John: I do think that any substantial changes should be noted to the buyer just for plain honesty. The to-modify-or-not-to-modify thing is -- in my mind -- unresolvable. I've seen "rebuilt" Steinways come out of Steinway stores that had all Genuine Steinway parts but were dreadful instruments. On the trademark issue, there would be nothing they could do. Would they go after a rebuilder that "modified" the piano but in so doing made the piano much better? I really wish this issues could be formerly declared by the parties involved, but I doubt that Steinway would publish anything that had a very wide latitude. Probably the only definitive answer to this question will come when someone gets sued by Steinway for Trade Mark infringement, and the whole thing runs through the legal system. I, frankly, don't want to be the guy that makes the test case! That's expensive!!!!!! dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 11/19/2002 at 1:39 PM John Musselwhite wrote: >At 10:43 AM 18/11/02 -0600, Dave wrote: > >>Has Ford ever sued someone for customizing, souping up, and >>personalizing their Ford? > >Non sequitur, Dave. Steinways are not Fords and pianos are not cars or >violins. The world of automotive planned obsolescence is very different >from the concert stage or music room. "Souping up" cars is traditional and >in things like stock car racing a vehicle may carry a maker's badge even >if >it doesn't really have any of their parts on it. There is no ambiguity >because it is what people expect. Automakers even encourage it to some >degree because it may mean you'll buy a new car sooner. > >However, let's say someone is buying old Rolls Royce bodies and somehow >sticking them on Ford chassis and is selling them as "Rolls Royce" >automobiles. You can bet there will be lawsuits flying all over the place. >Even in the case of "replicars" they have to be careful to make them >dissimilar enough to get around any trademark infringements. > >The Steinway situation under discussion seems to be the opposite in that >since people often buy pianos "for life" the factory wants you to make >them >similar enough in a rebuild to keep their trademarks intact. The issue >doesn't seem to be as much about what you do to the piano, just how you >use >the trademark. By my reading they even give you permission to continue >using their trademark if you choose to do something different as long as >you document what you did on the instrument. While some people might >consider this to be heavy-handed there is the potential for a lot of fraud >out there that must be addressed, and this is one way to do it. > >>I have a "B" for sale now that has all Renner action parts, a >>non-Steinway sounding board >>and I'm not concerned about a lawsuit. I >>have made a list of everything that is in the piano that I will pass >>on to the buyer so that there will be no doubt as to what is actually >>in the instrument. > >Here is my take on this whole issue. If the work involves refinements or >renewal of the original structure such as replacing key pins and bushings, >moving bridges slightly or shaping replacement ribs a little differently >to >fit an individual instrument better then it's still being faithful to the >original "standard". Major deviations from "standard" should be >permanently >documented in the piano somewhere. > >The crux of the matter is that Steinway has issued an official policy as >regards their trademarks which courts have to take into account if it >comes >up for any reason. From what I understand it's there more as a statement >on >record to help legally protect the value of their name and trademarks than >as a way to prevent serious technicians from altering or improving the >instruments. If they don't defend their trademarks every way they can, who >will? > >In a later message Robert Goodale mentioned: > >>If a technician installs Able hammers on a Steinway at the owner request >>does this void the warranty? Probably not. > >It probably would unless permission was sought from the factory >beforehand. >Factories can be sticky about the use of any non-authorized parts during >the warranty period regardless of what they build. > >>Without regard to this if the sound board develops a crack six months >>later is Steinway still obligated to fix it? > >I can't speak for them but unless their policy has changed in the last few >years there is no warranty on the board at all insofar as cracks are >concerned. Steinway at one time even put out a pamphlet explaining that >cracks and compression ridges were not unusual and were of little concern. >There was a big stink about this years ago, but I don't remember how or if >it was resolved. > >>2. German Steinways use Rennor actions already. > >They use Steinway actions with Renner parts hung on them. There's a big >difference. Changing out NY parts for Renners isn't really a major change >in the execution of the design, though it may affect the warranty if it's >within the first five years. Changing the whole action out to a Renner >style might be considered to be major though since the tubular action is >so >much a part of what a Steinway is. In that case it would be a "Steinway >with a Renner action" rather than a "Steinway". > >>Just because a different technician installed it and used a different >>table saw to cut the ribs, does this mean the piano is no longer a >Steinway? > >Not to me at least, but if that different technician redesigns the board >with a totally different rib layout and perhaps adds a Wapin(tm) bridge >and >rescales it to boot then it is radically different from Steinway's >intention. It may be a better piano afterwards, but it goes into the >territory of trademark infringement since some of the things that >originally made the piano a "Steinway" are no longer there. Steinway can't >stop someone from doing that, but they should be within their legal rights >to prevent that technician from using the Steinway trademark against their >wishes. > >So for what it's worth, my answer to the question of when is a Steinway >still a Steinway is that if there is little or no trademark infringement >in >a quality rebuild regardless of whether all the replacement parts come out >of a Steinway box then it's still a Steinway. Remove, degrade or >significantly alter the designs and it becomes less of a Steinway and more >something else. If that is the case and you wish to continue to use their >trademark you're apparently obliged to play by their rules and document it >on the instrument somewhere, a practice I would encourage people to adopt >anyway. > >Of course, that is just my opinion as an interested observer. > > John > >John Musselwhite, RPT - Calgary, Alberta Canada >http://www.musselwhite.com http://canadianpianopage.com/calgary >Pianotech IRC chats Tuesday and Thursday nights and Sunday Mornings >http://www.bigfoot.com/~kmvander/ircpiano.html > > >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives _____________________________ David M. Porritt dporritt@mail.smu.edu Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 _____________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC