|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2015 16:39:29 GMT -6
AFAIK, it's legal to copy a design "verbatim" for personal use. Not at all! There was special legislation that created a "right" to copy commercially released music for personal use. It doesn't apply to any other form of intellectual property or even spoken word recordings. |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jun 28, 2015 16:45:17 GMT -6
AFAIK, it's legal to copy a design "verbatim" for personal use. Not at all! There was special legislation that created a "right" to copy commercially released music for personal use. It doesn't apply to any other form of intellectual property or even spoken word recordings. I'm racking my brain to remember where I ran into this, but it amounted to a Patented device could be mechanically copied once for personal use. As soon as I remember, I'll post it. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jun 28, 2015 16:45:51 GMT -6
AFAIK, it's legal to copy a design "verbatim" for personal use. Not at all! There was special legislation that created a "right" to copy commercially released music for personal use. It doesn't apply to any other form of intellectual property or even spoken word recordings. I'm not a total expert on these things, but these things are considered articles for manufacture, just like my patent, so I'm pretty sure the patent i own will run out in 14 years(17.5 from the issue date), when that happens anyone who wants to copy my design and sell it... can, they won't be able to use my names, but they can certainly come up with their own and have at it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2015 16:52:09 GMT -6
The point of trademarks is not confusing people. Jeff hasn't even got a disclaimer on his website saying that he has no connection with API. If he could point to others also using the API name he might have a defense but the fact that somebody could point to him as their defense is undoubtedly the main reason API sued him. I also suspect he was warned first before they laid out the money for a lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2015 16:52:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ionian on Jun 28, 2015 17:06:15 GMT -6
Chandler absolutely has a license from Abbey Road. I haven't looked lately but there used to be a link to Chandler on Abbey Road's website. Well, I don't know if they have a right or not, but I have nothing against people defending their rights, especially if they're paying for them. I even said so in that thread I mentioned - that if Wade is paying for rights to make EMI stuff, I understood him turning them in. What I thought was childish was him coming to the thread and making a spectacle of himself. Basically the schoolyard version of going "Nyah Nyah! I told on you!" And that's what I called him out on in the thread, was him behaving like a grade school punk. Which really rubbed him the wrong way...but if the shoe fits, you know... |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jun 28, 2015 17:06:20 GMT -6
The lines are blurred on both sides of the issue and API has bumped up against the line, themselves. Friends of both parties have good points.
The CAPI Icon on the Website is an arrow... API's is a double Diode.
The knob thing is far fetched on API's part.
The Console is blurred on CAPI's site, and barely recognizable. I think most people deduce that it's API.
CAPI's Web Address is classicapi, yet the Page header title is Classic Audio Products of Illinois. Address with the full name is not as memorable and not user friendly.
API knew of CAPI's existence far removed from the complaint filing date.
What else...
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 28, 2015 17:10:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2015 17:13:38 GMT -6
The point of trademarks is not confusing people. Jeff hasn't even got a disclaimer on his website saying that he has no connection with API. If he could point to others also using the API name he might have a defense but the fact that somebody could point to him as their defense is undoubtedly the main reason API sued him. I also suspect he was warned first before they laid out the money for a lawsuit. Actually, that's not true - API's trademark is recognized at the bottom of every page...and then there's this on the About Us page and in several other places...Look at the bottom  |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jun 28, 2015 17:15:20 GMT -6
But, did CAPI use API's knobs...
API made a derivative of someone elses work and copyrighted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2015 17:15:23 GMT -6
The lines are blurred on both sides of the issue and API has bumped up against the line, themselves. Friends of both parties have good points. The CAPI Icon on the Website is an arrow... API's is a double Diode. The knob thing is far fetched on API's part. The Console is blurred on CAPI's site, and barely recognizable. I think most people deduce that it's API. CAPI's Web Address is classicapi, yet the Page header title is Classic Audio Products of Illinois. Address with the full name is not as memorable and not user friendly. API knew of CAPI's existence far removed from the complaint filing date. What else... BTW - that's a picture of Jeff's personal 3232 Console...not something just ripped off the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2015 17:17:07 GMT -6
But, did CAPI use API's knobs... API made a derivative of someone elses work and copyrighted it. No, Jeff uses the original Vemaline knobs created by Vemaline. So, no, he doesn't use the "API Knob" |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2015 17:23:45 GMT -6
Give me a break, nobody but API has ever made a console remotely resembling that picture. I don't see knobs or anything else being a problem but the url, the picture and the statement "Welcome to our website! A site dedicated to the parts and components for the vintage style API recording consoles of the 1970’s" which suggests they are somehow different from current API products is really asking for a lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2015 17:27:44 GMT -6
I only found the disclaimer you pointed out on the about page but nowhere else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2015 17:31:12 GMT -6
I only found the disclaimer you pointed out on the about page but nowhere else. Ok Bob, your thoughts are well noted. |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jun 28, 2015 17:31:50 GMT -6
The first time I visited CAPI, it was plain to see that it was not API. It was a part's provider who had memorabilia as well as kits. So he took a pic of his console and blurred it. Is that a crime? He's a fan of his gear with a disclaimer that he's not affiliated with API.
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jun 28, 2015 17:33:53 GMT -6
I reckon I'm done too.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jun 28, 2015 17:35:55 GMT -6
Chandler has done fine building EMI clones. Lol..there was one thread on the purple site where someone had made a clone based off some early stuff at EMI and Wade was the first one in that thread to let the builder know that he turned them into EMI's lawyers! I pretty much called Wade a rat, old him to grow up this isn't high school, Wade got super defensive, and a mod locked the thread before I could slap Wade around some more. Hahaha classic.... Chandler does fine at building EMI clones because anyone else who tries to build an EMI clone, he rats them out! I never get tired of that purple site. Most likely for all the wrong reasons, though... Wade did what he had to do under his agreement with EMI! EMI's rights are covered under UK rather Than US law. EMI is a company who's entire livelyhood is their intelligent property, They know how to keep and enforce those rights. When Wade came calling on EMI they negotiate a deal and Wade pays a pretty penny and gets to enforce EMIs rights. |
|
|
|
Post by spock on Jun 28, 2015 18:54:55 GMT -6
Chandler absolutely has a license from Abbey Road. I haven't looked lately but there used to be a link to Chandler on Abbey Road's website. Well, I don't know if they have a right or not, but I have nothing against people defending their rights, especially if they're paying for them. I even said so in that thread I mentioned - that if Wade is paying for rights to make EMI stuff, I understood him turning them in. What I thought was childish was him coming to the thread and making a spectacle of himself. Basically the schoolyard version of going "Nyah Nyah! I told on you!" And that's what I called him out on in the thread, was him behaving like a grade school punk. Which really rubbed him the wrong way...but if the shoe fits, you know... Bob Olhsson is correct, Chandler Limited is licensed by Abbey Road Studios, and their products are the official EMI/Abbey Road Studios equipment, period end of story. Chandler Limited, EMI/Abbey Road Studios and Universal Music Group have every right to defend their intellectual property. Adding Chandler Limited into the discussion doesn't equate, considering CAPI is not licensed by API, nor BAE by AMS Neve. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 28, 2015 18:55:46 GMT -6
Hey guys - I think I should lock this thread at this point...Not much more can be said - we can all draw our own conclusions and everyone is free to pick a side, but at this point anything that's said is just conjecture. I sincerely hope that both sides can come to an agreement and walk away from this mess.
|
|
