Please explain for me John. I do not understand - it seems you are speaking of some definitive legality associated with the Steinway name that does not exist with Ford or Chevrolet. John M. wrote: > 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. Does Steinway have some sort of legal protection/restriction regarding use of their name when selling a used piano originally made by them that an automobile manufacturer does not have (and I'm not aware of any that the auto maker would have)? If I sell my '92 Ford - regardless of any modifications I have done to it, it goes in the classifieds as a Ford. I am not obliged (as far as I know) to anyone to divulge any information regarding modifications (I think it might be polite & ethical, certainly). I have no legal expertise - I'm simply trying to understand this whole thing. It sounds amazing to me. Specifically, what Steinway "rules" do I need to play by if I modify a Steinway piano and want to call it a Steinway, and what legal authority is involved? Terry Farrell ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Musselwhite" <john@musselwhite.com> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:39 PM Subject: Re: When is a Steinway still a Steinway > 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 >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC