I give the guy credit for trying to come up with something cool.

Thanks, I had someone from PRS say it was cool to!

Purist here

it does open up for new designs tho, things that could not be painted.,,,

[quote="HDS"] Nooo, i like it!
Great job, HDS.
What you think about a "green and black only" pattern???
Tubarão

I'd like to see a swirl in various shades of grey, from white to black. Would fit in in a smokey room.

I think it's cool that someone has come up with something new. The market will decide if it lives or dies, but my hat goes off to HDS for having tried something new out.

As for the debate about this being a cheap printed slice of plastic -- has everyone forgotten Joe's newest JS with the hotrod flames? Those are also stickers...

Not if you belive Joe, because he said it was painted by these folks.

http://www.viciouscycles.org/index.html

Something occurred to me over the weekend with regards to original paint-dip swirls or hand-painted Rainforests, versus vinyl stick-on faux swirls, etc...

Isn't this somewhat analogous to playing covers, say those of Satriani or Vai for example? We are attempting to duplicate someone else's original art, and we are all the prouder if we manage to do it accurately. Unless we preface our performance by saying "Hi, I'm Joe Satriani and now I'm gonna play Borg Sex for ya" then no one takes offense or feels like the artist is pulling off a scam. I guess I really don't see much fundamental difference in duplicating a graphical art form (swirled guitar and so on), as long as no one is trying to pass it off as the real thing. And I seriously doubt that anyone is going to mistake a vinyl stick-on for the genuine article.

But again, I personally don't have much interest in a faux swirl, Donnie, or Rainforest, but it does seem like the above analogy applies.

Just for thought...
Bert

Are you aware that every time a cover is played anywhere that a royalty is due the artist that copyrighted it?

Wow! I wasn't aware of that. I knew it applied to recording covers of other's music, but not live performances.

I guess I owe some big money!

I never said it was enforceable, but the law is the law

Yes, I'm aware of that and I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of giving the original artists their just rewards. (Actually my current band is playing all originals, so it's sort of a moot issue for me at the moment). My point is that I suspect many of the people that vehemently object to the graphical re-creation of unique guitars would have little or no objection to the concept of recreating the musical art: I'd wager that a large percentage of them have engaged in it either now or sometime in their musical past with little remorse. Is there really a fundamental conceptual difference in these two forms of re-creation? I think not.

Incidentally, it would probably behoove us to keep in mind that many of the Ibanez guitars we love (and collect) are in reality slight variants on the super-strat concept, a design that was hardly Ibanez' own creation. So if we object to the artwork, aren't we splitting a few convenient hairs here?

We're not splitting anything, copy something that's already been done like a Rainforest or ATD swirl and you owe a royalty [and I believe that's only if you are given permission to begin with]. You create something original you control your own destiny

Yes, yes... As I said, I don't agree with making exact copies of those cool original designs. It is unfortunate that the technology is evolving to the point where very soon (if not already), it WILL be possible to make indistinguishable copies. Not a good idea and it will spoil the fun of seeking out those originals.

The question is what degree of resemblance crosses the line? If it's any sort of swirl or rainforest-like pattern, is that too much? Or does it have to be so close that at first blush one might mistake it for the real thing? Or would it have to be something so close that only a pro like Rich could distinguish them? If we say that it's the first case (any swirl sort of thing), then we had best be humble about the other areas where we don't apply the same discriminating logic, such as playing cover tunes, playing strat-like Ibanez guitars, and so on.

I stand guilty on the inconsistent, discretionary logic flaw. I catch myself constantly applying one set of rules to one issue, and a different (usually less stringent) set of rules to some other matter. That's how most of us stumble through the day. Ah, but I wax philosophic.

Hey Rich, I PROMISE I won't buy, sell, encourage, endorse, play, admire, attempt to produce, smile at, wink at, fondle, or otherwise support the creation of any replicate Donnies, Rainforests, Rainbows, DNAs or other unique and collectable guitars. But I do wish I could finish up this one I'm working on that looks just like a turd... Once I'm done, I will finally control my own destiny.
Bert