26 Proteus 1 year ago I went down the rabbit hole of moral outrage over the appropriation of lapsed brandnames with Duesenberg guitars - clearly a little different because they "pay homage" to a car brand. But probably the same legal principle. I was also incensed on behalf of the Duesenberg family, and wondered if they got some kind of compensation - or at least a thank-you.So I contacted a descendent of the family, still alive and well and running a speed business in Indianapolis. He was aware of the Duesenberg guitar, and, no, they got nothing from Dieter. But he pointed out the guitars were far from the worst profaners of the Duesenberg heritage, and in any case the family has no legal right to the brand name, because they let it lapse when it came up for renewal decades ago. There's no protection to be had. In fact, because someone else is using it somehow for something in the automotive field (having registered it legally), this linear descendent of Fred and Augie can't use "Duesenberg" in the name of his racing company.Point is: if the brand name lapses, it's legally fair game. Is it ethically fair game? Morally? I don't think so, but what's legal doesn't have to be ethical or "moral." I don't know the background situation with Airline (originally a brand of long-defunct Montgomery Wards), Mosrite, Kustom, or any of the international brands Eastwood has mined for reissues. But in most cases (Airline an exception, so I assume the company has legally acquired the name rights), Eastwood doesn't use the brand names - "just" designs and/or nod-and-a-wink model names that leave no doubt what it's about. Again, when the company reissues long-defunct models from lapsed brands - quite apart from the fidelity or quality of those models - I don't get too bent. It perpetuates the image, the history, the mystique of those brands, raises their profiles. It might even boost the resale value of the real thing. And it does bring much-needed variety into the market, giving us a shot at something at least a bit like the original inspiration. (In some cases closer than others.)And when the company partners with modern designers and builders to release original designs - however cheapened from the original concepts - I'm OK with that. But to rip off current or historical models of established, current, and healthy brands - that's just going too far. I've never known how they get away with the Classic family of Gent-alikes, calling them "60s Beatles guitars" to be sure everyone knows what they're knocking off. I would expect that to be part of the conversation. I guess we'll see what happens.