5 ms·
Maybe the law should protect creative part of the shape (that doesn't affect the sound)? I do not know but I think that designing a good instrument is not easy
by codedokode 3mo ago
Maybe the law should protect creative part of the shape (that doesn't affect the sound)? I do not know but I think that designing a good instrument is not easy and it is not cool that someone can just copy it without doing any work.
- dofm 3mo agoThat is effectively what Fender are claiming they now have in Europe (off the back of a case that was not even argued because the vendor didn't turn up). One key thing here is that the Stratocaster did have a design patent attached, and when your design patent expires, that's it; none of that is protected. But the guitar was designed in 1954 (and indeed the body shape in 1951, fundamentally, because the Fender Precision bass guitar looked like that first). So the design patent was gone by 1970. At the time, US copyright did not apply to functional shapes, and most of the core aspects of the Strat shape are actually functional — cutaways and sculpting. Manufacturers like Schecter were making guitars with an S body shape by 1979. So this isn't new, and it is weird.
- balfirevic 3mo ago> that doesn't affect the sound That would be the whole shape.
- dofm 3mo agoHaha I was going to say that but I thought, no, I don't need the downvotes. Lots of guitarists here (including me)
- codedokode 3mo agoI do not think the exact shape has any influence, especially potentiometer or audio jack placement.
- balfirevic 3mo ago> I do not think the exact shape has any influence Yes, that's what I said.
- queenkjuul 3mo agoIt influences playability, which is functionality. Fender's marketing advertised the shape as a functional feature: body carve for easier playing standing up, double cut for easier access to higher frets
- colechristensen 3mo ago72 years later?