i get the feeling she really doesn’t like the diy community haha
But I’m only trying to make a buck profiting off the name of the person whose work I cloned!?!I would gently suggest that "selling clones for a profit on reverb" and "the DIY community" are maybe not the same thing.
I mean, I like it as much as the next guy.Is that a bad thing? I'd say it depends on the quality of the joke. If women want to talk about woman stuff, I'm OK with that.
It's not in itself but it's low hanging fruit like black comedians doing the black vs white thing.Is that a bad thing? I'd say it depends on the quality of the joke. If women want to talk about woman stuff, I'm OK with that.
That poor guitarYup!
Here’s a cool shot I got of Bob ripping the Bigsby apart on his LaBaye at the Pier 17 show in 2021 during the Mr. DNA guitar solo
View attachment 55386
SpicyI would gently suggest that "selling clones for a profit on reverb" and "the DIY community" are maybe not the same thing.
Clever. I like it.Always rename your pedals. But maybe not like this
View attachment 55376
True. well said.I don't think Fran is anti diy enthusiast, it's just necessary business practice. Even though they're shut down currently, she has control over her designs, quality control, and brand in general. They may even bring the pedals back in the future. I've heard it said that If you don't fight for your copyright every time, you essentially no longer have a copyright. I doubt she's chapped about you selling a few clones but you have to go after all associated clones both big and small to maintain control.
that’s a solid point! haha i would think of myself in both of those categories personally, and that they would probably have to overlap pretty often, but i might be biased hahaI would gently suggest that "selling clones for a profit on reverb" and "the DIY community" are maybe not the same thing.
welll can’t say much in my defense there! i’m certainly not doing it for free haha.But I’m only trying to make a buck profiting off the name of the person whose work I cloned!?!
haha very well said. i would also agree with all of those thoughts in general. tbh i wouldn’t think it would even be her making the claim, probably just a bot copyright companies use to scrape sellers websites for similarities. mostly i just thought it was odd since another local seller also sells ppcbs and specifically sells the creampie all the time, but my listing was probably just too obvious hahaI don't think Fran is anti diy enthusiast, it's just necessary business practice. Even though they're shut down currently, she has control over her designs, quality control, and brand in general. They may even bring the pedals back in the future. I've heard it said that If you don't fight for your copyright every time, you essentially no longer have a copyright. I doubt she's chapped about you selling a few clones but you have to go after all associated clones both big and small to maintain control.
That's trademark, not copyright. The creator owns copyright forever, unless they sell it. Copyright is only for creative works like songs or paintings or movies.I've heard it said that If you don't fight for your copyright every time, you essentially no longer have a copyright.
Since I seem to be the "expert" here - I put some work into understanding this stuff - Fran's claim would be trademark infringement, not copyright. Using her company/product name without permission.
There's a thing called "passing off" which means you're selling a copy while pretending it's the real thing. Obviously DIY pedal cloners aren't doing that, but the principle is that if you use a company's name, you have to make it clear that you're not them and not affiliated with them. Otherwise you're leaving yourself open to getting a nasty letter from a law firm. Or, conceivably, a lawsuit, though realistically no law firm would waste their time prosecuting you or I for doing what we do.
Reverb, eBay, etc - they're worth suing because they're large and profitable companies. So they just auto-nuke any listing for which they receive a trademark compliant. It's not worth their time to investigate whether the claim has any merit, because they're not losing much business by auto-nuking all claims. So yeah, it can seem pretty arbitrary - because it is.
If clients are paying, lawyers aren't wasting their time doing anything. If a client wants to pay a lawyer to pursue an infringer, the lawyer will do it (absent, of course, a frivolous claim or some other aspect of the claim that would make pursuing it a violation of the relevant State Bar's ethical rules).Or, conceivably, a lawsuit, though realistically no law firm would waste their time prosecuting you or I for doing what we do.
I did think of that after I posted but I'd already edited the post a few times. You are of course correct but I think the chances of it happening are slim. Thanks for your input - I find the law very interesting but my only experience of schools was extremely negative, so I had to learn to self-educate.If clients are paying, lawyers aren't wasting their time doing anything. If a client wants to pay a lawyer to pursue an infringer, the lawyer will do it (absent, of course, a frivolous claim or some other aspect of the claim that would make pursuing it a violation of the relevant State Bar's ethical rules).
Mike