you can come up are limited. I think classical and acoustic guitar builders should sue gibson too for uising their guitar shape.
I used to go on Glen's live streams where he checks out peoples music, it was a cool hang for a moment in time...dude knows what hes talking about...but, its his abrasive , in-ur-face style that grates on nerves, and slowly wears fans down...he has 500k+ subs...but only a core 20-50k watching regularly. Hes true to himself...I'll give him that much. Good on him for defending the small builders of the world. @#$% Gibson lol
I was thinking the same thing when watching Glen's video. They have to tell them to stop or lose the trademark. As always KDH is here to explain it clear as glass. Class youtube channel!
Glenn Fricker makes my head hurt
His shouty, screeching, over emotional shtick and smug self regard are insufferable. I gather he occasionally says something useful in regards to recording, which is fair enough. But I can't sit through his videos long enough to find out.
it's entertainment for facebook boomers
Yeah, he is just like scotty kilmer the car guy. Kind of annoying to watch more than about 5 minutes worth.
@@TractorMonkeywithJL I watch him for the flailing arms, not much else
I enjoy when he covers affordable alternatives to expensive products. Don’t mind that he’s a little loud
Thanks for that. I was thinking of commenting on Glenn's video, because he didn't seem to know about how trademarks can be lost. Either you just give up the trademark entirely, or you have to send out C&D letters to protect it. It can come off as a bit unfair, because it's often a David vs. Goliath situation like you said.
My favourite C&D case has to be Deadmau5's Nyan Cat "Purrari", which got him in trouble with Ferrari for altering and using their trademark. Obviously Ferrari isn't worried about Nyan Cat themed supercars usurping the market; they need to do this because otherwise an *actual* competitor will take advantage, and cite this as prior evidence that the trademark isn't being protected.
I think Glenn understands that Gibson "hate" videos get lots of clicks. It's more effective than blatant clickbait.
I found a dead mouse in my garage last week...
Can I sue someone and make money?
Let me know.
😅
@CaptainCraigKWMRZ In America you can quite literally sue anyone for anything, winning is a different story. Just keep in mind, frivolous lawsuits in anti Slapp states will backfire on you.
Not the first time that I think Mr. Fricker is wrong. You are quite correct, KDH. A company must defend their trademarks or loose them.
There are even mugs
Has he... ever been right about anything ?
@@Etienne.6329Yes, his recording studio techniques are mainly the only thing he says that are of any value.
@@castleanthrax1833but his mixes still suck.
When it comes to Glen, I take his advice when it comes to recording without reservation. I do not go to Canadian metal heads for legal advice (well except for Viva Frie ... and i guess Runkle of the Bailey ... ok I guess there are quite a few Canadians worth taking legal advice from. Just not Glen).
It's good to see someone who is not as biased as Glenn on this subject. Hating Gibson is his fetish and makes for a lot of clicks. He's a drama queen...
If the sniffers stopped sending him hate messages and comments he would have nothing to hate on, it's you that make it this way. Keep hating and fueling his hate.
If you’re going to charge a 2000 buck guitar, pay employees as little as 17 bucks an hour in a city like Nashville, and then pump out sloppily made guitars. Granted they might play nice, but if I’m spending 2000 bucks on an instrument, I would expect the guitar case to be clean instead of dusted with little pieces of wood from the sloppy job they did on the neck joint. I love Gibson guitars, but the stuff that’s coming out of the factory now is a crap shoot. The bottom line is I just want every Gibson guitar to look and play perfectly with how expensive they get especially when they can get overshadowed by their little brother Epiphone. If you keep defending mediocrity, you’re going to get mediocre products. I just want Gibson to do better. Don’t we all?
@@myopicautisticmetal9035 He’d find a way to feed his narcissistic supply somehow.
agreed, everyone hates on Gibsons until they get one... the internet is full of stupid trends, and unwarranted Gibson hate is a big one
Glenn gets clicks from bending over and whoring himself out to whatever pedestrian opinion is out there and warping it to fit the topic he wants to make, not the topic at hand.
Then all the shit he talks about Bassists. That shit gets old REAL fast.
Can't stand Glen Fricker. He makes good points every once in a while, but it's far too annoying to have to go through all his self-serving dribble to get to something that's ok.
Glen himself has admitted he basically plays a character for his Channel, and is far less abrasive and loud away from the camera, and this seems backed up by other UA-camrs who've hung out with him.
As a sub, I will admit he doed get tiring to listen to. His tests I agree with but the way he presents his content some people will either love or hate.
I had to stop watching him years and years ago. He (or his character) comes off as easy too try hard and edgy.
@@pauln6803What he’s like off camera is irrelevant. His content is what we have to go by and his content is insufferable. For someone who hates Gibson as much as he does, he sure drops their name every chance he gets.
some people just want to sit down and get screamed at by a video. to each their own
100k Subs!!! Congratulations 👏🏾👏🏾🎉🎉
Not a fan of Glenn or his take on this.
You need to do a Glenn Fricker Audio Audit . That guy is an ignorant bully.
He did one pretty early on, but all the claims were met so he took the video down. I do think another one is warranted
Yes. The little guy here is clearly the bully.
Clearly 🤦♂️
What makes me laugh is... these so called "builders" can't come up with a new design? It's pretty pathetic to copy other people's work then get upset when they call you out on it.
this builders guitars do look nothing like any of the Gibson V's. KDH does adress this: trademarks are there to stop customer confusion in the market. So: for customers to not buy any other builders guitar by accident when they actually wanted a Gibson. Which is, of course, ridiculous to argue about shape trademarks.
Shapes should only ever generic - as should letters and simple note melodies. All stuff that scum of the earth US trademark holders did try to claim copyrights to.
It's how the market works, every copies the Strat, V, Tele, LP because those are the shapes that sell
@@DrMurdercock Well, that's too bad. If you're gonna copy, deal with the consequences.
Especially when PRS have become HUGE off creating shapes that were new and original. Other companies create and sell new shapes as well, so I agree with you; you can't steal other people's IP and then whine about it when you are instructed to stop... regardless of how "small" your business is.
@ithemba the build is literally identical to the flying V. Look at 6:54 where he shows direct comparison.
I’m impressed. Your knowledge of trademarks, patents and the US legal system is better than a good number of Americans.
Keep up the actual real journalism. You're the only one who does this. You're the best!
IP attorney - this is a solid analysis, KDH.
In addition to not knowing if there is a cease and desist, you don't know if they reached a private settlement with these companies and allowed them to keep selling.
Imagine having to deal with working at an automotive factory with Glen fricker? They must have fired him for being so insufferable..
The Jackson King V started out as the signature guitar of Robin Crosby of RATT. Mustaine saw one liked it and started using them around the Peace sells era of the band.
Case in point: I am a small single-person builder, and I wanted to use the Music Man 4x2 headstock design. I contacted Music Man, and was told (1) it is indeed their trademark, and (2) I am NOT allowed to use that headstock design on any guitars I build. So, I designed my own 3x3 headstock.
Why couldn't you just design a 4x2 headstock with a different shape?
Have you tried reversing the headstock? Would that be an infringement?
I think this would be a good example where the enforcement of trademarks actually encouraged creativity and innovation rather than stifled them!
@@dillonbrowning4564 It's the 4 over 2 tuner aspect that is their trademark in this case.
Ah, I see where you went wrong. You should have travelled back in time before 1984 when Music Man released their BS patent, and made some 4-2 head-stocks, JUST LIKE TEISCO DID. If your company is liquidated, say, 7 years prior to the patent, (just like Teisco) then you should be fine 🤔🤔🤔
Glen is both a Canadian and former auto worker, so he's pretty much an anti-big business union lefty (not a criticism, just a description). Your take is pretty much my take. I agree that Gibson could defend their IP in a less jerk-like manner (and if they did so they'd be heroes), but they're not required to.
Yeah, this is pretty clear cut. Trademarks have to be defended or else you lose them. It’s baked into the system that way so if you don’t go after a small builder doing this, it opens the door for a much larger company to do it and then legally challenge you in court and say that you weren’t defending the trademark, so they thought you didn’t care!
Except everyone makes V guitars, like everyone makes Strat and LP shape guitars, and the law's concern is - will a customer think it's a Gibson? This kind of thing has already been through the courts, and the law said basically no reasonable person would think it's a Gibson just coz it's shaped like an LP. This is why Gibson isn't already taking the tonnes of companies who make V's and LP's to court, they know they'll lose - they are totally picking on the small guy. Glenn is right and KDH is wrong.
Good intelligent vid KDH ...kinda unlike Glenn who I'm not sure I'd ever take seriously. Being Mr Not Very Thoughtfully Shouty is his shtick.
He’s the Scotty Kilmer of guitar
I always admire your calm attitude when making arguments. Keep up the good work!
I hope they also lose the trademark for the Explorer, so that Maybach guitars can produce that one, they make a V called the Jetwing, using Korina with Nitro lacquer and it's reliced/aged for a whopping $2240.
So that's why they make V's now... 😅
I commented on Glenn’s video that I didn’t think that Gibson could do anything about Vicious referring to their guitars as V-shaped. But I assumed Vicious must have been using the term Flying V and this was the “verbiage” that attracted the cease and desist.
Good video. Keep on keeping on.
Wow, I had forgotten this dude from Canada completely. He asked for a dollar from his subscribers so he could swear freely on his videos because of some sensorship issue
and yet he doesnt upload to other sites like Odysee or Rumble, where he could easily swear and he could easily make uncensored videos from his mothers basement.
He uses that "censorship" fear that some people have to continue to gather money and more followers. Simple as that. The guy that shouts to the heavens that he's being silenced is always the loudest.
Im not a fan of how Gibson does things like this but in this case they’re right and it’s fair that they’re asking him to stop doing this.
Just to clarify, the James Hetfield MX*250 (Not EX) is still being produced by ESP Custom Shop in Japan for its domestic market.
You can ABSOLUTELY buy one at "retail" if you have a dealer in Japan you are friendly with.
Not since 2021. Stopped all MX manufacture at least for public demand
Why not just get a Snakebite though?
@@howitzer92 for sure! Very similar. Mx just holds classic Metallica nostalgia for some
More surprised Gibson hasn't used their Nite-V trademark. Gibson owns Kramer as well, and has for the past 20 years. When Mustaine came to Gibson? They wouldn't do his pointy V with a Gibson name, but instead, used the Kramer name brand. Thank you for sharing your take on all this!
Fender didn't only lose individual cases in court, but one judge high enough up in rank (Wherever that is) deemed the fender Stratocaster design "Public Domain", and with it any law suits from Fender over it, and all but it's model names "Stratocaster", "Strat", and "The Strat" (yes these were used officially as models) indicated and their logos which they did protected more vigorously (Also a trademark/copyright issue).
..and the headstock shapes I believe... 🤔
Errr, pretty sure Glenn covered how Gibson lost trademarks for not upholding them. So they HAVE to. I'd like to think anyone with any sense immediately realised this.
So glad you posted this! I hate and I mean HATE it when people have no clue that this is what Gibson MUST do to keep their intellectual property or trademark.
Gibson already has plenty to critique without needing Glenn Fricker to make up nonsense. Thanks for helping to clear this up
Go watch AMERICAN GANGSTER. The “trademark” scene. Guess which one is Glenn.
“Hey guys put on your camo shorts! Glenn just dropped another video with misleading information on pickups!”
You can dislike him (I kinda do) but almost every piece of information he provides about the recording process is based on factual and supportable information.
I love this, as insufferable as Glenn is, he made an IQ filter for guitarists. You literally cannot disprove his high gain pickup claims because those tests can be easily replicated and will almost always have the same or very similar results. The exception is if you allowed your bias to change parts of the test, such as not keeping a stationary mic position between all of the pickups tested. Glenn says some dumb things sometimes, like his inability to see the pros of Windows over Mac, but that doesn’t mean his audio engineering experiments are incorrect. That’s a fallacy of composition, just because he was wrong about one thing doesn’t mean he’s wrong about everything.
I think it was a mistake to not mention that vicious has changed the design since the cease and desist into something very unique and fun. The new Stealth looks amazing and it's a shame you didn't at least show it off in the video to show that the builder has since moved on and is making something completely free of the "stealing" accusations some of the commenters here are saying. I still think Gibson, as a company is extremely out of touch and heavy handed with their brand protection. No one looking at a gibson flying v and the old vicious v are going to say they're the same after looking 2 feet upwards and seeing the headstock, which I also feel was a bit of a mistake to not show in the comparison.
I understand why they sent the cease and desist, but no amount of brand protection is going to undo their ageing and dying user base, their floundering QC, worsening build quality, decade old specs and increasingly unaffordable prices. You said it best a year ago when you likened gibson to a luxury brand. You pay extra and buy a gibson for the history behind the brand, because some of histories most famous artists used one. If you want a solid modern guitar, you buy a Korean or Indonesian made guitar with better specs and more consistent build quality for $1000.
Congrats on 100K. Well deserved. Always enjoy your level headed, straight up style. Thanks for keeping the guitar industries bastards honest.
A note on the ESP Eclipse, the 4 and 3 knobs existed at the same time! they did however stop producing it shortly after either a Gibson C&D to them OR the PRS lawsuit/C&D issue with their singlecuts
**question that would be clearly answered if I watched the video**
Edwards is just a sub brand of ESP, Grassroots, Navigator are too..
I commented something similar on Glenn's video tbh. The reality is US law is based on precedent and if they loose the TM in the US would be devastating to their bottom line.
Thanks for this measured and unbiased take on things. Your content always stands out with its genuine investigative journalism. In response to some of the comments - Glenn's OTT shock jock delivery definitely grates at times with me too, but I equally welcome his "cut the cr*p" approach and how he calls things out as he sees them. I'm not a metal player, but I still find value in his takes on the music industry - and his often brutal, but fair, advice about recording etc. His on-screen persona is a character he plays - and I'll bet most of his detractors would have a different opinion of him if they could meet him and have a chat over a coffee or a drink.
Just very few of us commented these same ideas on both of Glenn's videos. I'm glad you made an extended video on the topic, developing it further.
What's clear to me is unfortunately Glenn can't understand what industrial property is, he didn't seek for expert advice before any of both videos, and we failed at our attempt to educate him on the topic.
To me it seems Glenn thinks intellectual property (copyright) and trademark are different terms for patents. And even he doesn't understand how patents work either.
@@BrunodeSouzaLino Yeah, many people think patents are forever, while they're (very roughly) a license limited in time to exclusively exploit something, they expire after a number of years.
While it's industrial property/trademarks that don't expire if you keep using them (again, very roughly).
It's not about bullying...its about defending their trademark
It's important to clarify one thing: while you are correct in stating that words can be trademarked, it's not as broad as that. The Fine Brothers tried to trademark the word "React" and the trademark office refused their application because that's a generic word. Leonard French, a copyright attorney, did a whole video about this very case some years ago explaining how trademarks work, what can and cannot be trademarked, etc. The US trademark office also has quite extensive literature explaining trademarks as well.
How am I supposed to think Glenn genuinely cares about copyright law when he uses AI imagery to promote his own plugins
What? Another boundless Glenn Fricker claim? Shock. The man often talks a whole lotta crap with such confidence, it’s staggering.
I like Glen, bad takes and all. He's a great entertainer and musical equipment educator.
KDH is 100% right. Gibson has to send C&D's to anyone that might be violating their TM's. The Gibson executive team would get sued by the shareholders if they didn't.
Fun fact...BASS Brewery, owns the first ever registered mark in 1875🍻
Yes, a triangle. 🔺
As a primary school teacher, I can confirm that we teach the shapes ‘Square’, ‘Circle’, ‘Rectangle’, and ‘Triangle®’.
Edit: Bass’ trademark is the first registered _in the uk_
I just googled "who owns the first registered trademark" and the hit is below (oddly, when I searched a few hours ago, Bass brewery was the first hit, although I do recall them saying it was the oldest in the UK. Google is certainly unreliable and the information definitely requires confirmation from a more trustworthy source.
1870 Averill Paints obtained the first registered US trademark. Lowenbrau claims to have the oldest continuously used trademark in the world - 1383. Stella Artois - claims continuous use of its mark since 1366.
Someone making a Jimi Hendrix strat should be too embarrassed to go after others.
So refreshing to see an objective analysis n not just vocal shrieking
Fender did not lose against Win-D-Fender (Wind Defender)... you know, that company that makes windscreens for flutes... just like Fender? What's that? They don't? Then why nearly destroy a small business?
As a professional trademark expert, I can state that you are absolutely right and well informed. Guitar builders have sufficient options for dexigning a ghitar. Vicious can be successfully sued for infringement on trademark and even on slavish imitation.
Well done, KDH. You've obviously done your homework. You could have, or maybe you already do, another career as an attorney. Cheers!
never thought I'd see a legal situation where Gibson didn't really do anything agregiously wrong
Fricker is annoying....
Thank you for being the calm voice of reason against that shrieking gobshite Glenn.
I couldn’t agree more. KDH is fairer than he’s given credit for - everyone thinks he’s the shock jock of guitar news. He’s not. He’s fair, analytical, and usually correct (he’s said when he was proven wrong). Great guy! I enjoy Glenn too, but he’s mostly incorrect on this one. Glenn responded emotionally rather than with factual information as Kaiden provided.
I really hope Gibson ultimately loses in court against Dean. Sure the V and Explorer body shapes are the same, but the headstocks are so different. Plus, they have been selling them worldwide for years. I hope we get to a point where courts take the legal interpretation that they have in Japan and the EU. In the end, I prefer Deans take on the two shapes. Give me a Dean Z with the crazy headstock, a Floyd Rose and a set of EMG's over a Gibson Explorer all day, any day.
I hate Gibson as much as the next “authentic” guitar player. But I’m familiar with the legal system. Thank you for this unbiased analysis.
As someone who insists on scientific testing for every little bit of a guitar, Glen seems to have no problem with emotional and hearsay responses for everything else. "I like this guitar better because I like it..." "Prove it with testing!"
"This is a legal IP and trademark that we have to defend otherwise what's the point of being a business" "you're so unfair"
A great response and made a lot more eloquently than I could have.
Gibson may win lawsuits. That said, I’ll never ever buy a Gibson going forward because of their corporate strategy.
They are losing their market share. This won’t save them.
A Flippin V is a generic shape in the public mind at this point.
I still think it's either overstepping or there is the imbalance in how they're happy to threaten smaller ones but ignore some bigger players like Schecter (and IMO it was way more similar to Gibson's version than some of the others you claimed to be more similar, but I guess that's subjective) or at least exactly guys like Schecter are confident enough that Gibson won't actually follow through with the threats or if they do they'd lose, but from a small builder's perspective a letter like that IS TERRIFYING. And also I think the size of a business also matters, it's different when something is mass produced, thenI say send C&D all you want, but in case of ultra small handcrafted stuff... Think how Disney is famously zelalously overprotective of their IP but still you can get Disney themed items in Etsy that I BET aren't licenced and yet theycan operateand nobody has any problems with it... At least for as much asI can tell. Anyway, I'm not a legal expert, but I'd say tributes and fanart should be legal to make AND SELL for as long as they're at a microscopic scale like that, not large volume assembly line production if you know what I mean. So there's this kinda moral aspect to it as well why I think this does fall under bullying, cause I can't believe a tiny Canadian workshop could cause Gibson to lose the trademark in the US.
I think that there's more differences to set the Vicious apart from the Gibson? Like the controls and pickguard. But that may not be part of the shape?
He should just create his own design and stop whining about being asked to stop sponging off someone else's creation.
@@castleanthrax1833That's not the point though. The point is that the two of them are nothing alike. Sure, the shape is similar, but in terms of specs, they're completely different.
To claim an item is a copy, implicates that it's a perfectly identical 1:1, which Vicious' model, very clearly isn't.
@@Game4Lord It is the shape that is the subject. Changing the specs without changing the shape, doesn't subvert trademark law.
@@castleanthrax1833who is this someone? Do you know who this “someone” is or do you value faceless billion dollar companies so much? Are you going to claim mooching off Leo fender too? The dude is dead.
@@areallyboredguy5825 Seth Lover designed the Flying V, but the "someone" who owns the trademark is Gibson.
This has nothing to do with how much a company is worth, or are you of the opinion that it's ok to steal as long as who you're stealing from is worth millions of dollars?
No way, Glenn Fricker making an emotional argument?! I can't believe... oh wait, yeah I can.
Great video, a fair and balanced review of the situation. It’s easy to join the trend of slating Gibson without recognition of an alternative viewpoint.
I have a question.
Why aren't the entire shape taken into account? I mean the neck shape, the headstocks, and the electronics configuration.
Why is it just the body?
And as a small business owner myself... it is personal. I'm not messing with you! Don't mess with me!
That being said Gibson made it personal as no-one who is buying a custom build is even looking at Gibson. That buyer want's more than what Gibson offers us everyday people. Of course they will give mustaine whatever he want's but I guaranty that Gibson would'nt give me or you a second thought.
Anyway... I was just wondering.
Thank you KDH
The most protected part of a guitar legally is the headstock. It goes back to the Spanish luthiers having a "gentlemen's agreement" to each have their own unique design and this became enshrined in law. So the reason Gibson lost the case in Europe to Dean for example wasn't because of actual body shape or the thing as a whole but rather the headstock. Which of course is wildly different! So that answers the body part for you. When it comes to "not messing with each other" its simply a fact that Gibson (or whoever owns a trademark) HAS to send cease and desist notices to all and any infringements or they face the possibility of losing theirs. So this is why Gibson and Fender and other companies all "pick on the small guy". They would really not have to bother! They are merely protecting what is theirs as the law compels them to. Hope that all helps!
@@jp7963 Good to know.
Thank you
Great comprehensive video! I'm the first to criticize if you're talking out of your ass but I don't think anyone could reasonably expect a more linear and well thought out explanation than this... excellent job dude!
Thankfully, the algorithm never fed me any of Glen’s content when I was getting into guitar. He seems like an ignorant.
22:43 it's important to note PRS has grown substantially since the early '00s when the singlecut lawsuit began. I've even heard stories of Paul being bullied by Henry Juszkiewicz to change the pickup wiring of the old Custom 24s because they had an out of phase option.
Glenn's schtick is outrage. Arguing him on facts is beside the point :D
While I agree about the company enforcing their trademarks, I do take issue with the custom guitar that Glenn Fricker is holding. It does not look like a Gibson at all. In fact, I hate those curved edges at the ends of the "V", it's absolutely appalling, and can't stand it. Gibson should be sent a "cease and desist" for ruining the first letter of my name. And it's a custom guitar, it doesn't look like a Gibson nor use any on the other constituent part that make up a Gibson, Gibson aren't losing a sale, so, I think this is a frivolous law-suit. As for stifling innovation and competition that's *exactly* what copyright law is for. You have to "truly" innovate otherwise your up shite creek. I have a 7 string BC Rich V, with a floating bridge with Fishman Fluence pickups, and string pegs all on the same side and Gibson can stick it wherever they want because it's not a Gibson, and thank God it's not.
Only slightly on topic, but the design change for the ESP Eclipse is a goddamn tragedy.
Loved the neck and playability of every Eclipse I've come across, but as someone who primarily plays LPs, I'm too used to the typical 4 knob LP layout. And the current horn shape is just neutered looking. Hell, the original knob placement looks better aesthetically to me too.
Been looking for an original style Eclipse for ages, but they're always out of my price range on the rare occasion that they show up. If they released a new EC-1000 or something with that original layout though, I'd get one immediately.
I appreciate your willingness to be unbiased
Congrats on 100k subs btw!!
Dang, that’s one thing I thought I would never hear you say, lol regards to defending Gibson‘s legal team
When he said "oh Gibson trademarked the letter V?" I was like "Didn't Apple trademark the letter I?"
Thought I ought to make this known as KDH actually does hit the nail on the head about this point but, as he doesn't directly mention it and he - sorry to have to point the finger here KDH as love your vids, they're great - gets it wrong with his Kiesel example, I felt it important for this subject's context.
In a nutshell the reason why Gibson lost their case about solely owning the Flying V shape in Europe is due to the legal systems of those countries basing their law on, shall we call it "historical", practices. So, in ;ye olde' times of guitar making, originally in Spain, it was hard to tell one classical style guitar from another. So the luthiers started to make their own headstock shapes unique to them. And there was a "gentleman's agreement" not to infringe upon a competitor's shape or design. This was later enshrined in law. But body shapes were never, as it was an impossibility, included.
So forward to this century and the later part of the last one the likes of Gibson could defend their headstock very easily. Body shape? Not so much. And THIS is the reason why KDH lists all the different manufacturers such as Schecter, Jackson etc... etc... and why they can stop certain ones (Kiesel's headstock was almost exactly like a V) and not others (Jackson had a pointy 6-in-a-line headstock and Sharkfin - not V - shaped body). This is why PRS makes their single cut models.
Of course there are other factors in all these many cases and cease and desists as KDH succinctly explains - but - when it comes to the guitar, legally at least, the headstock is the most protected property.
To be fair, if i want to identify a guitar from a silouette the headstock is normally the first place I am looking. Put BC rich, ESP, ibanez, Jackson and caparison super strats next to each other and the headstock is easily the most immediately identifying feature. So it makes sense why from a trademark sprspective that would be protected since unlike odies which are tied to function and ergonomics, the headstock can be shaped in a wide variety of ways.
@@ericpeterson9110 That's exactly it. It wasn't that these firms were "lazy" or too slow to act as KDH alludes. Its because the quirks (for want of a better phrase) of the law defeated them over the headstock shape.
I only know all this as I was sales manager for a musical distribution company for many years and one time we got some Flying V copies made in Indonesia in stock. Within about 4 or 5 days of them appearing on our website here in the UK we received a cease and desist letter from Nashville and we had to bow to Gibson's demand as these were exact rip-offs.
How does fender deal with this? I've only seen fender defending their headstock, and with the plethora of strats/teles I'd have thought fender would go after them more
He mentions Fender early in this video. Seems fender lost trademark disputes in court because they didn't vigorously defend their trademarks previously.
Re-wind KDH's video. You must have missed that part
@@Duke-sr4pt Aah, my bad. Thanks!
The odd thing about all this is the US courts must believe that US citizens are complete morons. The Japanese and European courts have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of their citizens. Yes, we guitarists are kinda stupid on some topics, but to confuse $3k guitars is not one of those topics.
The issue Fender and all the other "big boys" have is that the headstock is the only really fully copyrighted part of a guitar. It dates back to the Spanish luthiers all having a "gentlemen's agreement" to all have a unique headstock design which later became enshrined in law. So if you and I make some "Strat" or "Tele" shaped guitars we are fine as long as we have a unique designed headstock. Its why such as Charvels have the disclaimer note printed on the back of their headstocks. Of course it works the other way too... if Fender brought out a new guitar copying our design we HAVE to send them a cease and desist to protect ours. Which we "copied" off them in the first place!
Glenn Fricker is a joke
Why?
Why? For having an opinion that differs from yours?
I overall like a lot of things he shares, but this was definitely a stinker. Glenn seemed to ignore my comment that spelled it out, despite saying in the followup that he closely followed comments. I don't know if he simply didn't see my comment, but am not entirely sure it wasn't rejecting a more fully formed opinion he didn't like. My comment was from 12:18pm EST the day it came out, so it was definitely early enough to be there before masses of comments and long before the followup.
I pointed out the "Flying V" trademark vs "V", which is why "King V" and "Rhoads V" are fine. I pointed out the shape has to be reasonably exact such that it causes confusion (identical except 4" radius vs 3" radius on the wings would not be enough to differentiate), but pointed vs round was different. Another piece is that ergonomics can't be trademarked, but the V isn't an ergonomic shape that will get that exception the same as a belly cutout, lap shaped carving before the lower horn, and a fretting hand cutaway.
This video clearly shows - not just tells - all those details out. Solid as usual.
Gibson should sue Glen Fricker and out him out on the street. 😂
Gibson did the same thing to Reverend a few years ago with their Volcano & Ron Asheton sig. models. They had a distinct asymmetric V shape. Gibson are sue happy.
The actual reason legally why Gibson was successful against those companies was due to the headstock. The headstock is the most protected part legally of a guitar (dating back to Spanish luthiers all having a unique design each) so this law carried on through the centuries. The actual V of the body isn't copyrighted as such. But as KDH says they HAVE to defend their Trademark or they lose it. End result? Casual observers deem them "sue happy" so gives them a bad name. For doing what they legally have to do!
Glen Fricker is a stain on the music world. He spouts nonsense and ridiculous statements 24/7 and only manages to look like an offended ex Gibson player.
Gibson knows what they're sending out these C&D's for are overly broad interpretations of what their trademarks cover, which is why they are sending them to smaller builders who lack the legal war chest to challenge it. Bigger companies, like ESP or Fender, are selling "V" guitars just like these smaller brands, but Gibson doesn't go after them, because losing to a company with a comparable war chest would be too risky. Getting smaller companies to knuckle under or even lose in court gives Gibson that precedent they want to embolden their trademark claims.
Dude, top notch research, just fantastic.
The V's a funny one. They'd taken it out of production for a very long time, they made the first one of course. A lot of the rock and roll general public forgot Jimmy played one, and unless they were also blues, people didn't know about Albert King. But the one that really broke it open for the V I think was a v-shaped body with a Danelectro neck made by Karl Sandoval. It put the V on the map for the 80s and beyond. Of course Rick Nielsen played a ton of Gibson's, and has a whole library of them, but he's more well known for 40 different guitars, multi neck, vividly painted ones etc., just the love of guitars in general.
Being released in 1958, its design obviously was waaay too ahead of its time... 🙈
Think so, just realized I deleted the sentence with saying that V with the Danonneck was Randy Rhoads. It's funny that the LP, the Explorer, the V even the Firebird weren't popular enough when introduced to be considered successful and most to stay in production. The guys that made them iconic often got them because they were cheap in 2nd hand stores or sat on walls collecting dust. They brought them back into production after the young broke rock players became rich and famous and made them iconic. A few of the smaller brands started as mod shops for those old guitars, doing up Vs and Les Paul's. Many of today's iconic guitars were short run stinkers, some ahead of their time, that some poor kid found in a second hand shop cheaper than the rest and rode to fame and wealth. Which splashed back on the makers who brought them back to production. Grunge, indie and shoegaze made successes of all the non T and S style Fenders years on. Where many were Luke warm and discontinued, some considered commercial failures. Put a couple out, cancel, wait for rarity and nostalgia to kick in.
@@schmoemi3386 the Moderne is still ahead of it's time.
I have an Eastwood Corona w/ humbuckers (SG). It’s lower bout is slightly offset like the Guild S-100, except it curves in more where the S-100 curves out. The year I got it, they made a DC Les Paul Special(P-90’s), a non-reverse Firebird (P-90’s) and mine. They still make the “Stormbird” and even offer it in a few more colours. No idea why they cut the other two.
Another great job Sir! You do an excellent job of displaying the facts of the matter.
Fender lost the trademark, but with that seems much more successful. Mainly because of attempting innovation, but not defending shapes.
Or you could just design your own body shape.
Admit it, we all looked on our keyboard if the V was next to the B.
They just need to change the shape a bit more. I bet if Glenn invented the V, he’d be pissed too. Notice how Gibson isn’t suing Guild for the S-100 (SG).
I guess this is a case of "hate the game, not the players". Gibson might be doing the most logical thing in this particular case, but I can understand the overarching criticism from Glenn that the system is designed to protect big entities rather than small independent manufacturers and/or creators (mostly because the former can afford legal teams). And I think the different treatments in EU and in the US are a bit revealing of the different approaches to economical liberalism, where Europe, inheriting from German theories, is a bit stricter when it comes to preventing monopolies.
Protecting trade marks isn't illiberal at all. It helps everyone, not just big corporations.
@@sagittated Did it help the guy who got a cease and desist for making a higher quality product? NA courts suck and everyone living here knows they suck. The rich and the large corporations barely have any rules since even if they, oh I don't know, coordinate with eachother to fix the price of bread and drive up grocery costs for every Canadian in the country, they only get fined $50 million while generating over $1 billion in revenue. A drop in the bucket that all they need to do is slash their workforce a little and the CEO and other executives are still able to buy their yearly yacht, so that fine is just the price of good business for the last decade. Billy Mitchel weaponizing the courts to silence people who call out his blatant and well documented cheating to try and sue them into bankruptcy because he simply has the money to keep attempting to do that and the courts refusing to call these the SLAPP suits that they are.
Should we be thankful that american pharma companies hold trademarks on life saving medicine and prevent competitors from making generics of the same medicine to justify selling insulin for $700 a month when it costs less then $5 to make it? No, because they're indirectly murdering people. In the same vein, how is gibson sending a cease and desist to a small company making a better product than they are, helping anyone other than the big company clutching their pearls? Now, NO ONE is getting that better product and are now stuck with an instrument with specs that were outdated a decade ago, has unacceptable QA issue for the price you're paying for it, and can be outdone by products made in countries that actually give a shit about the consumer.
@@sagittated I'm not saying trademark law is bad or illiberal, but the fact that you have to actively defend them means only bigger players can afford to fight for them, thus favoring them over small companies. Both the EU and US are very liberal economically, it's just that the EU is a little more watchful when it comes to big business accumulating too much power (hence their attempts at reining in Google Facebook etc...with data protection law, attempting to tackle tax evasion etc...)
Its not hard to see that he just altered the original Gibson shape. Id bet my next paycheque that it was designed by actually tracing the shape of a real flying v or at least he did this digitally. Its not sorta the same it is exactly the same and he just altered the ends by taking away material, if he had added material, followed different lines, chosen 1° of body angles in the difference, sized it differently...he'd get my support but as far as i see he plagiarized the shape as his own.
It's not "exactly" the same. The two are fundamentally different due to having different specs. More than that the headstock shape on the Vicious model, is entirely different.
Similar body, sure. 100% 1:1 identical copy? Not a chance.
Gibson does use litigation to bully smaller brands and to maintain market dominance. I am a lawyer. I absolutely get the issues...but that does not mean we need to respect Gibson's behavior. Gibson is a company for old, wealthy, hobbiests. That's totally fine, but it would be cooler if Gibson had enough confidence to compete in the market...no one will accidently mistake a Vicious V with one of Gibson's sad old model, you know the one...small, Nickel frets...overpriced, etc.
Hate to see the lawsuit against cigarbox guitars vs Bo Didley customs
so the law is designed to stifle competition and not gibson themselves. "we have to do it" LOL how inconvenient for them
It's not stifling competition -- it's protecting the rights of the original creators.
They're free to compete using their own designs. Not sure why it's so hard.
Glenn is... alright. He just needs to turn the "tryhard" knob down from 10 to maybe 4.
The bloke is mad. The guitar world is so odd, if you copied someone else’s design in most other fields what would happen?! It’s laughable.
The usable guitar shapes that you can come up are limited. I think classical and acoustic guitar builders should sue gibson too for uising their guitar shape.
I used to go on Glen's live streams where he checks out peoples music, it was a cool hang for a moment in time...dude knows what hes talking about...but, its his abrasive , in-ur-face style that grates on nerves, and slowly wears fans down...he has 500k+ subs...but only a core 20-50k watching regularly. Hes true to himself...I'll give him that much. Good on him for defending the small builders of the world. @#$% Gibson lol
Reverend got a C&D from Gibson over their old volcano model. It is also an asymmetrical V. It was enough for them to discontinue the model.