Mbira
Well-known member
I understand, Sahib. Thanks! That must make the job of designer even that much more difficult!
Putting UREI on front panels
- Thread starter onlymeeee
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
sahib
Well-known member
You are most welcome Mbira.
John,
It's great to get info from the first hand. You certainly have been round the block. In terms of Class D I have practical examples that were published in magazines going back to late 60s /early 70s, therefore you are probably right that it is a public domain to a degree. I think I'll look up the ones still under patent. Now, in terms of coming up with something new? I wish I could. It is the deep end of the water for me I am afraid.
John,
It's great to get info from the first hand. You certainly have been round the block. In terms of Class D I have practical examples that were published in magazines going back to late 60s /early 70s, therefore you are probably right that it is a public domain to a degree. I think I'll look up the ones still under patent. Now, in terms of coming up with something new? I wish I could. It is the deep end of the water for me I am afraid.
For Class D I like Bruno Putzey's work.. but there are several flavors to pick from.
You can't know if you come up with something new unless you know what's been done before.
Brad has far more hands on with class D than me. I am thinking of maybe doing something crude for my battery powered tuner but I don't need much performance to make low freq sine waves.
JR
You can't know if you come up with something new unless you know what's been done before.
Brad has far more hands on with class D than me. I am thinking of maybe doing something crude for my battery powered tuner but I don't need much performance to make low freq sine waves.
JR
NewYorkDave
Well-known member
Norman Crowhurst patented a Class-D amplifier design 40+ years ago. The concept itself was described as far back as the '50s or late 1940s.
rrs
Well-known member
Ptownkid said:
Well if it's say a SSL Clone I wouldn't be taking credit for it by putting my own label on it.
If it's for personal use why not identify it more correctly by labling it as a SSL Mixbuss Compressor or SSL Clone.
If it's for comercial sale then then it's wrong to be copying the design in the first place isn't it.
okgb
Well-known member
or marking it in a way that makes it obvious it is not the original
[ or trying to pass it off as such ]
i put the word " Custom " on some of my builds along with my name and the product reference
[ or trying to pass it off as such ]
i put the word " Custom " on some of my builds along with my name and the product reference
Hello everyone,
I apologize for my ignorance, but how does purple audio sell any of their gear. Especially the MC76 and 77. They are all modified clones. Even seventh circle, they tell you what their preamps are modeled after. I agree I think it is wrong to put someone else's logo on your own gear even if it is a clone, but how do so many companies sell cloned gear?
I apologize for my ignorance, but how does purple audio sell any of their gear. Especially the MC76 and 77. They are all modified clones. Even seventh circle, they tell you what their preamps are modeled after. I agree I think it is wrong to put someone else's logo on your own gear even if it is a clone, but how do so many companies sell cloned gear?
matta
Well-known member
casrec said:
Many of the designs are now in public domain, but the NAMES are not, there are many companies making 'Pultec' types clones, but none of them dare call it a 'Pultec EQ', likewise the MC77 does not infringe on either the UREI or 1176 trademarks.
RE using name in DIY gear get freaking original! I called my 1176 clone the 711 FET Compressor, my LA-2A is called the Series 2 Leveling Amp, all have funky panels, with some throw backs to the model they modded on but half the fun is making ti your own!
I like EMRR have no problems using the logos and name of RACKED gear from manufactures, I have Telefunken and Quad Eight modules I've racked and the panels dictate it as such, because, well, they are...
I also can only sumize that if you infringe on a trademark/patent by putting a logo onto a piece of DIY gear it can only be to trick clients or you have low self esteem that your work isn't good enough to be deemed 'original'.
Cheers
Matt
Hello Matt,
I agree with you on the names and logos, but my question is, is it legal to sell clones of now public designs,(i.e. 1176, pultec's and even a lot of Neve designs) if renamed and cosmetically redesigned. A lot of people here say it is absolutely not legal, but if this is the case maybe you or someone else can answer how Purple audio, seventh circle, brent averill, vintech audio, aurora audio and countless others sell there gear and even set up booths at AES? It looks to me that they are using public designs, changing it cosmetically slightly if at all and changing the name. All in all this looks to be legal.
Thanks,
Brandon
I agree with you on the names and logos, but my question is, is it legal to sell clones of now public designs,(i.e. 1176, pultec's and even a lot of Neve designs) if renamed and cosmetically redesigned. A lot of people here say it is absolutely not legal, but if this is the case maybe you or someone else can answer how Purple audio, seventh circle, brent averill, vintech audio, aurora audio and countless others sell there gear and even set up booths at AES? It looks to me that they are using public designs, changing it cosmetically slightly if at all and changing the name. All in all this looks to be legal.
Thanks,
Brandon
Mbira
Well-known member
A public design means the copyright is expired
sahib
Well-known member
casrec said:
As far as I know yes it is. As you stated as long as the cosmetics is not a 100% copy of the original which is still under copyright. At the end of the day everybody is using third party components such as VUs, switches, potentiometers etc. Laying them out in a particular configuration what makes it a copyrighted design. Swap places of these and refrain from using the trademark logo or name you will be fine. Even a slight change in cosmetics can make it a new design as long as you prove that it constitutes a significant design statement.
Two things have got to be distinguished. A patented design and a registered design.
A patented design is a process or a method that has not been done before. After a period of time this registration runs out and this process or method becomes public domain. A good example now is Dyson. He has been arguing his pants off, saying that how come my patent runs out in my own life time when a song can still be under copyright 70 years after the death of its writer?
Therefore if a patent on a method or process runs out then you can produce products that are based on that process or method. However, there is the thin line. You can not produce a product that is 100% identical to the original product. Because you are now in the teritory of cosmetics to which a design rights apply. If you design something, even if you do not register it, it is your copyright and nobody can take that right from you. At the end of the day the design registration is just a proof that you designed it.
In my view the only reason that companies who own the rights of designs such as Neve are not bothered is because they have no commercial interest in those designs. But if you put out a 100% copy of a new Urei or any other product they'll come after you.
sahib said:
So,
just for the sake of asking, if I were to use the mnats 1176, and gyraf's pulteq clones with their consent and purchasing their boards obviously, which to me the schematic, layout, method and parts are different, and used different knobs, colors and logos, this should separate me enough to be legitimately legal? And really I just want to sell a few on ebay and to some studio friends of mine. I love assembling this kind of stuff. It's like erector sets for audio nerds. I like to try and figure out the math and I think i have cool ideas for cosmetic designs. And i would love a chance for smaller studios to be able to afford this gear even if it is clones.
Brandon
Mbira
Well-known member
NO!!!!
You are using someone elses artwork and layout-which is their property. Directly on the Gyraf site:
You are using someone elses artwork and layout-which is their property. Directly on the Gyraf site:
sahib
Well-known member
In my wiev, if you have their blessing then it becomes obvious that you can be safe . But it is your responsibility to check that both clones do not infringe any design rights in terms of electronic circuitry.
Now in terms of trademarks;
Pulteq is a variation of Pultec and yes we all know that it was intended to remind us Pultec but I do not think there is anything anybody can do about it. Years ago I came across a SONY amplifer but when I looked at it carefully it was actually SQNY. Now if Sony can not do anything about it then we can firmly establish that Gyraf is safe.
But the mark 1176 has a significant and well established design statement. Not only it represents a particular equipment, but also a particular sound and period. Now, I did not study mants' clone but if it is based on the 1176 in terms of topology then there is a possibility that you might be challenged by whoever owns the rights to 1176. Think of DBX 900 and Aphex 9000 systems, both of which are based on the same standard. I do not know who brought it out first but I bet this point was discussed before the second one came out, and they called it either 900 or 9000. I might of course be completely wrong. But the analogy is appropriate. Therefore I would refrain using the mark 1176 commercially. Call it 1167 or somethinmg like that. A lot of people using it does not make it right or wrong but in the hands of a good lawyer it is more likely to go my way.
These are of course my own views based on my past experiences and should not be taken as legally accurate. But then again it only becomes legally accurate once a court decision has been reached.
Now in terms of trademarks;
Pulteq is a variation of Pultec and yes we all know that it was intended to remind us Pultec but I do not think there is anything anybody can do about it. Years ago I came across a SONY amplifer but when I looked at it carefully it was actually SQNY. Now if Sony can not do anything about it then we can firmly establish that Gyraf is safe.
But the mark 1176 has a significant and well established design statement. Not only it represents a particular equipment, but also a particular sound and period. Now, I did not study mants' clone but if it is based on the 1176 in terms of topology then there is a possibility that you might be challenged by whoever owns the rights to 1176. Think of DBX 900 and Aphex 9000 systems, both of which are based on the same standard. I do not know who brought it out first but I bet this point was discussed before the second one came out, and they called it either 900 or 9000. I might of course be completely wrong. But the analogy is appropriate. Therefore I would refrain using the mark 1176 commercially. Call it 1167 or somethinmg like that. A lot of people using it does not make it right or wrong but in the hands of a good lawyer it is more likely to go my way.
These are of course my own views based on my past experiences and should not be taken as legally accurate. But then again it only becomes legally accurate once a court decision has been reached.
Mbira said:
OK, I am not trying to be a pain but this is striking my curiosity! I am confused about a few things, first people do sell PCB's and kits on this site. Have you had a look in the black lab. Is this some don't ask don't tell situation to protect this site. Second, in my research sahib is right, when a patent or schematic is up, it is public domain. You just can't use the artistic expression used in the COSMETIC LAYOUT if still being used and produced the rightful owner. Thirdly, if it is absolutely wrong to commercially sell clones, then why are there about 25 possibly even more companies doing just this and so publicly?
trancedental
Well-known member
Companies that register & copyright their ideas & work including electronics & cosmetic designs have to issue legal injunctions & warnings against those carrying out potential infringments of their products. You have to do this regularly & in many countries to establish your rights against others that would use your designs.
Some companies have failed to do this on a regular basis at certain times in the past & have basically let their designs be used by others making very similar products by failure to take legal action against those that copy their work.
For above read the Fender Stratocaster / Gibson Les Paul ect, both companies failed to police & take action against the many copies of their guitars which were made from the 1960's onwards in the far east & sold to Europe & North America. So these companies can't now claim to have the rights to the design of these guitars even though they are originally their exact product
Compare the actions of Gibson & Fender to Rickenbacker a smaller company who actually don't hesitate to take action against those who sell copies of their instruments, which means serving legal notice against shops / traders & getting EBay & other internet adverts cancelled.
;D On the other hand there is the subject of Behringer? :
Some companies have failed to do this on a regular basis at certain times in the past & have basically let their designs be used by others making very similar products by failure to take legal action against those that copy their work.
For above read the Fender Stratocaster / Gibson Les Paul ect, both companies failed to police & take action against the many copies of their guitars which were made from the 1960's onwards in the far east & sold to Europe & North America. So these companies can't now claim to have the rights to the design of these guitars even though they are originally their exact product
Compare the actions of Gibson & Fender to Rickenbacker a smaller company who actually don't hesitate to take action against those who sell copies of their instruments, which means serving legal notice against shops / traders & getting EBay & other internet adverts cancelled.
;D On the other hand there is the subject of Behringer? :
sahib
Well-known member
Copyright is your right and strictly speaking it does not run out. Registering a design is only a proof that you designed it. You come up with a design and copyright it. A year later you bump into my own design which is pretty much the same as your design. If I prove that I designed it and commercially used before you copyrighted your design, you are up a gum tree. Your copyright does not mean a thing. I can not stop you using your design and you can not stop me using my design. If we had nothing better to do and a hobby of making lawyers rich we would argue in courts until the cows come home.
@casrec,
My understanding about this forum is that it is all about DIY and not for commercial use. If a person or persons using them for commercial purpose then it is not the community's repsonsibility to police it. And also I do not think there is any don't ask or don't tell going on here.
I hope I did not get you wrong but you are wrong on the change of the cosmetic layout. There is nothing wrong in changing the cosmetic layout of an existing design, as long as you are not copying 100% and what you come up with has also its own design statement. Part of my business is also in modelmaking and I have made probably over 1000 architectural models in the past 25 years and each and every one of them were influenced by other designs. This is part of how we develop things. Have a look at mixing consoles, more or less they all have the same design layout.
I just would like to repeat what PRR said. There is nothing much new in audio electronics and you can only do so much diferent variation of a design topology. It has now got to the stage that all roads lead to Rome. Therefore I think there is a mutual undertsanding among the audio manufacturers in terms of the influence on each other's products. May be that is why other 25 or so companies are able to get away with it, or may be they are paying royalty, I really don't know. But what wrong would be is to copy 100% of somebody else's design and/or put their registered trademark onto your commercial product.
@casrec,
My understanding about this forum is that it is all about DIY and not for commercial use. If a person or persons using them for commercial purpose then it is not the community's repsonsibility to police it. And also I do not think there is any don't ask or don't tell going on here.
I hope I did not get you wrong but you are wrong on the change of the cosmetic layout. There is nothing wrong in changing the cosmetic layout of an existing design, as long as you are not copying 100% and what you come up with has also its own design statement. Part of my business is also in modelmaking and I have made probably over 1000 architectural models in the past 25 years and each and every one of them were influenced by other designs. This is part of how we develop things. Have a look at mixing consoles, more or less they all have the same design layout.
I just would like to repeat what PRR said. There is nothing much new in audio electronics and you can only do so much diferent variation of a design topology. It has now got to the stage that all roads lead to Rome. Therefore I think there is a mutual undertsanding among the audio manufacturers in terms of the influence on each other's products. May be that is why other 25 or so companies are able to get away with it, or may be they are paying royalty, I really don't know. But what wrong would be is to copy 100% of somebody else's design and/or put their registered trademark onto your commercial product.
Mbira
Well-known member
casrec said:
sigh...search around and also read this thread more closely-especially Sahibs posts which I think you misunderstood. Others will chime in, this has been talked about tons of time-google maljokes. You mentioned getting permission from Jakob or Mnats to see stuff on ebay-good luck with that.
Mbira
Well-known member
It was said earlier that old tube amp designs are now public domain-doesn't that mean that after a certain amount of time, the copyright on a design DOES run out?
There are three different things being talked about here, right?
1. the circuit itself
2) the layout of the circuit
3) layout of the exterior chassis
All three have their own 'copyright' or trademark, or whatever protection, right?
My understanding of this conversation is:
lots of these older circuits are out of copyright and/or the parts are o longer available so are being made now with different parts and so are 'legal' to make now.
New circuit layouts of old designs are still protected (like new Fender amps, Gyraf, and Mnats stuff)
Exterior chassis are protected with trademark for the business logos, etc so should be changed for new designs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
There are three different things being talked about here, right?
1. the circuit itself
2) the layout of the circuit
3) layout of the exterior chassis
All three have their own 'copyright' or trademark, or whatever protection, right?
My understanding of this conversation is:
lots of these older circuits are out of copyright and/or the parts are o longer available so are being made now with different parts and so are 'legal' to make now.
New circuit layouts of old designs are still protected (like new Fender amps, Gyraf, and Mnats stuff)
Exterior chassis are protected with trademark for the business logos, etc so should be changed for new designs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Look, i don't think i misunderstood. I'm not trying to rip anyone off, or steal designs. I am just curious to the legalities of all of this. I would like nothing more then to sit in my workspace and build gear and make a modest living. I would love to make Mnats 1176's and sell them for around 1000usd. I'm not going to make and sell them without his consent. I do think it is a great, flexible, customizable design. I think I have good front panel designs that our similar but distinguishable from UA and that also have functionality differences that could also be customizable. My original question was how companies sell clones. And they tell you what they our cloning. Take Purple audio MC76, 77. Either they are paying royalties like sahib said or the design is up for grabs. Seventh Circle, Brent Averell, Vintech audio, Aurora audio, A Designs, Tubetech, Greatriver and many, many more are all either cloning or basing their circuitry off other gear. Not only that but most of there gear has the same look as the original.
