Are Amp Sims Going to Be the Next Target for Lawsuits?

[Craig Anderton]

Studio Pro includes Fender amp sims. Fine. But it also includes sims of amps from Roland, Orange, Marshall, Mesa Boogie, Vox, etc. Actually, allmost all amp sims include emulations of existing amps. How is that different from Fender saying Strats that copy the Fender shape violate their intellectual property? The amp sim companies proudly state that their emulations sound identical to the original amps. The claim that component-level modeling clones a sound is where there might be problems.

Will Roland sue Line 6, Fender, NI, IK, etc. etc. because they have emulations of the famous Jazz Chorus amp? If so, being sued would put companies between a rock and hard place - they can either say "Well the sim doesn't really sound like a Jazz Chorus, so you can't sue us" which would throw their marketing hype under the bus, or "yes, it sounds just the same, we're blatantly copying your sound by reverse-engineering it with component-level modeling."

Uh-oh...

 

[Crossinger]

Well, you could drive this even further: what about Synth emulations? Most of the time they sound more or less similar to the original, but there are also examples which claim to be “bit accurate” in the digital calculations, e.g., OPS7.

 

[Craig Anderton]

what about Synth emulations?

Sounds are generally not copywritable. But if sounds are pulled from a synth's ROM, they are protected. Now consider sim companies that claim to do modeling down to individual components, essentially cloning the original circuitry. Could a lawyer make a case that copying a circuit's individual components that create a distinctive sound via a physical device is no different than copying the individual lines of code that create a distinctive sound via a physical ROM?

As to how this relates to Studio Pro, I don't know if the non-Fender amps use component modeling, so that may or may not matter. But I don't want to see VI companies that use component modelnig having to pull those products from the market if this does in fact become an issue. I don't think this will happen, but then again, there's a lot of legal stuff going on I never thought would happen.

 

[Craig Anderton]

One more thing: Trade Dress law protects panel layouts and color schemes. To be protected, the layout needs to be designed for brand identification or use a novel design (e.g., Orange amps - you can recognize an Orange amp from a mile away). They also need to have proven distinctiveness - i.e., consumers look at the specific layout or graphics and associate it with the plaintiff's brand. So amp sims with UIs that look like the amp being emulated may or may not be a problem, depending on several factors.

Most companies arlready steer clear of using names and logos of the device being emulated. But it may be just a matter of time before someone launches a trade dress suit, and we find amps that used to look like Marshall heads in our software no longer do. Again, so why does this matter? Because we want companies to concentrate on improving their products and services, not spending their time fighting frivolous lawsuits. If Fender was forced to re-design all the amp UI graphics in their programs, websites, and promotional materials, that would divert resources from things that, IMHO, are actually important to consumers.

 

[Navar]

If you have success with something, there will always be someone who wants to have the same success. The history is full of copies or "inspired by". Maxon copied Ibanez and a SLO100 is "just" a modded JCM800 and the 5150 is a modded SLO100.
If there is a trademark violation case, I'm pretty sure that companies do their best to protect their trademark. And some are clever enough to make good contracts for the benefit of both, like Neural DSP with Mesa Boogie or Fortin and I assume that Mesa gets a good cut with the plugin.
Some boutique amp manufactures are also really good in being inspired by the layout of other amps.
And yes, this Fender thingy is a pain and a big backlash but this doesn't mean, that the industry will implode now. But I would be more creative if I do an amp sim and call it Meebo or Moosie Recto or all the other stuff.

 

[Sombreuil]

They would find a workaround by changing the names or something like that.
I really doubt you can patent a sound signature, especially in an age where tools like Synplant 2 copy something and recreate it from scratch.

Is it a copy or is it yours?

 

[BobF]

Not specific, but related in general:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MisterE]

Studio Pro includes Fender amp sims. Fine. But it also includes sims of amps from Roland, Orange, Marshall, Mesa Boogie, Vox, etc. Actually, allmost all amp sims include emulations of existing amps. How is that different from Fender saying Strats that copy the Fender shape violate their intellectual property? The amp sim companies proudly state that their emulations sound identical to the original amps. The claim that component-level modeling clones a sound is where there might be problems.

Will Roland sue Line 6, Fender, NI, IK, etc. etc. because they have emulations of the famous Jazz Chorus amp? If so, being sued would put companies between a rock and hard place - they can either say "Well the sim doesn't really sound like a Jazz Chorus, so you can't sue us" which would throw their marketing hype under the bus, or "yes, it sounds just the same, we're blatantly copying your sound by reverse-engineering it with component-level modeling."

Uh-oh...

A great point for opposing counsel. Also, at some point Fender began using humbucking pickups, too, and have hired the likes of Tim Shaw, who designed them at Gibson, to fabricate "theirs."

 

[TimC340]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? It's always gone on, and there have been many court cases over many years in all sorts of fields. In music I'd venture that the sales of imitations may eventually lead to the buyer graduating to the OG product, and certainly add to the reputation of that product, which is possibly why there hasn't been an aggressive clampdown on imitations up to now. If there was, hardware companies like Behringer, Warm Audio and UAD, and almost all software companies, would be in deep doo-doo. Yes, these things can be redesigned so they don't visually imitate their inspirations, but it's more difficult when the internals are direct copies. Let's hope it doesn't get too litigious. I can't imagine that, for example, Neumann clamping down on all sales of U87 copies is going to make it any more likely that I'd buy an original!

 

[Craig Anderton]

companies like Behringer, Warm Audio and UAD

UAD is ultra-scrupulous about licensing and permissions. Part of that is their marketing philosophy of emphasizing that their emulations are 100% dead-on accurate. Having the blessings and cooperation of the company involved adds significant credibility. I once asked EveAnne Manley how she felt about UA's Massive Passive emulation. She essentially said it wasn't 100% the same, but it was 99.9% of the way there.

Let's hope it doesn't get too litigious.

I realized that speculating about Roland suing for the Jazz Chorus was a bad choice. Japan is the least litigious of all modern industrialized democracies. The legal system works against routine lawsuits, and the culture almost demands that resolutions be done through discussion and conciliation. It's unlikely that Roland would sue, because taking the high road would be more compatible with the prevailing culture. They might even consider all those imitators as being advertisements for "the real thing."

 

[Stuart Welwood]

I once asked EveAnne Manley how she felt about UA's Massive Passive emulation. She essentially said it wasn't 100% the same, but it was 99.9% of the way there.

One thing I learned from working in the military power converter industry is that there are parts in the box that aren't on the schematic. As you know, parasitic elements come in the form of resistances (R), inductuces (L) , and capacitances (C) that result from making the real thing, versus the idealized components on the schematic. Then you have currents induced into grounds that have nonzero resistances...

My first big task as a tech was to come up with a new set of board layouts for a power supply for a helicopter rocket launcher that launched 110 rockets in 2.1 seconds. Production yields were so low that production had basically stopped, and I had to try to get it going. (This is before I went to engineering school.) That was in 1979, so I had to do the layouts on a light table with black tape and an Exacto knife.

These were switching power supplies that ran at about 50 kHz. Switching big currents at that rate can cause real problems when it's all put in a small box. I considered every high current trace to be a transmitter and every high impedance point to be a receiver. It worked, but I think it was mostly luck.

So I believe Manley, and it's good to hear that she's still around. She sometimes posted on rec.audio.pro, along with Jeff Baxter, George Massenburg, and a bunch of other great characters. This forum is starting to remind me of those days. Wonderful!

Is that going to be a big enough difference to count legally? I have no idea.

 

[BobF]

One thing I learned from working in the military power converter industry is that there are parts in the box that aren't on the schematic. As you know, parasitic elements come in the form of resistances (R), inductuces (L) , and capacitances (C) that result from making the real thing, versus the idealized components on the schematic. Then you have currents induced into grounds that have nonzero resistances...

My first big task as a tech was to come up with a new set of board layouts for a power supply for a helicopter rocket launcher that launched 110 rockets in 2.1 seconds. Production yields were so low that production had basically stopped, and I had to try to get it going. (This is before I went to engineering school.) That was in 1979, so I had to do the layouts on a light table with black tape and an Exacto knife.

These were switching power supplies that ran at about 50 kHz. Switching big currents at that rate can cause real problems when it's all put in a small box. I considered every high current trace to be a transmitter and every high impedance point to be a receiver. It worked, but I think it was mostly luck.

So I believe Manley, and it's good to hear that she's still around. She sometimes posted on rec.audio.pro, along with Jeff Baxter, George Massenburg, and a bunch of other great characters. This forum is starting to remind me of those days. Wonderful!

Is that going to be a big enough difference to count legally? I have no idea.

Remember Madman Marantz?