Will Sho-Bud steel guitar's ever be built again?

A. J. Schobert · Post by **A. J. Schobert** » 2 May 2007 2:24 pm

I may have to come out with a new PSG Scho-bert!

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 2 May 2007 4:05 pm

It's only a minor technical/legal distinction/correction, but brand names like "Sho-Bud" and the peghead design are considered trademarks, not copyrights, which apply to written or artistic works owned by authors or publishers. Trademarks are owned by businesses.

Okay, back to the discussion...

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 2 May 2007 4:18 pm

You're right, Darvin. Back in the '60s, it was 17/34 year term, and now it's apparently 20 years, with extensions only in rare cases.

From the U.S. patent and Trade-Mark Office site...

The term of the patent shall be generally 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c), from the date of the earliest such application was filed, and subject to the payment of maintenance fees as provided by law. A maintenance fee is due 3 1/2, 7 1/2 and 11 1/2 years after the original grant for all patents...

The Sho~Bud name and script design may be copyrighted and covered for a long, long time, but I've discovered that artistic design features of the item itself (as the unique Sho~Bud headstock) are covered under "design patents", and they are only valid for 14 years. Apparently (and contrary to my previous statment and beliefs), another manufacturer could now legally use the Sho~Bud headstock design!

Thanks for making me dig deeper, Darvin.

Ernest Cawby · Post by **Ernest Cawby** » 2 May 2007 7:14 pm

I have a 1973 Professional rebuilt with John Coops parts, the same man that put my guitar together rebuilt a same guitar with Alumanum parts and a very good guitar player played Leons guitar for 2 hours, then we came to my house and he played my shobud and said Leons guitar played better than mine on a scale of 1 - 19 about 1 1/2 points lower than Leons same guitar.
I think the alum parts may have more of the old shobud sound. You are welcome do the test if you like.

ernie

Grant Johnson · Post by **Grant Johnson** » 3 May 2007 11:53 am

According to a friend "In the Know" Gretsch will not sell the name copyright and trademark. They make good money from the merchandising of Sho Bud hats and t-shirts.
Sorta makes sense in a twisted way, but I am surprised that they have not worked out a licensing deal with a builder.... Didn't they do that in the 90's with Rayline??

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 3 May 2007 1:15 pm

Grant, It's kind of a shame that's all the name is worth to them.

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 3 May 2007 1:33 pm

Ah, we all know that Red Kilby makes the real Sho~Bud hats, with "Nashville, Tennessee" on them, just like the guitar logo.

Nick Reed · Post by **Nick Reed** » 3 May 2007 3:16 pm

I give that one a big fat NO! At least not as we know it today.

Paul Redmond · Post by **Paul Redmond** » 4 May 2007 2:32 am

Donny H. you are correct. Patents and copyrights are two different animals. A design patent (such as a logo or trademark)is handled differently than your run-of-the-mill generic patent on your 'better mousetrap'. Legally, a ShoBud can be manufactured by anyone because, just as the Emmons p/p, its design has become public domain. It just can't be called a ShoBud because, obviously, someone has kept that 'trademark' or 'logo' legally alive. The rules are a lot different for those. As for number-for-number design of the guitar, have at it. It was public domain a long time ago. In many instances, Leo Fender applied for and was granted design patents based on the appearance rather than the function of the instrument. There was a reason for that. It states to the world that he didn't necessarily have a better mousetrap, only one that was shaped differently than the others. Patent law is the highest form of law in the US. If any of y'all ever get a chance to attend a seminar in your area (many are held thru local Farm Bureau's), take the time to attend. They are usually 8-hour affairs with a break for lunch and it usually costs a nominal fee. It will be a real eye-opener for you. A lot of things that confounded you and never made sense before, will come to light. For example, you cannot patent a bottle cap. It is considered 'obvious' and would have necessarily been invented anyhow. HOWEVER, you CAN patent a design that, say, has a new way of locking onto the bottle, is made of a different material than 'prior art' (oh yes, you'll hear that term plenty!!), or has a different method of removal, is tamper-proof, and so on. George Selden a century ago tried to patent the automobile. As brilliant a patent attorney as he was in his day, the patent office turned him down!! For 'obviousness' no less. . .it would have been invented anyhow, according to the office. However, the myriad of refinements could be and subsequently were patented by many others thru the years which followed. Simply put, if you have a bottle, you have to have a way of keeping the contents of that bottle from escaping even if it means sticking a carved carrot into its mouth!! So this becomes a 'given' and any future considerations must exhibit a 'new' way of substituting something else for that old carrot!! Then the 'game' gets interesting. That's when patent law shines thru the fog. As a result we now have the standard 'church key' bottle caps, the ones with cork-based gaskets/seals, the 'twist-off's', etc., plastic seals instead of cork, and so on. Hope this helps.
PRR

Dennis Schell · Post by **Dennis Schell** » 13 May 2007 11:08 am

Brandon Ordoyne wrote:Would the new Jackson steels be considered the new age Sho-Buds?

We think alike Brandon....

Dennis

Steven Black · Post by **Steven Black** » 13 May 2007 11:29 am

I think that the sho-Bud is around and being built but just under new names, like the Sho-Pro, and the Jackson guitar, and of course John Coop who does excellent rebuilds, the guitar lives on in a spirit kind of way due to these guys keeping it alive, someday the Sho-bud name may return, or perhaps the guitar will make a complete return under a new name like the Jackson guitar.

Brian Henry · Post by **Brian Henry** » 13 May 2007 11:46 am

I think you are right. All modern steel guitars are copied from aspects of Bigsby, Sho Bud and early MSA.

Wayne Baker · Post by **Wayne Baker** » 13 May 2007 6:34 pm

All modern steel guitars are copied from aspects of Bigsby, Sho Bud and early MSA.

But most have improved on thier steels... Unless of course were talking about a steel company that copies another to the tee...

Wayne Baker

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 14 May 2007 3:16 am

tbhenry wrote:I think you are right. All modern steel guitars are copied from aspects of Bigsby, Sho Bud and early MSA.

Take it a little further. Most modern guitars are a big IMPROVEMENT over Bigsby, Shobud, and early MSA's.

The Shobud name needs to stay where it is, for what it was. It's the for nostalgia/history/karisma, now. Anything new is NOT a Shobud. Even if you name it "Shobud", it still ain't a 'bud. RIP. JMHO

Michael Douchette · Post by **Michael Douchette** » 14 May 2007 3:25 am

James, I'll agree with you, to an extent. Yes, modern guitars are "improved," but to me, a lot of that improvement has made them incredibly generic and soulless, like an Ovation guitar or a Glock handgun. Yes, they work, they do exactly what they're supposed to, when they're supposed to... and it's no problem to use them and never feel a connection with them.

Give me a Sho-Bud, a Martin, a Colt 1911... those things have a quality, a soul that just can't be found in modern, "improved" designs...

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 14 May 2007 3:49 am

Hey Michael, ain't we early-birds this morninig!! HA! I'm with ya on that. It really becomes the nostalgia thing with a one of a kind tone/ and a certain karisma that draws some of us. Give me an old roundfront 'bud, and I'm a happy camper,(well, I sure like my '67 fingertip, too, even though it IS a square front!!). I own three steels---everyone a 'bud.

My point was intended to more or less say the new guitars showed many improvements, but don't call them a 'bud. Don't call an Ovation a Martin, and don't call a Glock a Colt. I think some are looking for a "new" guitar to call a Shobud. Wrong!! Let the 'buds be a 'bud, and let the new guitars be what THEY are---don't try to make them a 'bud. There are many folks who DO connect with their new more modern guitar, just like we 'bud fans connect with our old 'buds. And that's cool, too. It ain't wrong, it's just different---and good.

CrowBear Schmitt · Post by **CrowBear Schmitt** » 14 May 2007 4:59 am

Sho~Buds done won many Blessings
add many more since they stopped production
how many Buds were produced ? i'd been told that were really many
that's a lotta Blessings now ain't it ?....
when i see them fine restaurations by Duane, John, Ricky & others,
i'm glad Sho~Buds aren't in production anymore
if they were, perhaps Gretsch would outsource to China , Korea or Mexico ?
& a Custom shop in the good Ol'

Go Sho~Pro, Jackson, Fulawka
or jes get yer Ol' Bud Cooped up or Marrsified

Love them Buds

The Steel Guitar Forum

Will Sho-Bud steel guitar's ever be built again?

How good is a rebuild

what would Sho-Bud's be like today question.

steel