Maybe PRS shoulda sued????
I’m not all the way through this yet, but I find this guy’s interpretation skills are questionable from the start...especially around 6:00...where he seems to misunderstand the concept of Gibson releasing a new collection of “original, and modern guitars”. As I understand it, they did just that...released a line of original: true to their traditional design, trim, and equipment....and a line of modern: reworked neck joints, asymmetrical neck carves, modernized trim etc...types of guitars.
Hahahahaha! I like this one better! (Except that I have to watch that horrible Agnesi FAIL video)this is a slightly different angle----
Alright then....he gets better as he goes....at 18:10 he touches on the copy/counterfeit definition pretty well IMO. If you wanna make a Gibson style guitar; just don’t put Gibson’s name on the headstock...that is fraud. And when someone that owns one of the Gibson labeled knockoffs says something like, “I’ll never sell it as a genuine Gibson.” That person loses control of that when they get tired of it and pass it along...then one day it ends up on Craigslist for a grand.....
When he talks about boutique makers and other industry entities....I’m just guessing that Gibson means something like “the kit companies”...like Precision Guitar kits etc.
If Gibson has a viable trademark on any of their original designs, it is their right, and responsibility, to defend them.
For Agnesi....stupid mistake....he’s going to have a hard time living it down.there are a TON of videos out on this topic --some are -- less than logical -- some comical-- they certainly GOT THE GIBSON NAME out there and being talked about----
so...now I ask.... stupid mistake or calculated marketing GENIUS ???