Official Luthiers Forum!

I have to agree with David B. on this.   
Part of what David is saying is expressed in the slogan for the first Newport Guitar Festival - "Plays Well with Others".
It is a concept which we've all heard before, but sometimes we forget to practice. I consider Linda and some others to be part of an elite group of builders for which I have incredible respect. Those people are all keenly aware of the greater community of luthiers, because they are full-time professionals in it.
There is a macro-community of builders of which we are all a part of, but yet don't really relate to, because we have limited contact with it. There are also microcommunities, such as the folks who hang out on the OLF.
It is a simple courtesy to write these good folks and ask permission to use these wonderful features, and acknowledge their contribution to the craft in this regard. They have earned that. In so doing, you become more closely tied to the macrocommunity. I can't begin to tell you how important that really is...

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

I'm afraid this is where I have to disagree. If something is truly an original invention then fine it is only polite to ask permission of the inventor, and if needed pay a royalty. But the 'wedge' shape (like the fanned fret) is centuries old, not a recent invention at all, it may have been rediscovered as a 'good thing' but that doesn't mean it's a new thing. It's like me having to acknowledge Paul Simon every time I sing Scarborough Fair. We all know he didn't 'invent' the song just popularised it in the USA.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

I may be wrong, but... I believe Linda Manzer has a trademark on the
name "The Wedge", she does not have a patent on the tapered body
shape that we are talking about. Yes, she should be credited with her
pioneering work, but no one should be villified for building guitars with a
tapered profile.

long

_________________
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” -Heraclitus of Ephesus

[QUOTE=dberkowitz]This is a VERY select group. Most of us, me included, use concepts developed by others. If you're interested in continuing the sharing of concepts then it is imperative that you have the courtesy to ask before taking and give credit where credit is due.[/QUOTE]

These are very good points David. Thank you. I agree with you.

One observation though... I suspect some folks don't always know the origins of ideas (but I am not sure how many "some" represents.) I am not sure what the work around there is except continous education.

While I understand Colin's point I see it as a simple courtesy to ask the current champion of an idea if it is ok to use their "thing" and if they have any advice they would care to share. Afterall.. this is a tiny community any of us can pick up the phone and call the heros of the craft and they are likely to talk with us. If nothing else it gives you a reason to cultivate warm feelings with the leading builders and those with a few decades of experience under their belt. It seems like there is a lot to gain and nothing to lose.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

I'm all in favour of being polite and not copying 'personal' details like logos and classical rosette patterns, but since few of us have a letter from Martin Inc giving us permission to use the 'X' bracing.......

It seems that several issues are not being addressed here:
1)Does it make a difference if you are making money when you copy/imitate/adapt an idea?

2)Suppose the 'current champion' of an idea says you can't imitate a feature- what do you do then, if it isn't clear that the 'authority' in question even invented the idea?

3) 'Sharing' of ideas : I haven't been able to find a lot of info on the technical details (and how-to info) of 'Manzer's Wedge' or 'Laskin's Armrest'. Could somebody point me to the places where they published the info?

John

Did C.F. Martin "invent" the X brace or did he just brilliantly adapt and evolve it? In a previous post on Guitar Patents, Charliewood wrote:

"Marc Silber, of the Silber Reich Museum {antique instruments} has stated in a Guitar Player Magazine interview that he has at least 3 X-braced instruments that predate the earliest Martin X-braced instruments by 20 or more years -
Apparantly they were made in London by a couple of Russian brothers"

The X brace design that we all copy is C.F Martin's evolution - or maybe he came up with it without having seen the Russian brothers work, morphic resonance is an interesting phenomena - similarly wedged body designs today most likely have a source directly back to Linda Manzer rather than the early ones Colin mentions. I agree with Todd and think it only right and proper that credit is freely and willingly given to these pioneer/developers of instrument making that generously share their knowledge pool as did others before them.

Just be very sparing with the word "invented".

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

Grit originally published a 2 page article in Guitarmaker back in the 90s I believe - I have that issue arond somewhere (tried to find it to show AZ the other day but couldnt locate it). If you call or email him I think this is what he will send out to you. As for Linda's wedge design, not sure, but likely if anywhere it would be in Guitarmaker as well .. she used to be the discriminator for articles years back.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

Two ASIA conferences ago there was a session on innovations in guitar design that both Grit and Linda attended and they discussed the arm rest and the wedge respectively. They were both very clear that they it was OK with them if you used these innovations and that you did not have to ask permission. All that they asked was that you tell others where you got the idea.

So, you are honoring Linda's wishes if you tell your customer that the idea for the wedge originally came from her. The same is true for the arm rest. This costs nothing to you the builder and you need not even contact Linda or Grit.

Many people think of the same idea independantly. I have not spoken to Cumpiano about his wedge but I'm inclined to think that he either wasn't aware of Linda's previous work or feels that what he is doing is somehow different. I, for one, will give him the benefit of the doubt.

There may well have been other builders who made either wedges or arm rest guitars. Pointing to a Terz or English guitar in a museum and saying that the idea wasn't original to them either does not, in my opinion, reduce the contribution of either Grit or Linda. Those ideas were not in common use among builders before they started doing it and now they are and I doubt that either of them knew of any prio art when they started doing it.

[QUOTE=dberkowitz]
-Grit Laskin's (and perhaps Serge de Jonge's) armrest
[/QUOTE]

Aye, there's the rub. Sometimes there are different stories as to who originated (or updated, developed, etc) an idea. It can get sticky...

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

In a way, I'm happy to see this discussion go on and on. We luthiers don't,
for the most part, resort to patents and trademarks and legal action to
protect our innovations and designs, so we become a self-policing
community. Thinking about the issues and discussing them when we get
together (even if only in a "virtual" way) keeps us all honest.

I don't really care if there are fanned frets, wedge bodies, sound ports,
and such in antique instruments. That's information for the patent
lawyers, not for me as a luthier. It's not my job (or within my expertise) to
research the historical context and make judgements about the origins of
these ideas. It's irrelevant to me whether Martin was the first to use an X-
brace -- I'm working from what Martin did and I'm willing to admit it and
honor the man and his work. I've gotten ideas from museum instruments
(and wish we all had more access to them), but for the most part those
instruments have lost their ability to influence modern design. Grit first
developed and popularized the armrest, as Linda did the wedge. They are
the ones who inspire me, not forgotten 17th-century builders whose
attempts failed to influence succeeding generations.

To me, what's important is that contemporary luthiers developed the
ideas, applied them to modern instruments, shared the information, and
inspired me to use them in my own work. If I want to remain a
responsible member of the lutherie community, I'll give them credit and,
yes, ask permission, whether the law or other luthiers think it's required
or not. It's one way I can show my appreciation for their work and
perhaps do a little to keep the lutherie community the open, sharing
place it is, free of the nit-picking, argumentative, litigious attitude of
much of our society.

Well said Rick!

PS hows the left cost?

_________________
Support the OLF! Bookmark our STEWMAC link Today!
Lance@LuthiersForum.com

Not giving credit and passing it off as ones own ideas is called plagarism. --db

[QUOTE=Mike Mahar] Two ASIA conferences ago there was a session on innovations in guitar design that both Grit and Linda attended and they discussed the arm rest and the wedge respectively. They were both very clear that they it was OK with them if you used these innovations and that you did not have to ask permission. All that they asked was that you tell others where you got the idea.
[/QUOTE]

First Off I didnt want to create a massive controversy, by saying that it wasnt essential to ask permission, and now Im glad that Mike has chimed in with words from the "current champions" of the ideas of which we are speaking.
{If we cant call them the creators}
I said that I was absolutely in favor of giving credit where it was due, I dont know if some overlooked that or not.
What was meant >anyway, was that I doubt Linda or Grit or these people would want to respond to "every builder" that wanted to use thier idea, could you imagine.
They would be on the computer and phone all day instead of the shop.
Mabye they would just rather have the people who needed help with, or have something to contribute to the design contact them,
I have a feeling the latter is true anyhow and that Linda wouldnt want to hear from me anyway!
I was surpised by the fact that some{one?}
said that luthiery was not faceless corporations, as it were, but a group of individuals,
to use thier ideas
{with respect to the X-brace or mabye an exact replica of a F5 mando, and certain other ideas,
is fine without asking permission}
These are currently attributed to C.F.Martin and Co, and others. and Im sure some patents are applied for.
    but one would be better to ask the permission of a smaller builder with a more personal face on thier company.
They are both companies.
I saw a discussion about copyright material, on the OLF with respect to DVDs and books and instructional material, and how one shouldnt steal the information anyone creates and distributes, in its digital form.
Thats stealing...period... was the consensus.
But I really doubt that if you sent a letter to Martin or Gibsons legal dept, you would get a courteous response,
mabye you might even get a cease and desist on your models that incorporate the design in question?
Mabye a day in court?
Mabye this is the real reason no-one wants to send a letter to them asking if they can use the F5 design or the Xbrace?
But perhaps,... the small builder, wouldnt be so reprehensible when you asked to use thier idea, and its much easier to approach them about it,
I have a feeling this is true also.
and mabye deep down half the reason{or more}... is that people want to approach thier building idols - and that being able to say that you spoke with Linda or Bob Taylor makes the luthier feel like they are more of a part of the luthier community.
I think this is fine, but mabye we should be honest about it. I think alot of people arent being completely honest about why they want to approach the icons of luthiery, mabye Im wrong.
Im all for contacting whoever you want about the designs you use, asking thier permission and giving them credit, if thats what you want to do.
Cheers
Charliewood
charliewood39101.8580439815

Although I can't consider myself a true luthier as of yet, since I have yet to build an instrument and only work on them, I wanted to add my thoughts... If I may use the collective "we" pronoun for the sake of discussion:

I think we as individual luthiers or even the small shop have a different and possibly deeper appreciation of the craft than the big corporations. That said, I would suggest that we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard regarding the craft-- the belief that respect for the fellow luthier is paramount. Some of us may believe the best way to show this respect is to incorporate innovation without question and carry the craft forward. Others may decide to show that respect by outright asking permission. Others may decide to show that respect by crediting a luthier with the inspiration/design. Whatever form that respect takes on, I do believe everyone here has that respect for his/her fellow craftsman.

Here's a thought... instead of getting sidetracked by all the beautiful trees, let's look at the forest-- think about what great character it shows when this forum is so concerned with making sure that credit is given where it is due... Pretty cool, I gotta say.

By the way, here's the hijack-- just did a setup on an ES-335. The guy used these words: "Best neck I ever played. Plays like butter." So, in the spirit of things, let me say thank you to everyone here who helped me with learning the nut/fret work.

John

It is much easier to cross the line in a Forum. Perhaps, when one is thinking of 'bending' or breaking laws, or accepted procedure among luthiers, one should imagine that the person whose work is being perloined is standing right before you. Would you ask?
to copy?

[QUOTE=dberkowitz] Not giving credit and passing it off as ones own ideas is called plagarism. --db[/QUOTE]

I don't hear anyone in this discussion saying anything that suggests they would attempt to pass off someone else's ideas as their own.

I very much appreciate the thought and care that has gone into each person's contributions to this discussion. I've especially found Rick Davis' words to be wise, insightful, and helpful. Thanks, Rick.

Now, here's a thought that may be a bit radical, but which is, in my mind, a relevant piece of the puzzle in sorting out these questions: Where do ideas REALLY come from? Are we not plagiarizing the _true source_ (call it God or Goddess or the Creator or the Great Mystery or whatever you want to call it) when we pass off ANY ideas as being our own?

I often have good ideas come to me; I see them as _gifts_ to be grateful for and to be shared.

I am NOT implying that Linda (a very humble and generous person, in my experience) has claimed _ownership_ of the "wedge" idea. Nor am I saying that I wouldn't credit and thank her for what she's done with the idea, or that I wouldn't thank her for sharing it freely, which, indeed, she has.

Todd Rose39102.6055208333

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

    I know that Grit and Linda don't expect a call or a letter from every
builder who uses a bevel or wedge idea on their guitars. They've made
that clear publicly for years...and graciously so.

    The industry standard has become the use of "X" bracing so Martin
would not expect requests for permission either. We've all seen the
numerous "lawsuit" models that have popped up over the years from
manufacturers who identically duplicate the popular models of others in
an obvious effort to capitalize on the identical appearance. They've even
gone as far as to imitate the original's logo by fashioning their's to fit a
similr footprint or shape.

    Most recently, we watched as PRS was faced with having o defend the
originality of their single cut model. It was distinctly different from the
single cut design of the Les Paul, but some member of a legal staf
somewhere....who probably has no clue of what either guitar is....thought
they'd trump up a cease and desist order in an effort to protect a segment
of that market share. It's a shame, but it happens.

    We small builders are members of a very different community of
industry. We are friends and if we're not, we're friendly for the most part.
There are a small number among us who are treating their business like a
meal in prison and are leaning close to their plates to protect what they
think are their unique ideas, but most are gracious and generous and
secure in the fact that we all will gladly share where we get ideas from
and who turned us onto them.

    When we see somehting cool coming out of another shop, we will
contact the builder doing it. Sometimes we find that he got the idea fro
another builder and, others, we'll find that he'd be happy to have us try
his idea just to broaden the development base for it. We don;t have the
huge R&D budgets that the big houses do so we can become our own
R&D power as a community.

    I've been working on a bevel inspired more by Kevin Ryan's variation
than by Grit's, but I also know that Kevin's was inspired by Grit's. In that
case where does one give credit or recognition? I can't imagine directng it
to one or the other, but would most likely give it to both.

    It's cool to see an idea develop as more builders use it and implement
their own fresh and unique ideas to it. I get one of my typical response of
being guilty of having the "group hug" mentality for my view on this, but
I've always felt that there's too little time for us to waste any on arguing
over things that just don;t matter or have a real affect on us. Some
disagree and live for those arguments and I feel srry for them and their
victims.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars
    

   

David,

    I've been a big fan of Mike Doolin for a long time and have to say that
Taylor's NT design is very close to being an adaptation of what Mike has
used on his guitars for much longer.

    With its ability to be adjusted and reset in a matter of minutes with the
bolts being used to pull it securely to the new angle selection, the NT
presents much of the same benefits that Doolin's neck system does even
though it is somewhat diffeent.

    Mike is among that elite and very small group of innovators, in my
opinion, not only for originating that neck design, but also for his unique
and beautiful double cutaway guitars.

    Just a thought and my opinion. I agree wholeheartedly on the rest of
your list.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

I remember seeing Chris Martin and another person from that company at a meeting several years ago on a panel discussion. At one point one of them mentioned that they should have patented the Dread shape, and the other pointed out that it wouldn't matter, since the patent would have lapsed by now anyway.

Many of us share for a simple reason: we remember how hard it was to get information thirty or forty years ago, and appreciate all that we've learned from others. Sharing is a way of paying them back.

We may not always know where an idea came from: I, too, thought the wedge body was a Cumpiano 'invention', and there are a lot of other things, like the 'patch' over the X crossing, that are just 'out there'. Even when we do know, or did, we sometimes forget, or simply fail to acknowledge, perhaps, in part, because this is one of the few real widespread 'communities' in the world, where sharing is simply what's expected.

As for somebody wanting to claim the credit of their invention, what's wrong or 'greedy' about that? In the sciences and arts attribution is the real currency. The Martin company doesn't make a nickle when I make a guitar with bracing that is inspired by the work that C.F I did, and can't, really. But it is a fact that virtually all steel string guitars are based on that design, and giving credit to the man who worked it out for us helps ground us all in our history.

Nor does it matter a lot whether anybody else used a particular design first. Novack's fanned fret idea drew nothing from the orpharion: he was unaware of it. He was also trying to solve a different problem than the earlier builders were. The fact that one solution can work for two different problems takes nothing away from either innovator. Cumpiano may well have thought of the 'wedge' independantly of Manzer, even if it was at a later date. Darwin and Wallace come to mind here. May we all find so peaceful a resolution!

So, yes, credit where credit is due, for sure, even if it's late. I'd far rather celebrate the folks who have bettered this craft than shut them out.

Mr. Carruth your Ozark dulcimer is the most distinctive well balanced and outright beautiful designs I have seen
In my research I have not found any even similar.

It would in my mind be wrong for anyone to copy them to sell for profit it is a design that to me is distinctly yours.

Even If it was built with an arched top and bottom and floating bridge.

I have previously told Serge that I have a design that I want to call a Cascadian dulcimer but feel I would need your approval because of the similarity of naming could possibly be misconstrued as a statement by me of your approval of the design.

sincerely,
           Kirby Olsen

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

edit that to read Wanted to copy the Ozark as soon as I saw it but could not because it would be a copy

I want to name my dulcimer a cascadian dulcimer but
I feel like I would be copying you again.

Got distracted by autistic son and tried to say

because of the similarities in naming i Feel the need for permission to use the name not that it would signal any approval by you of the design.

K.O.39103.8657523148

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

can I get away with using Somogiy style latice bracin if I add a Prolux bar or would I stiLL be copying?

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

cause that is what I wanted to do for my Dulci-weiss.

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

Actually, I saw something like that 'Ozark' design in a book about traditional dulcimers someplace, many years ago. It's my own redaction of the design, of course, and I have no idea of where the first one came from, so it would be hard to attribute. So, copy away!