Jump to content

Attack of the Clones


TheGoalNet
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Don Straus said:

So as most rational people seem to admit, it is wrong/illegal/lacking in moral fibre, but seem to put forth the challenge to 'catch them'. One big reason why BMI, ASCAP, SOCAN have agents that police the live and/or broadcasted  music issues. 

I don’t disagree. I have seen innocent examples where something being written sounded like something obscure. I stopped my song writing partner from doing that a few times, and sometimes a better song would result. 

Now “Stay With Me” writer Sam Smith claiming he never knew about Tom Petty’s “won’t back down”? He is a no-talent liar with not one bit of ethics. That song STILL gets airplay worldwide. Feral, er, um Farrell with his rip off of Marvin Gaye made me respect him less. 

I provide playlists for the bar owners with correct artist names and writer credits for the SOLE purpose of the artist getting their royalty. What the bar owner does with it is up to them. But I do my part. 

Edited by bunnyman666
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

I'm also curious as to how many users on here rabidly defending copyright law would go up to a cover band and shame them for covering songs?

After doing some research into my quote above after reading Don and Bunny's comments, I've realized that I'm definitely wrong on the above.

Shows how nuanced copyright law can be.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, coopaloop1234 said:

After doing some research into my quote above after reading Don and Bunny's comments, I've realized that I'm definitely wrong on the above.

Shows how nuanced copyright law can be.

The bar owners are supposed to pay a licensing fee to the publishing concerns, in which the bar owner provides documentation of what gets played by the band, jukebox, etc. One is not supposed to play a radio or recorded music because of the public play aspect unless the licensing has been arranged.

I would possibly feel differently about cover bands covering tunes IF I never wrote a few tunes that got airplay or a few commercial jingles. Getting that paltry payment for one of my tunes every once in awhile validates my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

As I mentioned in the article, until I spent too much time thinking about this, I was a mild offender. Speaking with the people involved swayed me. I always thought what Simmons and Battram do was cheesy, but I didn't think about the plagiarism side of it. Designers and artists come up with the pad graphics and mask art and most don't want to see it copied, especially for someone else's profit. 

I don't blame people wanting to look like their heroes. I think if the OG Potvin graphic out today it'd be the best in stores. There's also a whole other conundrum here about getting a Potvin mask or  Hayward shark now that Harrison and Straus are retired. Should the world be void of them now? 

I also understand many people are on budgets or can't justify a Bauer mask price point. I just hope this article is understood the right way. I am not knocking Battram or OTNY's price point or quality, just pointing out that they should stand alone in their shell designs or graphics. Just because it's not illegal, doesn't mean it's not wrong. Passau ( @GoalieTimmy33 ) is a great example of how a small company should operate. 

@GoalieCustomizer Do you have any thoughts on this topic? 

@Don Straus Now that you are retired, does that mean that the Shark should be RIP or this there an appropriate for a fan of that paint job to request one or something similar? 

I think it's a great article and topic for discussion.  Hearing both sides of it has definitely opened my eyes to the artists side of it.  Without this discussion  I had already started to lean towards wanting my own original designs.  That picture of my Eddy with the Potvin was actually just before I repainted it with an original design.  After this discussion I am leaning even more in the favor of keeping my designs on things like this original.  At the most would use prior works as inspiration but wouldn't copy again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting topic, and it comes up every once in a while.  As long as gear is being sold for profit and graphics/design are a part of marketing, these sentiments will never go away.

A lot of people shit on Battram and Simmons, and call them "less reputable" companies partially because of their willingness to put another company's graphic on their gear.
I'm not defending either of these companies, as I do not and will never own a piece of their gear, but I thought this would be an interesting piece of trivia.

Back when Pete Smith left Vaughn to re-launch his own branded line, he released the SP1000 goal pad.
This was a fantastic piece of gear and truly ahead of its time. 
I wore Pete's SP6000s for a period and they were some of the best pads I have ever had the pleasure of using.

After Smith left, Vaughn coincidentally took the Vaughn XP to market.

This pad was basically a senior level pad around the year the Velocity 2 came out; I wanna say it was marketed as a standalone line, and not as the senior version of the V2.
Even senior level gear at this point was moving away from nylon on the sliding edge of the pad, this still retained it.

image.png.61facf5d3735ad66a6033e59d2537974.pngimage.png.4df21219294698d1cf81a25c10692b41.pngimage.png.e95210da781df99c8da445bf9f099892.png

While I'm at it, take a look at these two chest pads.

Brown vs. TPS Xceed.  Note the Brown is a newer model so the arm floaters are newer spec, and the chest plate is a new addition. 
The Xceed was built to old NHL spec.

image.png.67e105b70a1d14a0f89f65543606e72e.pngimage.png.34d558d423eaa959d36bc55f89de2270.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bunnyman666 said:

Having had music published, I can weigh in on this topic.

We musicians tend to rip bits off from each other all the time. Whether it goes from a thread that was what we heard in a chorus or whatever; as long as it becomes an entirely original song, it’s not theft. For example- there was some 70s tune where the guy sings about walking through the wet grass, in the 90s, someone made that into their hook. The tunes don’t resemble each other AT ALL. Chord structures are nothing to sue over. Now- George Harrison BLATANTLY ripped off “He’s So Fine” with his song “My Sweet Lord”.

How many bar owners actually pay the BMI or ASCAP fees for songs a lowly bar band plays? Probably not many, knowing how many bar owners are scheming, smarmy WANKERS!

I had a handlebar idea get ripped off when I asked a buddy of mine to show it around at Interbike. That taught me to be careful who sees my stuff in the development stages... That design ended up not making it into production, but the fact that my concept became someone else’s concept irked me plenty...

Is my “Trixie the Darling Devil Bunny” a rip off of the Lalime paint job? Considering that it was my Trix standing in for Marvin the Martian, no. Compositions are not exactly copywriteable. 

When (and I do mean “when”) I build my first helmet, am I going to take cues and inspirations from the best, like Wright, Harrison or @Don Straus? Of course! But I want to throw in my own twist and make it a bunny devil dude ORIGINAL! 

I would not directly rip off an artist or designer; however- if a thread comes along and inspires something entirely original, it’s fair game. 

Metallica hacked most of the riffs from some of their biggest hits from other small bands they saw while on tour.  Kirk would basically tweak it to make it his own...some call it cloning, some call it inspiration.  No different than a paint job on a mask.  You have to trademark it to keep it from being copied, if you don't then you leave it open to be hacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, jayluv54 said:

Metallica hacked most of the riffs from some of their biggest hits from other small bands they saw while on tour.  Kirk would basically tweak it to make it his own...some call it cloning, some call it inspiration.  No different than a paint job on a mask.  You have to trademark it to keep it from being copied, if you don't then you leave it open to be hacked.

As long as it becomes an original song, it’s cool. It’s when assholes like Sam Smith rip off a well-known song and claim they never heard it before that I have a problem with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, jayluv54 said:

Metallica hacked most of the riffs from some of their biggest hits from other small bands they saw while on tour.  Kirk would basically tweak it to make it his own...some call it cloning, some call it inspiration.  No different than a paint job on a mask.  You have to trademark it to keep it from being copied, if you don't then you leave it open to be hacked.

Hopefully I can help clear up some misconceptions. Copyright (on literary, artistic, musical,etc) is automatically granted at the time of completion. If you wish to attempt to sue over mis/unauthorized use of your intellectual property, you must first register your works. It is yours the moment your pen leaves the page, but it must be registered before you can have the enforced. All of my higher profile pieces have been registered years ago prior to having to properly proceed with the suits. 

Trademark protects the logos, colours and imagery pertaining to business identities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jayluv54 said:

Metallica hacked most of the riffs from some of their biggest hits from other small bands they saw while on tour.  Kirk would basically tweak it to make it his own...some call it cloning, some call it inspiration.  No different than a paint job on a mask.  You have to trademark it to keep it from being copied, if you don't then you leave it open to be hacked.

I don't think inspiration is an issue, it's making a replica. 

My TGN Spec graphic was meant to be inspired by the Potvin. It's obviously different and that's why there's no issue. 

Cujo, Hayward Shark, Beezer Panther, Tuuk Bruin, and Moog Bruin all have similarities... but they are different. Each artist put their spin on an animal eating a cage.

This would be sampling in music... 

Image result for cujo bluesRelated imageImage result for vanbiesbrouck panthers mask

Related imageImage result for moog bruins mask

This is copying...

Image result for Hayward shark maskImage result for Hayward shark mask

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really have nothing more to add except that I wish (certain) painters would stop ripping off other paint jobs. And although I do have some friends in the industry that are doing this, I cannot and will not condone or support the blatant rip off of the 961 or any other mask. They know who they are. Even if they are marveled at reading this thread.

On a more personal note, this isn't 1995 and I'm really tired of seeing the Cat paint job. It's so overdone that it's not even cool anymore. It's like the lame go-to paint job when the goalie lacks an imagination or creativity to come up with his own personal theme. I still go on to the ice and play against other goalies that have it and I just wana facepalm myself but can't cus I have my own mask on. And other than the fact that I know that Greg Harrison didn't get a cent's worth of that paint job, it just bugs me and I can't say exactly why. And I'm not typically the kind of person that likes to be critical of other people's gear-making decisions or trash what people wear. Aside from the morale of it all, be your own goalie, do your own things. There's lots of material out there to work with. Being inspired and borrowing ideas from the past are okay I'd say. But I truly admire a goalie with something original to offer and show off. I'd rather see a plain white or black mask rather than a copy. For those that are offended or don't agree, I'm not the goalie-mask police here. It's just what I think and I know I'm not alone on it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I side with this issue when it comes to pads however helmets are a different issue. 

I feel that making a pad graphic is extremely difficult and Laborous and I don’t agree on making clones of pads like Simmons. I also don’t like copy’s of paint unless it’s an idea (ie sketch pen on masks). However actual construction of helmets I concur. Unfortunately not every person can afford a 900 dollar xpm bucket from Bauer, however when a company like OTNY is offering a comparable helmet at 300 dollars cheaper with the same shell shape I feel that it’s justified. Concussions are a serious issue and if you can put a pro level bucket on a goalie who isn’t crazy well off for a relatively affordable price, I can look the other way and I’ll gladly do it. I honestly don’t think you can argue morals with a company like Bauer who advertises plastic to be put on a child’s head by putting darth Vader on it. I also don’t know why the nme 5 and profile 940x are in a senior size when they aren’t the quality needed for higher level hockey. You mean to tell me that it’s moral to engineer a product that you know isn’t the protection needed for a 13 or 14 year playing hockey and sell it just to make money. Or to directly market to 7 and 8 year olds with Star Wars with an inferior masks. I just think at that point your not caring about the customers safety and morality is thrown out the window. So if someone copied a bauer shell design I think that I’m fine with it as long as they aren’t blatantly using certain technologies. I feel that the absolute necessity of head protection is also a key contributor in whether its moral to steal a shell design, it’s not the same as stealing a skate or pad design because of the nature of the product. Also certain companies like otny offer custom fits unlike bauer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't think I would do a direct copy of a paint job, at the very least I would make it a homage and put a new spin on it.  I do however like seeing modern versions of old gear so if done through the proper channels by the original artist or with permission I'm ok with people doing direct copies.  Not something I would really have any desire to do tho. 

Pad graphics...again I'd rather people extrapolate on an idea rather than just use it.  I generally don't care if people use graphics that I have done and are publicly available, a donation or something would be nice but whatever, not worth the headache of worrying about it.  When designs start getting reused a few times and I still see nothing out of it then it's kind of bothersome, but still, not worth it.  Companies copying other companies stock graphics is ridiculous though.  It's just way too greasy and underhanded since that is what the company whose product is being copied is using to market their product as well as brand it.  

I definitely understand the struggle though.  I think the worst case of it for me though was when I made customizers, and whoever does the ones that look exactly like mine (but with awful shading) decided to download and decompile my customizer files off the site I was doing them for, directly lift the lineart out of my files for multiple sets of gear as well as for the "goalie view", then copy the rest of the look of mine just worse.  It was a blatant copy that actually directly stole and used my intellectual property, not just a close trace, but work I legitimately did myself being used in their files that they were profiting from.  That still rubs me the wrong way.  But again, not worth it to try to take any kind of action.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SnackDubs said:

I think I side with this issue when it comes to pads however helmets are a different issue. 

I feel that making a pad graphic is extremely difficult and Laborous and I don’t agree on making clones of pads like Simmons. I also don’t like copy’s of paint unless it’s an idea (ie sketch pen on masks). However actual construction of helmets I concur. Unfortunately not every person can afford a 900 dollar xpm bucket from Bauer, however when a company like OTNY is offering a comparable helmet at 300 dollars cheaper with the same shell shape I feel that it’s justified. Concussions are a serious issue and if you can put a pro level bucket on a goalie who isn’t crazy well off for a relatively affordable price, I can look the other way and I’ll gladly do it. I honestly don’t think you can argue morals with a company like Bauer who advertises plastic to be put on a child’s head by putting darth Vader on it. I also don’t know why the nme 5 and profile 940x are in a senior size when they aren’t the quality needed for higher level hockey. You mean to tell me that it’s moral to engineer a product that you know isn’t the protection needed for a 13 or 14 year playing hockey and sell it just to make money. Or to directly market to 7 and 8 year olds with Star Wars with an inferior masks. I just think at that point your not caring about the customers safety and morality is thrown out the window. So if someone copied a bauer shell design I think that I’m fine with it as long as they aren’t blatantly using certain technologies. I feel that the absolute necessity of head protection is also a key contributor in whether its moral to steal a shell design, it’s not the same as stealing a skate or pad design because of the nature of the product. Also certain companies like otny offer custom fits unlike bauer. 

Why can't OTNY make a helmet at that price point that fits the same and is a great value, but has their own unique look? Why are they justified using Bauer's shape? Bauer's shape does't stop concussions... 

Look at Pro's Choice. They made a 960 style helmet, but made it their own. 

If we look at gear, Passau makes afforable gear that may most closely resembles Reebok / CCM stuff, but it's definitely their own. It's affordable, functional, and not a shameless copy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

Look at Pro's Choice. They made a 960 style helmet, but made it their own.

How is this ethically any different than what OTNY does (or Coveted, or Protechsport .etc). A Pros Choice may lack the sharp contours since making it uses a completely different process (layed up over a plug instead a negative mold) which doesn't lend well to that style, but the builder is attempting to make his mask look like a Bauer 961 (ridges, profile, hole layout). 

I think there are several degrees of wrongness happening in this cloning practice. I feel like the mask world can be broken down as follows (but could apply to paint or equipment as well):

-companies that make direct copies of masks using similar or worse materials and processes with the sole purpose of undercutting the competition. 

-companies/builders that see opportunity in masks being priced way to high for what they are and/or using sub-par materials and take it upon themselves to improve on either of those points OR that are approached by customers wanting a certain shape mask made by someone other than the original designed/builder

-hobbyists who copy masks because they love doing it

Are all of these wrong? I know at least one person thinks so. 

If anything this article/thread has really got me thinking. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, particularly after reading the Protechsport mask thread with everyone oohing and aahing over the various mask models -- they all look the same to me.  The modern goalie mask is essentially a single mask with ever so slight variations.  I'm staring at two masks I have hanging on my wall that I've retired -- a Protechsport (Lalime? Fichaud? Hell if I know) and a Bauer mask.  I can't tell the difference.  How much variation can you have with that basic model?  Deeper ridges?  Bigger bubble chin?  I don't think that that is something unique.  Other than that God-awful Onezee that keeps popping up on GGSU, there's been relatively little innovation in the goalie mask since the advent of the modern mask.  

Paint jobs are a different story, but I doubt most painters bother to copyright their work.  I doubt I'd do an explicit copy of one but that's the same reason I don't get jerseys with other people's names on them -- I'm not trying to be them.  Nobody would look at me in a Lundqvist jersey and say "dude, why aren't you on the ice???"  But I don't object if a beer leaguer really wants the exact same mask as his/her idol.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, craig said:

How is this ethically any different than what OTNY does (or Coveted, or Protechsport .etc). A Pros Choice may lack the sharp contours since making it uses a completely different process (layed up over a plug instead a negative mold) which doesn't lend well to that style, but the builder is attempting to make his mask look like a Bauer 961 (ridges, profile, hole layout). 

I think there are several degrees of wrongness happening in this cloning practice. I feel like the mask world can be broken down as follows (but could apply to paint or equipment as well):

-companies that make direct copies of masks using similar or worse materials and processes with the sole purpose of undercutting the competition. 

-companies/builders that see opportunity in masks being priced way to high for what they are and/or using sub-par materials and take it upon themselves to improve on either of those points OR that are approached by customers wanting a certain shape mask made by someone other than the original designed/builder

-hobbyists who copy masks because they love doing it

Are all of these wrong? I know at least one person thinks so. 

If anything this article/thread has really got me thinking. 

That's the point, this article was supposed to make people thinking :headbang:Your comments make me happy 

Protechsport, Coveted, Simmons, etc with a 960 clone is all bad ethical business. I just mentioned OTNY because the previous poster did. 

The traditional Protechspot X Lefevre or Otny with Triangle holes are both fine mask that no one should have issue with. 

Image result for protechsport maskImage result for OTNY mask mask

Again, these are all opinions, so you don't have to agree with me... but I think Dom's mask takes the Wright design and says, that's cool but I think I can make a better version. IMO, that's how good design evolves. In the goalie world, flat faced pads or sliding specific materials could all fall into this category. It's people challenged to take a design, make it better, and make it their own. 

Someone invented the pick up truck, someone took that design and tried to make it better... fast forward 100 years and we have 3 distinctly different looking trucks. 

Image result for pro's choice vision maskImage result for pro's choice vision mask

Image result for 960 maskImage result for 960 mask

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

but I think Dom's mask takes the Wright design and says, that's cool but I think I can make a better version

That's the thing though, a lot of these guys are making better versions (Coveted, OTNY, ProtechSport). At least as far as the base materials go. And I really don't want to start a mask war so I'll leave it at that. And I actually agree with you that reputable companies should stick to their own designs. I just don't think its fair to give Pro's Choice a pass for attempting to do the same as the others. I think Dom's most recent non-960 style shell is actually his nicest and I feel he wouldn't lose much business if he stuck to that.

"To each their own" seems to be the conclusion to everything on this thread though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 666 is in my handle, I am going to play devil’s advocate: It is harder than it looks to make a completely original mask design, speaking of the shell. After all- unless we are going back to the half shell and little to no chin variations along with moulded nose with eye holes, the accepted shell now is a full-coverage head with a decent chin drop with a cage covering the eyes and nose. With the exception of the Mage and Onezie, there isn’t much room to vary. Pretty well most of the acceptable shapes have been made. This is not to say that some more variation can’t be done, but we also have to think of the limits of tooling and shapes that can be made with composites.

Now with artwork- that is an area that SHOULD be made to pay an artist for their original artistic talents. I think a society much like for published music should exist for something like this and the original artist should be paid a small fee and credited as the originator. That way, the original artist is still paid. But the ‘cover’ artist should have to put their logo in the paintjob, and the original artist’s copywrite should be included. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, craig said:

That's the thing though, a lot of these guys are making better versions (Coveted, OTNY, ProtechSport). At least as far as the base materials go. And I really don't want to start a mask war so I'll leave it at that. And I actually agree with you that reputable companies should stick to their own designs. I just don't think its fair to give Pro's Choice a pass for attempting to do the same as the others. I think Dom's most recent non-960 style shell is actually his nicest and I feel he wouldn't lose much business if he stuck to that.

"To each their own" seems to be the conclusion to everything on this thread though.

My rational for the pass? You can instantly tell's Dom's apart with logos or without. With a Coveted or OTNY,  I couldn't. They are direct copies with different layups or tweaked fits. You could fool someone it's a Bauer / Itech. Dom's is only inspired by. 

I agree not getting into a war, but I felt the need to clarify the point.  This article is simply designed to bring awareness to an issue. Jerry doesn't like all the exact clones and artists, like @Don Straus , don't like replica paint jobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another issue, specifically regarding NHL mask paint jobs, is that they are one of the primary pieces of marketing the NHL uses to promote goalies. Marketing players are often about showing off gear. Especially with goalies, and especially with the masks. 

As a young, impressionable goalie growing up around Toronto in the early 90's, Felix Potvin was a hero to me. And that mask was a huge piece in marketing Potvin, and definitely left an impression of "Wow, I want to be just like Felix Potvin when I grow up". I emulated Potvin's style, I got gear that looked as close to his stuff as possible. But the dream was to one day have the same mask as him. 

So once I was old enough to afford a custom paint job, of course the first thing I wanted to do was fulfill that childhood dream. 

I'm curious what (if any) arrangement there is with mask artists have with their designs being so heavily used in NHL marketing. Because for Potvin, I'd say that the mask design was much more iconic of his "brand" than the heavily tradmarked and protected Toronto Maple Leaf logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 5:48 AM, TheGoalNet said:

@Chenner29 the Vaughn and Smith one is very interesting. That’s kinda like Jeep vs Hummer, given their interwoven corporate history there’s going to be confusing over lap... 

But then again, maybe Vaughn has a history of this too? 

ED93F82D-24E1-427D-A340-FC3105C51BB2.jpeg

DC501DC4-8A7E-4D0E-BA68-FD31EEA85FB7.jpeg

You also can deny the resemblance between the Premier 1 graphic and SLR graphic. Flip the slr graphic upside down and it’s almost spot on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another perspective is looking at the patent/copyright laws. Does Mr. Wright still own any parents related to the 961 design? Did Bauer acquire that? Bauer themselves never really improved on it until 2016 with the XPM, and even then that was a small change. I understand that they are completely within their right to do that, but patent laws are far from perfect. Patents are submitted all of the time for the sole purpose of getting a cash grab whenever someone makes something similar, and while most patents are not, they can be purchased from the original designer and never really improved on (case in point Chevron, General Motors, etc. who purchased patents for automotive batteries to prevent the advancement of electric vehicles). Direct clones are not morally good, though, and I do not agree with them; however, I think it is also good to look at when many of these clones came to market (OTNY, Coveted, Protechsport): once the original 961 was retired and the new, tweaked version (XPM) was released. Maybe people wanted a cheaper option, or a made in Canada option that Bauer and other companies do not normally offer. Again, I understand people being angry when they are a business owner who has their technology stolen, and that occurs all of the time. I think this issue is quite nuanced, just look at the majority of the world; do they abide by patent laws, and if not, what does that mean for the future?

tl;dr Don’t copy people’s stuff, but inspiration is alright.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TitanG said:

I think another perspective is looking at the patent/copyright laws. Does Mr. Wright still own any parents related to the 961 design? Did Bauer acquire that? Bauer themselves never really improved on it until 2016 with the XPM, and even then that was a small change. I understand that they are completely within their right to do that, but patent laws are far from perfect. Patents are submitted all of the time for the sole purpose of getting a cash grab whenever someone makes something similar, and while most patents are not, they can be purchased from the original designer and never really improved on (case in point Chevron, General Motors, etc. who purchased patents for automotive batteries to prevent the advancement of electric vehicles). Direct clones are not morally good, though, and I do not agree with them; however, I think it is also good to look at when many of these clones came to market (OTNY, Coveted, Protechsport): once the original 961 was retired and the new, tweaked version (XPM) was released. Maybe people wanted a cheaper option, or a made in Canada option that Bauer and other companies do not normally offer. Again, I understand people being angry when they are a business owner who has their technology stolen, and that occurs all of the time. I think this issue is quite nuanced, just look at the majority of the world; do they abide by patent laws, and if not, what does that mean for the future?

tl;dr Don’t copy people’s stuff, but inspiration is alright.

My understanding is that Bauer owns any patents and copyrights for the designs. However, moving vent holes a few MMS, changing the center bar style, etc etc is a loop for the legal system. It’d be an incredibly difficult and expense battle for Bauer without a gaurenteed victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...