Guitar repair and building website design - opinions

PeachyDragon

What do you guys think of this design I am doing?
I blurred out any details since I don't want to reveal
who it's for yet.
And edit out the watermarks mentally. ?

Gearhead

Mustn't set fire to guitars. For starters, it's been done, nothing new about it. Secondly, it's a waste. Finally and most importantly, they are meant to be played. No one interested in buiding and repairing will want to set them on fire, rather put them in the right hands, no?

Bob-Dubery

Burning guitars.... meh. Maybe also sends a "rockers only" signal.

Are the maker's names on those guitars? Last thing you want is some big corporation coming after you for unauthorised use of their brand and/or trademarks.

AlanRatcliffe

Looks like all the right elements and the right kind of content, but don't burn the competition's guitars - it's negative marketing (and yes they are bound by law to protect their trademarks, so they will come after the site owner). If you've got space for photos, rather use it to promote what is being sold.

PeachyDragon

Good points. I reckoned it was stock photography... and therefore paid for, but
it makes sense. No there aren't brand-names on those btw.
I'm giving the client the option of with or without flaming guitars.
I did provide alternatives.

make-and-do

In the spirit of this site's free open source info, this is something I can contribute to:

People are sensitive when it comes to their designs, so disclaimer* all of this is said in purely neutral tone ? and this is my day-job

The burning guitars don't fit the overall message that the site is supposed to communicate - it's a negative image.
It seems to me that you're putting it in the design because it's something you like personally...it does not however belong in this design context.

Also you should never leave a big design decision like that to your client - you are supposed to be the professional in your field. You should make the
informed design decision as in most cases the client is not equipped with the proper design/communication knowledge to know what works in what design context.
Design is not just about making things look "nice" or "cool". It's about communicating the right message to the right audience.
In this case: message - we repair guitars > audience: guitar players, musicians.

On a positive note: the layout is fine, uncluttered and user friendly.

PeachyDragon

make and do wrote In the spirit of this site's free open source info, this is something I can contribute to:

People are sensitive when it comes to their designs, so disclaimer* all of this is said in purely neutral tone ? and this is my day-job

The burning guitars don't fit the overall message that the site is supposed to communicate - it's a negative image.
It seems to me that you're putting it in the design because it's something you like personally...it does not however belong in this design context.

Also you should never leave a big design decision like that to your client - you are supposed to be the professional in your field. You should make the
informed design decision as in most cases the client is not equipped with the proper design/communication knowledge to know what works in what design context.
Design is not just about making things look "nice" or "cool". It's about communicating the right message to the right audience.
In this case: message - we repair guitars > audience: guitar players, musicians.

On a positive note: the layout is fine, uncluttered and user friendly.

Interesting... I figured the flame was a metaphor for awesomeness?
I am planning on sharing the views expressed here with the client.
If I see an anime where the guy is punching so hard that his hand light on
fire I don't suddenly get offended because they are burning martial artists, do I? ?

AlanRatcliffe

PeachyDragon wrote Good points. I reckoned it was stock photography... and therefore paid for, but
it makes sense. No there aren't brand-names on those btw.

Headstock and sometimes body shapes are as much an issue as brand names. Stock libraries don't always know this (unless you are buying from Getty or one of the other big expensive stock places).

PeachyDragon

Makes sense... but in this day and age, I really don't think anyone is getting sued
for making a Telecaster or a PRS shape... Unless they are one
of the 6 biggest guitar manufacturers. There are tons of Teles and PRS copies
out there made by Hamer and other companies. Even single-cutaways don't
seem to be strictly enforced.
Also, the client's primary business is guitar repair/setup etc.
So I don't really think it infringes at all... I do agree
that replacing those pics with pictures of custom guitars is a good idea.
That was my initial idea. Just don't know if that will happen.

AlanRatcliffe

PeachyDragon wrote Makes sense... but in this day and age, I really don't think anyone is getting sued
for making a Telecaster or a PRS shape... Unless they are one
of the 6 biggest guitar manufacturers.

On the contrary. Trademark law says they have to pursue even the smallest offender or risk setting a precedent that obviates their trademark. Both headstock shapes are clear. Both Headstock shapes are trademarked and owned by the biggest guitar company in the world. Said company keeps lawyers on staff and more on retainers... Some companies have people checking even individual sales on Ebay, sending out takedowns on sales of secondhand guitars that infringe their copyrights.

Also, the client's primary business is guitar repair/setup etc.
So I don't really think it infringes at all... I do agree
that replacing those pics with pictures of custom guitars is a good idea.
That was my initial idea. Just don't know if that will happen.

Mention it to them and put it in writing. That way the buck does not stop with you. Seriously.

PeachyDragon

Alan Ratcliffe wrote Mention it to them and put it in writing. That way the buck does not stop with you. Seriously.

Oh absolutely. I have a standard contract that confirms that I am not liable for content including images.
But in this case, what would the basis of the law suite be? If I, hypothetically, own a guitar store and I
put a picture of a Gibson in the design... what can they sue me for? This is a similar issue.
If I, hypothetically, do setups on Gibson guitars, certainly I can have an image of one on a site?

AlanRatcliffe

The trademark holder reserves the right to stipulate how the trademarks are used. Somewhere I have a 32 page document from Fender that lays out every trademark and how it may be used including foreground and background colours, proximity to other design elements and sizes. More trouble than it is worth.

To have a photo of a specific guitar being sold or repaired falls under "fair use". To use those same images as part of your own design does not.