Fender’s Legal War: A Copyright Lawyer Explains

Comments · 78

• IS

  @ismsisto · 1 month ago

  There&apos;s a book called &quot;Fender, the inside story&quot; written by Forrest White, he was fender&apos;s first sales manager and a personal friend of Leo Fender. In the book there&apos;s a chapter for the strat (2024 reprint, page 81) where he states:<br> &quot;Leo Fender applied for a PATENT August 30 1954, for the tremolo unit which included the six section adjustable bridge and the 45 degree angle jack receptacle. Patent #2.741.146 was granted April 10 1956. Surprisingly enough THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE SHAPE OR CONTOUR OF THE BODY FOR THE STRATOCASTER. Body contour was first mentioned along with the offset waist, in patent #2.960.900 which was for the jazzmaster body. This patent was not filed until the late date of January 13 1958 and it was granted November 22 1960.&quot;<br><br>So, not only there is no mention of copyright protection ever being requested, but were filed were patent requests (which protect practical designs, not artistic expression and they expire in 20 years). Plus none of those patents for the strat even mention body shape! The guy who wrote it was working for Fender as the strat was being designed.<br><br>On another note, why is it that every time I have seen a lawyer talk about this case on YT, it&apos;s always a U.S. lawyer and not a German one? They always get some things wrong about EU laws. Even this guy, as well informed as he is, on a couple occasions said: I don&apos;t know how this specific thing works so let&apos;s assume it works the same way as in U.S. copyright law. <br>I think it hinders the conversation a bit because we never get the full picture of the legal concepts that really apply here.

  14

• MI

  @michaelfox1432 · 1 month ago

  In 2009, the US Patent Office ruled that Fender could not trademark the Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Precision Bass body shapes because those outlines had become generic and are public domain in the US. &nbsp;So that same Chinese company might not be able to sell guitars in Germany, but they can in the US. &nbsp;Can they actually stop somebody in Germany from buying a guitar made in China through Alibaba, that looks like a Strat?

  5

• SI

  @SirReal-v1d · 1 month ago

  Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is then under U.S. law, copyright arises upon creation of a work. Creation means that one’s expression is placed into a fixed, tangible medium, e.g. onto paper or a recording. In other words, you don’t “copyright” a work (copyright is a noun, not a verb). The copyright thus arises automatically by law when the work is fixed into a tangible medium, My further understanding is that the purpose of copyright registration with the copyright office at the Library of Congress is that registration is a prerequisite to filing a legal action to protect your copyright.

  1

• PA

  @paultaylor2968 · 1 month ago

  Best explanation yet by I guy who is very knowledgeable and eloquent in his delivery of information

• MO

  @ModularMemories · 1 month ago (edited)

  Love that his background is a giant bass amp! &nbsp;And I have 5 Ibanez instruments. &nbsp;I would more likely buy another than ever buy a Fender.

  1

• HY

  @hypnoticGrill · 1 month ago

  Thomann will win, Fender will burn, the universe will be in balance again

  9

• AN

  @anna-consultant · 1 month ago

  Professor Linford and Jeff hit on the absolute crux of this global dispute around <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKtgxia3Viw&amp;t=66">01:06</a>: Fender built this entire European enforcement wave off a single default judgment against an unrepresented foreign/Chinese seller.<br><br>As an international IP consultant, I see this exact scenario across manufacturing sectors: an overseas supplier ignores a German or US court summons because they don&apos;t understand the jurisdiction, leading to an uncontested default ruling. Giant corporations then take that default precedent, bypass the rigorous &apos;expression vs. functionality&apos; test, and weaponize it with €250,000 demand letters to freeze entire distribution networks like Thomann/Harley Benton.<br><br>In cross-border manufacturing, letting a foreign lawsuit default isn&apos;t just one supplier&apos;s loss—it puts the entire OEM ecosystem at risk. Masterclass breakdown of IP strategy and industrial design law!

  3

• WI

  @willbanksiii · 1 month ago (edited)

  a lot of rude Fender drones in these comments. he didn&apos;t have to give his viewpoint on this, but he did for free, and ya&apos;ll are being butthurt about it. this was a great perspective that I had not thought about. also: people saying he is &quot;ignorant&quot; of EU law missed the part where he literally said (paraphrasing) that he was treating this like US law. i appreciate your video Jeff and appreciate professor Linford&apos;s time to give his thoughts.

• ON

  @oneanother1 · 1 month ago

  Fender needs a reality check. 😂

  4

• NE

  @nethbt · 1 month ago (edited)

  &quot;Gimme Royalties or I&apos;ll give you Death&quot;--- Fender

• TO

  @tommyd688 · 1 month ago

  This is B.S. from the get go.. &nbsp;The judgment was a default judgment not based on the facts of the claim but based on the fact the defendant did not show up.

  5

• MR

  @MrAmptech · 1 month ago (edited)

  Fenders misuse of the terms &quot;Tremolo&quot; and &quot;Vibrato&quot; come from Leo not wanting to pay to use the designs he had for Volume Modulation =Tremolo and Pitch Modulation = Vibrato. &nbsp;Danelectro and Premier were first to have an amp with a tremolo circuit. &nbsp;There were many different Vibrato&apos;s before the Stratocaster came out with its misnamed vibrato.