More from the legal side of large guitar companies. It's Taylor this time.

[Light]

Taylor has, in essence, given a cease and desist order to the privately owned "Taylor Guitar Forum." He has decided that he doesn't want them using the name Taylor on there website anymore. They can maintain the website, talk about the guitars, and even talk about the company, but they can not use the name Taylor.

Gibson is taking legal action against another guitar company. Taylor is taking legal action against their most vocal and ardent fans. I think the only thing Martin can do to keep up with the trend is to sue themselves. But that is just the cynic in me talking.

Again, we are a Taylor warranty center, so I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to give opinions on the issue.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Ed Dixon]

To some extent, the same thing happened to the PRS forum. Up until a few months ago it had somethintg like 7000 members. It is now closed.

The general feeling is that PRS put some pressure on the person who ran it. They disliked the ability for users to discuss what they paid for their PRS guitars at various locations. There appeared to be some other issues as well. In any event, the forum closed.

Ed

 

[reel buzzer]

Just throwin' it out there huh? I love it. So you're saying that Taylor thinks the private forum is making a profit from his brand without compensation or permission? If so then I understand his case. Is that the deal?

 

[shredfit]

LOL!

Perhaps Gates(Microsoft) will buy Gibson/PRS/Martin ... move all American prodution to State and Federal Correctional facilities... and then offer these guitar lines at Wal-Mart...

Hmmm?

 

[Light]

Just throwin' it out there huh? I love it. So you're saying that Taylor thinks the private forum is making a profit from his brand without compensation or permission? If so then I understand his case. Is that the deal?

I not saying anything, just posting a little news about the guitar comunity.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[juststartingout]

Well, it is there name and they should be able to decide how it is used. Someone doesn't have to profit from it, they could use it and have a detrimental affect on their product. I can understand their position.

Look at it this way, if you wrote a song, and a neo-natzi group used it as a rally cry, you would want to stop them from using it. Now, that is an extreme example, and I am sure that the Taylor discussion group probably didn't hurt Taylor's sales or name, but they should have asked.

It could be that Taylor contacted them and asked them to not use their name and the person running the discussion group may have told them to f*ck-off. You just never know what all the circumstances are.

Light, I am really surprised at your attitude on these copyright type issues. I am sure if you came up with an idea, say notching an accoustic a certain way to get a flawless sound, and copyrighted it, and someone else used it without talking to you or paying you for that idea, you would want to go after them. I know I certainly would.

I have my own business and I know I will do whatever it takes to protect my name. If someone called me and told me they wanted to use my name and what they wanted to use it for, it would be no problem, I can tell them no at that point. But if they didn't ask and just used it, that's a different story.

Oh well, that's just my opinion.

 

[dwillis45]

I don't know the exact circumstances behind the Taylor dispute, but nothing suprises me anymore. Donald Trump wants to copyright the phrase, "you're fired." Ralph Lauren sues anyone who uses the name Polo, even riding clubs or magazines that focus on the sport. And Fox news recently claimed that they own the term, "fair and balanced."

 

[acorec]

Well, it is there name and they should be able to decide how it is used. Someone doesn't have to profit from it, they could use it and have a detrimental affect on their product. I can understand their position.

Look at it this way, if you wrote a song, and a neo-natzi group used it as a rally cry, you would want to stop them from using it. Now, that is an extreme example, and I am sure that the Taylor discussion group probably didn't hurt Taylor's sales or name, but they should have asked.

It could be that Taylor contacted them and asked them to not use their name and the person running the discussion group may have told them to f*ck-off. You just never know what all the circumstances are.

Light, I am really surprised at your attitude on these copyright type issues. I am sure if you came up with an idea, say notching an accoustic a certain way to get a flawless sound, and copyrighted it, and someone else used it without talking to you or paying you for that idea, you would want to go after them. I know I certainly would.

I have my own business and I know I will do whatever it takes to protect my name. If someone called me and told me they wanted to use my name and what they wanted to use it for, it would be no problem, I can tell them no at that point. But if they didn't ask and just used it, that's a different story.

Oh well, that's just my opinion.

OK. Let's see how it will work in the future of guitar forums:


Post: Hi, I have a guitar and need a pickup. Does anyone have a recommendation?

The stock one(s) don't sound good.


Ans: What kind of guitar do you have?

Poster: A black one with six tuners and three knobs, 1 - 5-way switch, you know THAT one.

Ans: Oh THAT one, I see. You know, you could go with the $50 ones, three to be exact from YOU KNOW WHERE.


Poster: Oh, man, I never thought of THEM.

Ans: I thought you would like THEM. There are others from THE OTHER GUYS too. Highly recommended also.

Poster: Thanks man. I knew you would come through.

 

[onlyfingers]

J.R. Rogers explains what happened in the first page of the forum. In the Taylor company, they might be saying "live and learn." It sounds to me that the authorised use of the Talor name and logo gave people he idea that the forum was run by Taylor. I'm with juststartingout. A business's name is an asset worth protecting, and you have to control it to protect it.

Apparently, Rogers did the right thing from the beginning, and got official permission to use the name and logo. And when permission had to be rescinded, it sounds like Taylor did the right thing by calling a meeting of those involved and talking it through. (Taylor could have sicced the lawyers on Rogers, and sent an ugly official document. It sounds like Rogers intends to keep the forum going. If both parties continue speaking with each other, the re-naming of the forum can happen in a way doesn't leave forum participants (and future forum participants) high and dry.

http://www.taylorforum.com/

 

[Aaron Cheney]

After reading the explanation of the circumstances posted at the forum, I think both sides are being reasonable. J.R. Rogers explains that he is disappointed that the forum is changing, but understanding of Taylor's position. Taylor is working to protect their brand identity, and who can blame them. Both parties are dealing with the change in a measured, cooperative, busines-like, non-letigious manner.

Bottom line.... no issue.



A
www.aaroncheney.com

 

[Light]

Well, it is there name and they should be able to decide how it is used. Someone doesn't have to profit from it, they could use it and have a detrimental affect on their product. I can understand their position.

Look at it this way, if you wrote a song, and a neo-natzi group used it as a rally cry, you would want to stop them from using it. Now, that is an extreme example, and I am sure that the Taylor discussion group probably didn't hurt Taylor's sales or name, but they should have asked.

They did ask. They have been operating with Taylor’s permission for four years, and have been very helpful to Taylor's business. The place is run by people who are fanatical fans of Taylor’s guitars, and even though Taylor had no input into the content of the site, the sites owners would regularly edit or remove posts which had negative views about Taylor in them.

Light, I am really surprised at your attitude on these copyright type issues.

This and the Gibson thing are NOT copyright issues, but trademark issues. Also, aside from one rather obviously sarcastic line about Martin suing themselves, I have not expressed any opinions. I have provided facts for other to discuss about relevant current events. I have a business relationship with both Gibson and Taylor. It would be quite inappropriate for me to state any opinions.

I have my own business and I know I will do whatever it takes to protect my name.

We go to amazing lengths to protect our name. I absolutely understand that part of it.

If someone called me and told me they wanted to use my name and what they wanted to use it for, it would be no problem, I can tell them no at that point. But if they didn't ask and just used it, that's a different story.

As I said, the Taylor Guitar Board did ask, and received, permission.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[Light]

And Fox news recently claimed that they own the term, "fair and balanced."

And the judge laughed them out of court. No kidding, he called it the most ridiculous piece of litigation he had ever seen. But that is an unrelated issue, as Al Franken's book was a satire, which is specifically protected speech.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[juststartingout]

I think the lesson here is that we have far to many lawyers in this country, with way too much time on their hands. When I here stories of people riding buses all day, hoping they get in an accident so they can sue, and see comercials on TV that say, come to us and we will sue whoever you want at no cost to you, I just have to shake my head and wonder what things will be like in 20 years.