Talk:Autoharp

Registered trademark

From the trademark database at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as of September 7, 2006:

Word Mark AUTOHARP

Goods and Services IC 015. US 036. G & S: MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS OF THE ZITHER TYPE. FIRST USE: 18820509.

FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: May 9, 1882

Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM

Design Search Code

Serial Number 71239369

Filing Date October 28, 1926

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Registration Number 0227835

Registration Date May 17, 1927

Owner (REGISTRANT) INTERNATIONAL MUSICAL CORPORATION CORPORATION NEW JERSEY JERSEY CITY NEW JERSEY (LAST LISTED OWNER) WASHBURN INTERNATIONAL, INC. CORPORATION BY CHANGE OF NAME FROM ILLINOIS 230 LEXINGTON DR. BUFFALO GROVE ILLINOIS 60090

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED

Prior Registrations 0022339

Type of Mark TRADEMARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 12C. SECT 15.

Renewal 3RD RENEWAL 19870517

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

— Walloon 22:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Trademark case?

The jurisdiction for all trademark cases in the U.S. is in federal courts. I just did full-text searches in Westlaw for any federal court case involving the terms "autoharp", "Oscar Schmidt", or "Orthey" but found nothing about any such case. In which court was this litigation, and when? — Walloon 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the Trademark Litigation

US District Court decisions are not commonly reported. The Federal Courts have moved only recently to electronic form, and the decision we are speaking about was quite a number of years ago. It may have resolved as a compromise agreement, as well. I didn't know George at the time.

Briefly stated, George Orthey, a luthier in Newport Pennsylvania, began production of an autoharp. Oscar objected to the use of the term. George initially dubbed his instruments "Dulciharps", but as George is a very stubborn man, and not without resources, he instituted litigation on the issue. The ultimate decision was that the term had fallen into common usage during a time Oscar Schmidt was not protecting it. Following the decision, George began marketing his harps as autoharps. You can see this at http://www.ortheyautoharps.com/. In similar fashion, the magazine for autoharp players, Autoharp Quarterly, is able to seek protection of its own using the term in its generic sense. Had the decision been other than as I am representing it, Oscar would be legally required to issue a cease and desist against George, the web site, and, if you will google a bit, quite a number of other businesses handling chorded zithers, or risk the outcome that was, in fact, reflected in the litigation I am reporting. Protect it or lose it, in the trademark field.

As an aside, George trademarked a stylized flower, commonly called "the Daisy" (Although it doesn't look much like a daisy. You can see it under George's right hand in the right hand photo) to distinguish his instruments. Oscar, still stinging from the defeat, later introduced the model OS45CE http://www.oscarschmidt.com/product/autoharp/os45ce.htm which has a soundhole that looks more like a daisy than George's does, but still dissimilar enough that George can't bring an action for infringement. The serious autoharp community is neither amused nor confused. George's instruments are the ones which were played by the Carters and the other well known performers in more contemporary times. Sarah, of course, played an Oscar on the early recordings.

As a final aside, although George's instruments are beautiful both artistically and acoustically, George himself is hearing impaired. Ivan Styles,pickeringbend@worldlynx.net, was present during the litigation, and could tell you a case number, or further details. George refuses to deal with computers under any circumstances.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.63.77 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Goose Acres, as mentioned in the article...

Is quite well out of business, sadly, though I'll have to dig for a local citation. Went down to Little Italy and saw the building cleaned out- even the Ducati was gone. Jdos2 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking as an autoharp player?

Not removing it because of the possibility of it's being truthful (and not knowing as much about Stephen Hawking as I'd like,) but I'm awfully tempted to call Shenanigans on that. Does anyone want to confirm (or deny) it? 216.201.119.71 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we leave it. It's either: a) true, or b) hilarious. 140.247.133.85 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He cant move physicly enough to play. Its probably a prank!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.237.86 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The same for John McEnroe and Jeff Bridges. --151.67.27.127 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no one with citations that say they're professional players. Of the autoharp, at least. They should be removed -- 98.182.50.153 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Registered trademark revisited

USPTO now shows Autoharp trademark as DEAD, as of February 2008. USPTO has no other on-line records of a trademark for Autoharp alone. 98.182.50.153 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut out "notable performers" for new article?

The "Notable performers" section takes up a huge chunk of the page. What say we chop almost all of it out, save for a few really important names, and form a new List of autoharp players? This is also useful in that such lists are often prone to overlisting, jamming in famous musicians who used the instrument on a handful of tracks in their entire career, and tons of non-notable folks. Better to keep that controversy in a separate article and keep the main article clean. Any objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Might as well chop them ALL out, then. Remove the entire section, heading and all. Otherwise, who gets to define "notable"? (I think Grammy-winning artists are generally considered "notable" even if the autoharp isn't their only instrument.) beerslayer (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard in a lot of instrument articles seems to be to list the 3-4 best examples; not necessarily the most famous celebrities who ever used an autoharp on one single song, but moderately well-known people who are specifically linked to the autoharp. Of the current section, the Carters should definitely stay as indelibly associated with the instrument, but I'm not sure mentioning that Janis Joplin used it (in one unreleased song) and PJ Harvey (in a a couple tracks) is really worth having in the main article. I dunno, is Bryan Bowers notable enough to be in the main, especially as autoharp is one of the instruments he's most known for? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I've never heard of him until now, he can't possibly be all that notable... :)
Seriously, it seems to me that one of the reasons for having a "notable performers" section is so that a "typical" reader - one who isn't well-acquainted with the instrument in question - might see a name he/she recognizes in that section and say "really? so-and-so played the whatzit? how cool is that?" and be inspired to do further research on the instrument. Using only names of little-known specialists in that instrument may be gratifying to those "in the know", but will likely do little to stir interest in other readers. beerslayer (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=603761462981508&set=oa.549310468440823

worth someone adding Bob Dylan to the list? EdRicardo (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

So far as Bob Dylan, is playing the autoharp an important part of his music (or used on some very significant tracks of his), or just something he occasionally does? That's the issue of WP:Notability.

So far as the other question about "really? so-and-so played the whatzit? how cool is that?", it's a little bit of both. There's some utility in having widely-known names (provided said people have some significant connection to the instrument), but also if there are less-known people who are very significant in the autoharp world (PJ Harvey for example) having their name in the article introduces the "average reader" to examples of people whose bios and music they can look into to better understand prominent uses of the instrument. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Autoharp festivals and schools" section

It appears that the "Autoharp festivals and schools" section is pretty unencyclopedic, being just general interest info. Plus it's all just external links (see WP:EL) for events that don't have their own article. It should be removed, just giving a heads-up here first. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Upright playing style

There's a brief mention of "upright" playing style in the article, but no explanation of what this is, and what the alternative style(s) might be. I'd like to see an explanation of the different styles and maybe a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages. Could we get some photos of different players using the different styles? Mandolamus (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but for the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"In the mid-20th century performers began experimenting with taking the instrument off the table and playing it in an upright position, held in the lap..." and later in the article John Sebastian is noted as an autoharp player. He would put it on his shoulder. Wastrel Way (talk)Eric

Sears?

From what I remember, Sears-Roebuck used to sell an Autoharp under their own brand name. Anyone want to research this? Too Old (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I see at the Sears website that they still sell Autoharps, but not under their own brand name. The page also has pics of performers holding the instrument in various ways.Sears Autoharp page. Too Old (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Range? Tuning?

Don't see any information on either of these in the article. This information is given in virtually every other article about a stringed instrument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autoharp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304195410/http://www.maagmagazine.com/14237/kami-maltz/ to http://www.maagmagazine.com/14237/kami-maltz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)