That's because they publicly say they are a tribute band. Concert announcements say they are tribute bands. Big difference.
Legal battle over ukulele orchestra name
- Thread starter Kmetzger
- Start date
Rick Turner
Well-known member
We are living in a time and age when Intellectual Property is seen as a thing to steal, and it's been going on so long that the moral compass of the IP universe has lost it's magnetic North Pole.
gtomatt
Well-known member
Probably even rarer for the cover band to do a Super Bowl commercial with the originals (cover band site http://www.minikisses.com)
Check it out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibbfvx_K58o
Pukulele Pete
Well-known member
Are we at a point where everything has been done and now can only be repeated ?
RichM
Well-known member
The one thing I'll agree with here is the issue of timeliness. Again, I'm not familiar with UK law, but in the US, you are required to actively pursue infringement on your IP; failure to do so may be interpreted by courts as indifference. A great example is the Fender Stratocaster. Fender failed to protect this design, and endless knock-offs that were virtually identical were produced. Many years later, Fender attempted to gain protection for their design, but were denied in court. Among the reasons cited was that the Stratocaster design was now so common, it was no longer associated specifically with Fender.
CeeJay
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,214
- Reaction score
- 426
Are we saying then that people cannot distinguish the difference in words and letters so that to these poor souls the words :
Ukulele Orchestra Of Great Britain is so similar in wording and impossible to define from The United Kingdom Ukulele Orchestra , I mean really ....is that the claim...........??
These poor benighted souls....commmme onnnnnnn....if people are really that dopey that they cannot tell the difference well phhh......
The UOGB are just trying it on because they have a valid rival ...and I don't care if TUKUO have copied their so called style and format.....evry single pop band since the creation of pop/rock bands have done so ...drum, bass, guitar, singer .......
I still am shaking my head in disbelief at this one ....and it's even worse over on the Ukulele Cosmos '
cos they have got their knickers in a right old twist over there !!
Ukulele Orchestra Of Great Britain is so similar in wording and impossible to define from The United Kingdom Ukulele Orchestra , I mean really ....is that the claim...........??
These poor benighted souls....commmme onnnnnnn....if people are really that dopey that they cannot tell the difference well phhh......
The UOGB are just trying it on because they have a valid rival ...and I don't care if TUKUO have copied their so called style and format.....evry single pop band since the creation of pop/rock bands have done so ...drum, bass, guitar, singer .......
I still am shaking my head in disbelief at this one ....and it's even worse over on the Ukulele Cosmos '
cos they have got their knickers in a right old twist over there !!
Rick Turner
Well-known member
CeeJay, you make my point exactly. You're so far divorced from understanding the very concept of Intellectual Property than you don't even see that there might be a problem here. You might want to read up on this, and here's a place to start: http://www.tmweb.com/trademark_guide.asp
RichM
Well-known member
Absolutely, it's different. The essence of Intellectual Property law is uniqueness. Symphony orchestras are not unique; they are common, no entity claims to own a patent or trademark on symphony orchestras, and no court would grant one, as the concept of a symphony orchestra is not unique. So the instrumentation, presentation, musical program, etc probably cannot be protected under IP law. Some things CAN be protected: a logo, the design of materials, the name. Start a new outfit and call it the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and you'll hear from their lawyers.
By the same token, is a guitar unique? No--the concept of a guitar is common, and nobody can say "I own the rights to making guitars." However, a specific design *is* unique and can be protected. Fender failed to protect the Stratocaster design, and as result it became common and it could no longer be protected when Fender decided they didn't like being copies. However, companies like Gibson and Rickenbacker have been like hawks in protecting their unique designs, and as a result, copying a Les Paul or a Rickenbacker 360 will no doubt cause you legal pain.
Is a ukulele orchestra that plays covers of pop tunes with snarky humor while wearing evening dress unique? That's the question the courts will need to decide, and the answer probably isn't simple. But one thing they will look at is whether this type of combo was common prior to UOGB (I don't think it was) and whether UOGB's style is unique enough to deserve protection.
Rick Turner
Well-known member
I, for better or worse...mostly better, have some legal experience in these matters having been an expert witness in an IP deposition (Gibson vs. Brian Moore Guitars) where I demonstrated that one of the key points in the suit...a patent...was basically invalid as I had designed, made, and sold guitars that had the "protected" feature ten years before the patent was issued. Later on came a similar "I did it first and sold or published" situation with Larry Fishman getting tweaked about a D-TAR pickup I designed...and he patented too late. And more recently, I've been involved in the Rickenbacker vs. Lollar rumble over the use of a design...the "Double Horseshoe Pickup" on which the patent expired around 1953 or so, yet Rickenbacker attempted to protect via TradeMark...which is not supposed to cover functional aspects of a design. I've also sold my interest in one patent and assigned another...to Gibson.
I do not believe in the piracy ensuing from the "information wants to be free" movement which strips worthy creators of their rights and ability to earn a decent living. Yes, IP laws can be too restrictive of creativity. So change the laws, but keep a modicum of protection.
What the upstart band is doing is similar to Internet trolling. And as I said, I'll bet there's a back story there. Someone is trying to stick it to someone for reasons nobody is talking about.
I do not believe in the piracy ensuing from the "information wants to be free" movement which strips worthy creators of their rights and ability to earn a decent living. Yes, IP laws can be too restrictive of creativity. So change the laws, but keep a modicum of protection.
What the upstart band is doing is similar to Internet trolling. And as I said, I'll bet there's a back story there. Someone is trying to stick it to someone for reasons nobody is talking about.
Oh my goodness.
Nickie
Well-known member
You can say that again....
I agree with you that inventions like pick ups etc. designs and their creators should be protected - but a name only without much else seems not much to go by in my view.
CeeJay
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,214
- Reaction score
- 426
And you sir are so divorced from decent manners that you refuse to acknowledge the right for any body else to have an informed opinion.
Do not presume to lecture me on the concept of "Intellectual Property" I am perfectly aware of what that entails.
Why is it that some members of this forum feel that they have the right to be rude ..and when others appear to have a robust response or retort they are defined as "haters" and have the moderators called down on them ?
My point was about the seemingly intellectually feeble ability of those to read a booking form and say to themselves, these are not UOGB these are TUKUO I want to see the UOGB...
much like if the guitar I had in my hand did not say Fender and Stratocaster then I would be fairly to bang on certain that it was a copy made by somebody else.....especially if it had Vintage or Wilkinson on the headstock......and if unsure ..well I would double check..
Why is it even important to you over there ?
Jon Moody
Well-known member
Just saw this hit my FB feed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-33363229
Looks like the UOGB won its case.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-33363229
Looks like the UOGB won its case.
Icelander53
Well-known member
Pathetic....,.,,..//.';khyfyieiy5euy5®∑sutyc tvyh[0uim"PL:
Down Up Dick
Well-known member
Good for the UOGB. I like 'em a lot. It's a shame that the other orch was trying to cash in on their name. ld:
ld:
Icelander53
Well-known member
How exactly do you know that? I think the whole thing is a pathetic slur on the uke and what it means to the average ukulele player who plays not for gain but for joy. You know I hate to say it but bottom line for most all humans is MONEY. Once money is involved who cares about anything else. I've been that way in my life. It sucks so much I can't express it adequately. Money will be the end of us all and it likely won't be long now so get out that uke an play something. :music: That's what I plan for today (and tomorrow and tomorrow)
Last edited:
Jon Moody
Well-known member
The article states that the guy that started the "other" group originally wanted to franchise the UOGB, and once they said no, created his own. Plus, they conceded originally that they knew naming the group that similarly would dilute the UOGB brand and cause confusion.
This really has nothing to do with the ukulele at all. It's professional musicians trying to protect their livelihood, which frankly many people - who play strictly for joy, or just music fans in general - don't understand.
RichM
Well-known member
Agree completely. This is about somebody's livelihood. These people created something unique and special and have every right (and in some cases, a legal obligation) to protect it.
Steveperrywriter
Well-known member
So, what can we use to replace money? Money is already a replacement for barter, which only works at the village level. People have to make a living ...
Similar threads
Song Help Request
Legal advice
