Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

Did any Hendrix Gibbys ooze to the surface?


humfree

Recommended Posts

I wonder how many young guitarists can name a Jimi Hendrix tune? He died on September 18, 1970... that's about 45 years ago...

A lot more than you would expect I think. Go check out any video of Yngwie Malmsteen on YouTube doing a Hendrix tune, and check out how often it is younger commenters aghast that this hair-metal, shred kind is touching Hendrix. My anecdotal experience in dealing with college students in a course on rock music was that they had for more knowledge in general about the big names from the 60s and 70s than rock bands that have popped up in the past five years. Nostalgia seems to only be getting more hip with the younger generation, which is probably pretty good if you own IP rights of some type in any of those older acts. It can be kind of cold though if you are a new rock band that doesn't want to just pattern yourself exactly like bands off a certain approved list of cool rock bands (Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Hendrix, Talking Heads, for a few examples).

Where this fails to translate is that, in the past, you'd listen to older rock and then some kids would start bands, and some of one or two of those bands would end up that generation's Beatles, Zeppelin, Van Halen, or Nirvana. Not as many are out there in the garage any more. Most of them are satisfied to just listen to stuff from the roughly 40 years that rock was really vibrant for fun but focus their creative energies elsewhere. I'm not saying that's good or bad as much as just the way it is at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on the flip side, if you had an older sibling that became a rock god, and you fell into being the caretaker of his legacy, would you spurn that for a vanilla day job out of some sense of snob artistic integrity? I wouldn't!

I read the press statement from the sister and it sounded fairly admirable - to make budget guitars available to kids, along with a learn to play guitar book. a kid may very well feel a bit more inspired by playing a Hendrix guitar, versus some truly cheap-ass guitar.

That is a good point, but there was a lot of infighting in the family over the years. Jimi had one brother that he grew up with (Leon) and three other siblings that disappeared into the foster care system. After Jimi died, everything went to his father, and after his father died, Leon got nothing. So the people who now control Jimi's legacy are his cousin and his adopted sister, not his natural brother.

All I see when I see Janie is gold digger. That's just me though, and I'm jaded. Also, the idea of Gibson making Fender-type guitars with the Hendrix name on them is insulting, and is another reason I love to see Henry J get raked over the coals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth? I witnessed the press release of that model within minutes of it being trumpeted on Gibson's website. Within a few short hours, there were HUNDREDS of hateful, mocking and just plain funny posts, lambasting Gibson for even thinking of releasing that abomination. Within 12 hours, the site had crashed twice and every gear site was pointin to it , almost unanimously poking fun at the horse's ass who greenlit that piece if shit. The site was scrubbed clean within 48 hours and all mention of the model disappeared. GONE.

I think the negative backlash was simply too much, and I'll bet some idiot(s) got canned.

Henry cannot fire Himself :)

Just one of MANY dopey Gibson ideas. But I guess over 100+ years you are allowed a few.

I have a couple stamped Gibson Protoypes from the Grabber Bass period. They must have had a surplus of bodies, so some bozo decided to saw off the lower horn to make them semi-teardrops!! Hahaha

Obviously, never issued as an official model but they had a few prototypes of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I never knew this. How does Gibby win trademark suits over single cuts when Fender was denied trademarks for Strats, Teles, and P-bases?

http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/09/20090409sr-fender0410.html

Because so many makers had used the S, T and P shapes for so many years (without a peep from Fender) that the shapes ceased to be a unique signifier of who made the guitar. The LP shape hasn't been quite as widely copied, so Gibson was able to register the shape as a trademark. But as has already been posted, they weren't able to prove likelihood of consumer confusion in the PRS case.

Gibson has the trademark on the headstock, not on the Les Paul body which is one of many reasons PRS won the case. Fender only has the headstocks protected. What sunk them was in the 80's when they had gone to other builders telling them they couldn't use the Fender headstock shapes. When asked about the body shapes Fender said those were okay they were only concerned with the headstock. IIRC Tom Anderson is the one that had his papers from the Fender legal team stating such and presented them to the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet they're a real collectors item now! Ha! Like a Korina Futura or something...

...or a Reverse Explorer, or a Reverse Flying V, or a Firebird X, though I actually DO like the 'Lawn Dart' V because it's so perverse. B):lol::ph34r: Maybe Henry J. will get the rights to 'reissue' the Dewey Decibel 'Flipout' someday, and use the old 'Hendrix' tooling for that: ;)

http://www.deweydecibel.com/guitarpage.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if they marketed as the 'Randy Hansen' Signature Model?

What a Hendrix tribute artist probably would have played had they been available..

Sort of rolls off the tongue..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I never knew this. How does Gibby win trademark suits over single cuts when Fender was denied trademarks for Strats, Teles, and P-bases?

http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/09/20090409sr-fender0410.html

Because so many makers had used the S, T and P shapes for so many years (without a peep from Fender) that the shapes ceased to be a unique signifier of who made the guitar. The LP shape hasn't been quite as widely copied, so Gibson was able to register the shape as a trademark. But as has already been posted, they weren't able to prove likelihood of consumer confusion in the PRS case.

Gibson has the trademark on the headstock, not on the Les Paul body which is one of many reasons PRS won the case.

This isn't correct. You can read the appeals court decision here:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/IP/2005_Gibson_Abridged.pdf

The court didn't invalidate Gibson's trademark on the LP body shape. That trademark still stands today. PRS won the case because the court decided there wasn't any infringement of Gibson's (valid) trademark because it wasn't likely that consumers would confuse a Singlecut with an LP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't get how anyone can inherit someone's name or image. I can understand a child or spouse inheriting royalties or intellectual rights to his music, but a cousin, father or adopted sister inheriting the right to his name? What's with that? If he had no spouse or children, shouldn't use of his persona be in the public domain, the sme way as it would be with, say, Mark Twain or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't get how anyone can inherit someone's name or image. I can understand a child or spouse inheriting royalties or intellectual rights to his music, but a cousin, father or adopted sister inheriting the right to his name? What's with that? If he had no spouse or children, shouldn't use of his persona be in the public domain, the sme way as it would be with, say, Mark Twain or something?

When the animated cartoons of the 30's and 40's cameos of the likenesses of contemporary celebrities no one complained. It was always one time use, and no one thought much about it. There is a point at which someone starts making a lot of money off of person's image, and that is where there is a need to step in with intellectual rights to the image. If Michael Jackson's image could be used freely under public domain there would be endless use of his image to sell thousands of products. The public image of a person is every bit as marketable as a copyrighted image or a trademarked image. Charlie Brown and Snoopy are not even real, but they have sold a lot of toys, lunchboxes, and clothing. KISS is a group of real people who sell toys, lunchboxes, and clothing. It is the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that when Jimi died, his father, Al, became in charge of the estate, and eventually died, leaving it to the blood-sucker (Jimi's step sister, I think) who is currently whoring out Jimi's name and likeness at every conceivable opportunity.

Shannon Lee is doing the same thing with Bruce Lee's name and likeness - putting it on any product remotely associated with him or Martial Arts (or automobiles, energy drinks, sneakers, track suits...) - but at least she's his daughter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that when Jimi died, his father, Al, became in charge of the estate, and eventually died, leaving it to the blood-sucker (Jimi's step sister, I think) who is currently whoring out Jimi's name and likeness at every conceivable opportunity.

Shannon Lee is doing the same thing with Bruce Lee's name and likeness - putting it on any product remotely associated with him or Martial Arts (or automobiles, energy drinks, sneakers, track suits...) - but at least she's his daughter.

His adopted sister and his cousin control it now. His brother Leon got nothing.

In Lee's case, his widow received everything, and the foundation is now in control of the daughter. I believe all of the merchandise sold benefits in some way the Bruce Lee Foundation, which is basically a foundation to spread Jeet Kune Do martial arts and philosophy. I mean, sure it's not ideal, but at least she's not endorsing products that he specifically did not use.

I think one of the big things about the Hendrix debacle was that they had GIBSON making a STRAT or STRAT LIKE guitar. Why didn't they make something else? like an original design instead of a ripoff design? And then the damned Piano??? That was I think the most outrageous of all the products. Lets put a bunch of graphics on a piano and suddenly JIMI HENDRIX PIANO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...