Decal question for Sub 1

[SubMariner61]

It's been a busy summer and I haven't had much time to stop by but after 30 minutes with the search engine, I feel it would probably serve me best to create a thread and ask directly....would placing a waterslide decal on my Sub1's headstock be considered a trademark infringement? When I purchased the guitar, I wanted to keep the headstock clear to highlight the flamed koa but everywhere I go, people want to know what kind of guitar it is and frankly writing, I'd just as soon have the headstock tell them. It is a Sub1 for sure, not any custom piece beyond the modifications. Original neck, original body, original hardware (save for the Schaller locking tuners). I detailed the changes to the guitar in the "photo section" a few months ago but in all honesty, it seems naked without any reference to its heritage. What is considered "dignified" identification-wise when modifying guitars to this degree? It's a confusing issue to me because after all, the neck and body haven't been replaced. People don't shave the decal off a headstock because they replace the pickups but if they laminate the headstock, does it render the guitar a "one-off?"

I suppose I could take a silver paint pen and write something on there (perhaps a handwritten "Sub 1 custom" or something) and then clear coat over it. Any opinions? My original intent was to put ErnieBall MusicMan on the headstock but the one I found isn't "Sub1" correct and before I proceed any further, I thought it prudent to check with the big guns here.

Thanks for chiming in fellas...appreciate the advice. It's a confusing issue...for example, had I left the original black painted headstock, it would be a moot point but because I opted to match the flamed koa body to the headstock, did I lose the right to identify the origin of the guitar? After all, it's NOT a Warmoth or custom-creation. Still all Sub1 (granted, I did replace the pearl inlays with koa ones but the neck is still original). Here's the guitar for those who haven't seen it.

 

[DaPatrooch]

Well it's your guitar, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to do what you want to it. After all, it is still a Sub1. Beautiful job with that Koa btw.

 

[PeteDuBaldo]

Well I'm going to go the other way on that one - If it didn't leave the factory as a koa SUB1, don't stick an EBMM logo on it. Pickguard swaps and things of that nature are commonplace, but customization is not.

The grain on that guitar is spectacular, by the way.

 

[ScoobySteve]

I would definitely go ahead with CS on this one. I'm not sure, but there have been many cases where the EBMM logo has been asked to be removed once a guitar has been modified to a level where the original integrity of the instrument has been altered.

 

[SubMariner61]

For someone like me brought up during the 80's when just about everyone was modifying instruments, it's a confusing issue. I can definitely see the improper use of a logo for project guitars that have no connection to the factory but a retop is simply another stage of modification...not really different than repainting the guitar a different color. If someone changes the guitar's pickups, the original integrity of the instrument has been altered as well but nobody removes the headstock decal after installing new pickups. I think it's the "degree" to which this instrument has been upgraded that clouds the issue. From a legal standpoint, I would think the "degree" of modification isn't the issue; rather is the guitar body, neck, hardware of original origin and is the guitar being represented as a factory original?
For example, if I broke the headstock off my guitar and had to have it completely repaired, would applying a replacement logo on the repaired headstock be legal? After all, the body, neck remain original. When people put Kahlers on their Les Pauls during the 80's, they retained their Gibson logo. From my limited legal perspective, I would think since the neck, body and hardware remain original, the caveat if a decal was placed back on the headstock would be to avoid any representation that the guitar was built like this from the factory. That would definitely be a misrepresentation and something I would never partake in. I'll wait for BP to chime in when he gets a chance. I expect he can fully illustrate the logic behind any observation. Thanks guys!

 

[paranoid70]

I hope I don't piss any one off here, but my opinion is that since it's your guitar you can just about do what you want with it. If you put an EBMM logo... heck even a Gibson logo on the headstock and play it in your living room or the local pub, no one is going to submit a lawsuit against you. However, if you do try to sell it and pawn it off as something it's not, that's another story all together. But what do I know????

BTW, I love what you did to the guitar. Does it sound much different now?

 

[Spudmurphy]

I thought it prudent to check with the big guns here.
Thanks for chiming in fellas...appreciate the advice.

The big gun here would have to be Poppa himself.

I recollect seeing him comment before on this and I'll try and track that quote down. Poppa is VERY protective of his heritage and the EB family name logo/business that his father pioneered.

I'm sure he'll chip in.

 

[Spudmurphy]

Knucklehead Morbid has a great thread on his JP restoration project and I respectfully quote BP on a similar issue ....
BP quote"My problem with the logo is that it makes it like it came from the factory and I really cant have a homemade restoration that down the line may reflect on us. Sorry."BP end quote

 

[Sub1 Zero]

Not to detract from the topic at hand, but this is AMAZING!

 

[Luc]

I hope I don't piss any one off here, but my opinion is that since it's your guitar you can just about do what you want with it.

+1, but I have to say that people who put an EBMM decal on, for example, an OLP, are lame...but this IS a Music Man, so I think it deserves the decal. Plus your SUB is not a shame for the company, that SUB looks spectacular!

 

[SubMariner61]

Thanks for the comments on the guitar fellas. I wouldn't have a problem putting it on a stand next to any koa guitar I've ever owned (dozens) or ones I've seen over the years. The flame in real, when viewed with the eyes, is just insane. The koa dot inlays are a nice touch as well and believe it or not, get as many "thumbs up" as the body top. The Dimarzio Minibucker and Hot Mini sound amazing. Never would have thought I would like 'em but they really do crunch hard and work fantastic with high gain amps. No mud. Just enough sparkle to retain clarity even when the gain is dimed. If you've never tried a well-designed minibucker, I encourage you to give 'em a test-run. Lots of tones in there.
As for what the guitar represents, I sort of look at it as what a "BFR Sub1" might have looked like had money been no expense. I would NEVER sell this guitar representing it as a factory model because in all honesty, I've never seen a factory top with flamed koa like this and the flat top and body style obviously point to a Sub1. If I told you how much it cost to get this guitar to the current level, you would be It wasn't cheap. I believe it took a year to locate the bookmatched koa this flamed. Most bookmatched tops aren't mirrored like this, even my old PRS' from 20 years ago had average quality bookmatching...not really even or lined up.
Anyways, I respect all opinions about our beloved Music Mans and I absolutely, 100% consider this to be a Music Man guitar...it's just really an example of modifying something to the next level. If it had a Warmoth neck, no. If it had a MM neck but a Warmoth body, no. If it had a custom MM body and headstock, oh hell no. No decal.
But something inside of me says placing a logo on the headstock would not be falsely representing what the guitar is. It's a Sub1 with modifications...yet not having the logo doesn't change how it plays or how it looks. My only reason for wanting one is because I am proud of what the guitar was (hence, my screen name) and what it has become and it seems a shame for it to go through life without some sort of ode to its DNA. Again...same body, same neck...just a bit o' make-up. And I can understand wanting to protect the logo from any connection to a "homemade" restortation but the paint was done by Marty Bell (one of the world's finest guitar painters) and the top was hand-selected and carved by one of the best luthiers in the country. If I dropped by the Music Man shop with this guitar, I am sure the employees would give me an enthusiastic thumbs up...."awesome Sub!" I think they might say.
In all honesty, there is absolutely nothing done to this guitar that would diminish the brand however having said that, if 'Poppa disapproves, it will be my respect for the man and the company which will keep the headstock void of its original logo.

 

[RocketRalf]

BP would ask you not to. Maybe write SUB Custom on it, but don't place the EBMM logo because it's not that anymore.

 

[paranoid70]

I was jamming with a buddy yesterday. He usually plays a Strat, but yesterday he brought his 'Telecaster'. During a break he told me the Tele was really an old Japanese knock off.... but he put a Fender decal on the headstock. I couldn't really tell it was a decal until I got a real close look at it.

Anyway, I thought that was funny seeing as how this thread was started a few days ago.

 

[agt]

I believe we've seen that guitar before ... I think there was a thread. Out of curiosity, are you the one who modified it, or did you purchase it already modified? It sounds like you purchased it that way.

Whatever the outcome, I think it is cool that you are asking. Definitely the right thing to do.

Personally, I'd leave it the way it is. It's a one-of-a kind. If people inquire as to its heritage, you can explain. It's a great conversation starter.

 

[SubMariner61]

I purchased the guitar from a collector who bought it from the owner of a guitar shop near New York City. The owner did most of the work himself with the exception of the finish (performed by Marty Bell). It probably has less than 10 hours of use on it since I've been so horribly busy with work since I acquired it. Fret wear is non-existent. If memory serves me, I think there is more than $2,000 invested in the entire project. After purchase, I replaced the original mini pearl dots with the koa wood inlays and have a few other minute mods waiting when I eventually get around to it (rosewood tuner buttons to match the fingerboard) and new Ringo knobs (chrome w/ amber tops). Other than that, will keep it as is. With or without any decal, it's as good as any of the nearly 400 guitars I've owned since 1979. Truly a gorgeous Sub; in person...the koa flame is ridiculous. It's almost as if you can stick your finger into it, it's so three dimensional.

 

[e.mate]

The decal question appeared several times already on the forum....unfortunately, I can't get hold of one right now

But I definitely remember Big Poppa clearly stating, that it's not permitted to copy or reproduce an EBMM logo for a "remade" decal Don't do do it, someone will be extremely pi**ed off.

I'll have a look again...if I find it, I will coppy the entry here...

 

[e.mate]

It's been a busy summer and I haven't had much time to stop by but after 30 minutes with the search engine, I feel it would probably serve me best to create a thread and ask directly....would placing a waterslide decal on my Sub1's headstock be considered a trademark infringement?

I found the quote....please read from here to there.

I#m sorry that I found it, but don't want to get you in trouble