frantone copyright strike

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.
I just think this pedal's name is in bad taste, that's all. I guess in marketing everything goes.
 
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.
 
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.
True. well said.
 
I would gently suggest that "selling clones for a profit on reverb" and "the DIY community" are maybe not the same thing.
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 haha
 
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.
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 haha
 
I've heard it said that If you don't fight for your copyright every time, you essentially no longer have a copyright.
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.

Trademark is things like product names and company names, logos, and - depending on the quality of your lawyers - less tangible things like "look and feel". A band name would be a trademark, their songs would be copyrighted. You can - and people have - lose ownership of band names through not trying to protect thier ownership. Which is why there are bands with no original/key members and no-one who wrote or played on any of their hits, while the people who did the creative work are legally not allowed to use the name of the band they created.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

I'll be candid - I'm an IP attorney (I've been practicing for 25 years) and I couldn't have said this better.

Except:
Or, conceivably, a lawsuit, though realistically no law firm would waste their time prosecuting you or I for doing what we do.
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
 
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
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.
 
What’s Robert’s stance on selling PedalPCB based pedals? Do we have to use the original name? What level of modification constitutes a new design of our own? I sold a Paragon based KoT pedal to someone I know as a Mighty Kraken. But I was loud and proud about it being a PedalPCB design/board.
 
You can name it whatever you want, no credit to PedalPCB is required. You can even hide the branding / logo if you want.

All I ask if that you don't sell "counterfeits" using other companies names or artwork and make sure it's clear that it's your build and any technical support / warranty is provided by you.

I have no problem helping folks troubleshoot an assembled pedal they bought on Reverb, I just don't want them coming expecting a refund or warranty repair for something I didn't build.

Also don't rip off the PCB layout... You're more than welcome to use the schematic to design your own board, but do that, don't duplicate the PCB like that dude selling fake ElectroVibe PCBs.
 
Back
Top