defstartrooper
Sr Member
Well actually whether he has the original moulds or not has no bearing on the claim of IP theft which this case is about.
AA case begins
- Thread starter Jumpin Jax
- Start date
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Um how do you come to that? If he is indeed in possession of the original molds, it may give his case some weight. We all know the guy is a recaster, and at least that much is not in question here...I hope. (I mean amongst us)
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Are you sure you're not confusing supporting AA with making a balanced statement based on the available evidence, rather than personal dislike and other reasons totally unrelated to the actual court case ?
defstartrooper
Sr Member
I come to that because it's not related to the case at hand, IP theft is IP theft using original moulds or not.
Whether he has those original moulds or not is another issue.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Yet the whole case, for him was that he realized that he had the original molds, he was the original sculptor (ALLEGEDLY) and thinks the troopers are his designs.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
The burden of proof lies with LFL proving he didn't produce the props or moulds if they dispute that, which from the reports we have had so far does not look to be the case.
They are not disputing he made them they are basing their case of ownership of IP on him producing said props and moulds from their design.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
You and I go round and round more than Mike and I. I am going to take the tack I took with him and say "Let's just wait and see."
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Getting dizzy ? :lol
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Pretty much. Losing track of who I agree and disagree with.
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
:lol
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
I already said if he loses I'd freely admit I was wrong about him, I just think it's too bad if he does for many reasons.
exoray
Master Member
I would find it funny if the abdomen had a canadian coin!
No Canadian coin this time, just the same inaccuracies as GF's ab sculpt and tells of the buck being modified to make it look different... Add to that a quick revision of the ab plate as soon as these inaccuracies were pointed out...
No. If he has them and can demonstrate that they are the original molds, and if he can show that he made them, and the technique he devised to make them was his own technique and in so doing led to the design of the molds, then that is his defense and has everything to do with the case. There's no such thing as IP theft in a vacuum. The original props would have to bear that out as well...as having come from those molds. And Exoray I'm not sure what you meant but what I or you believe has nothing to do with it but rather what AA claims to have. And the defense doesn't rely on the SDS helmets he sold...which is where TE's testimony was flawed...and if not flawed then is LFL still relying on it? Do you think AA would use the SDS helmets he sold as evidence he has original molds? No.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
There is no defense as such not untill a decision of ownership is made, LFL are the claimant it is them that must prove they own the design it's nothing to do with manufacturing process.
Their claim is AA produced the helmet to their design the judge will make a decision on whether the final design is the the same as or close to the McQuarrie art or this mysterious sculpt that still hasn't been seen or even mentioned in any court, LFL have the burden of proving there claim AA does not have the burden of proving his innocence.
If the judge decides that the design is the same as or close to the artwork/unseen sculpt then AA will argue that the design is no longer protected due to it being an industrial design rather than an artistic one.
He certainly doesn't need original moulds to do that though, it's the process he used in 76 that he will demonstrate not that he still has the same tools he was using 30 odd years ago.
Of course the judge deciding that his pieces are not the same as the LFL art would be the best option for him because if he uses the industrial design argument and wins then that will restrict any award he goes for in his counter claim because the design would have become public property after ten years i think that's the length of time.
Their claim is AA produced the helmet to their design the judge will make a decision on whether the final design is the the same as or close to the McQuarrie art or this mysterious sculpt that still hasn't been seen or even mentioned in any court, LFL have the burden of proving there claim AA does not have the burden of proving his innocence.
If the judge decides that the design is the same as or close to the artwork/unseen sculpt then AA will argue that the design is no longer protected due to it being an industrial design rather than an artistic one.
He certainly doesn't need original moulds to do that though, it's the process he used in 76 that he will demonstrate not that he still has the same tools he was using 30 odd years ago.
Of course the judge deciding that his pieces are not the same as the LFL art would be the best option for him because if he uses the industrial design argument and wins then that will restrict any award he goes for in his counter claim because the design would have become public property after ten years i think that's the length of time.
Darbycrash
Well-Known Member
Mike I definitely will remember that quote. And as I said before I will as well.
Studio Stasis
Sr Member
Sithlord, you posted this photo earlier, but I wanted to add an SDS helmet that is currently for sale on the dented helmet.
It all comes down to presentation, but what I said before still rings true. i think there have been huge changes to bring it back to what it should look like, but there are so many resemblences between these top two helmets. You have to be able to see that. I'm not saying they match or that they are the same, but the similarities are so apparent to me.
It all comes down to presentation, but what I said before still rings true. i think there have been huge changes to bring it back to what it should look like, but there are so many resemblences between these top two helmets. You have to be able to see that. I'm not saying they match or that they are the same, but the similarities are so apparent to me.
Onigiri
Sr Member
It went bad for AA because Hillary showed and asserted her claim to having been the creator of the stormtroopers. Not only was she under sniper fire at teh time but she was with her grandfather out behind the wood shed in Pennsylvania doing shots of Crown Royal. In other news Obama said that the AA detractors are just bitter and holding on to "Hokey Religions and Blasters".
Sithlord, you posted this photo earlier, but I wanted to add an SDS helmet that is currently for sale on the dented helmet.
It all comes down to presentation, but what I said before still rings true. i think there have been huge changes to bring it back to what it should look like, but there are so many resemblences between these top two helmets. You have to be able to see that. I'm not saying they match or that they are the same, but the similarities are so apparent to me.
I am not sure why you think that you can you make a valid comparison with a photo like that? It's photographed too close and the angle and distortion forces the perspective to be similar, but it's not, and it's easy to show why.
Here's the same comparison but I've taken the photo of that SDS helmet...BTW that's a hero helmet and they were modified so it's not a valid comparison, is it...and I rotated it so the angle of the mouth/nose is identical, and then I enlarged it to scale it to the mouth/nose region. And low and behold...how can you compare those two? The perspective is completely off. And there is a big difference between the SDS in the tubes and the rear cap size and curvature and the teeth are different as well...how could you get perfectly accurate teeth from the prototype?
Not to mention, the undercut and tube curvature differed between prototypes (just as with the originals) so using the prototype as a standard isn't valid. And look how soft the features are on the prototype...how does one get the sharpness of the SDS face from something like that?
And if the SDS came from the same molds as the prototype, then it should be just as soft in the features, and it's not...it's just as sharp as the originals...I would argue from this comparison even sharper in the chin/aerator area...
Every slight change in curvature of the top of the head and going down to the rear tube is IDENTICAL with the exception of a slight pinch on the transition between the top cap and the rear cylindrical section...
Try to make your TE or Gino helmets look like this....you can't...nor since I first showed these comparisons has anyone in the anti-SDS group tried. And how can it be sharper in the chin area than an original? Because it was sharpened? Then why does the interior of that area match the originals?
There's even the odd bump that is shared between the original and the SDS.
The indent here is off so ignore it...but anyway regard the similarities in the rear section...
One more time...the SDS interior doesn't match the prototype interior....
And here's an SDS stunt vs hero comparison....the hero was modified...
Show me this detail on an original...it's the same...
We know that the helmets came out differently from the original mold especially in regard to the tube sizes/curvatures...so the whole idea of comparing the SDS to the TE helmets as a standard has been misled.
How do you explain the difference in thickness of the tubes? Different molds? Ya right. And look how straight the ears are on these...the TE helmets have these wimpy soft curved ears that look nothing like these, whereas the SDS magically has these straighter sharper ears that were never previously seen on a fanmade helmet before. You guys conveniently and consistently have ignored features such as these and instead have used the TE helmet as a standard and it's far from a standard because of the obvious differences between the original 50 helmets...not to mention the prototypes made afterward.
In conclusion, if, as you say, "i think there have been huge changes to bring it back to what it should look like", how do you explain if it was modified to appear more like the original that it has such specific and accurate features of the originals that even the TE-style helmets do not have? Sure there are problems with the SDS but it appears that if any modifications were made, they would have been made on the mold and they take the helmet further away from the original, not closer to it. Issues like the undercut or the swoop can be explained on the basis of how the mold was altered to make it easier to make the pulls. That doesn't change the details that are seen on the inside of the face or in the gaps between the teeth...details seen on the original TIE helmets! Yet you guys consistently ignore these findings.
Anyway, you are going to have to show much better comparisons than that one to convince me of anything....and don't turn this around and say I'm just defending AA. This is about what I've observed and studied at great length on these helmets...to me it's about what the helmets have in common with the originals as much as what they don't have in common, and I am willing to acknowledge what they don't have in common but the anti-SDS camp have never acknowledged what they do have in common. So unless you have much better images of the prototypes, your argument with a comparison like that doesn't hold water and I do not see how it is possible to go from the prototype to something like the SDS.
And to those who complain about this back and forth argument....the reason it happens is because comparisons like these just don't seem to sink in....but I'll leave them here for all RPF members to judge for themselves. And if someone has a counter argument I'm all ears...but be prepared to show something more substantive to illustrate.
Last edited:
Studio Stasis
Sr Member
Hopefully you don't think I'm attacking you Sithlord. I appreciate your illustrations and your shared interest in the details. When I look at the SDS I see a lot of things I can't explain. Some of the interiors you've shown do match the originals, which means it either came from an original helmet or an original mold, but either way I know that his parts came from something matching finine textures of a screen used helmet. I'm not saying that the prototype was a match, but a very soft pull from a buck that shares a resemblence in many ways to some of AA's products today. Some of the similarities are subtle. Some differences lead it off track entirely, like you mentioned with the interior and teeth not matching.
I don't hold "the TE" as a standard of comparison. That would depend on which TE we're talking about. He owned 2 screen used helmets. I still have not seen screen captures of helmets in the films with ears matching the SDS. If anything, the two helmets that TE owned have much closer ears to the originals than the SDS does. It's almost as though the SDS ears are a new sculpt entirely. What do you think? Is there a possibility that more than one type of ear was used or the film helmets? The picture of the helmets stacked at SDS make it difficult for me to tell how they match up to the ears that SDS uses today.
I'm possibly retreading ground that was ironed out in previous debates, but I don't recall. I find these helmets interesting, regardless of their origin. I'm happy to be proven wrong by Sithlord, and he does bring a lot of evidence to the table. I just can't make up my mind what each piece of evidence means. There is more than one hypothesis for each inconsistancy. It is funny how it remains a puzzle to this day. Some of the mold alterations do seem viable to me, but other things still don't add up. I like stumbling on answers.
Thanks for indulging me Sithlord. You bring up some valid points.
I don't hold "the TE" as a standard of comparison. That would depend on which TE we're talking about. He owned 2 screen used helmets. I still have not seen screen captures of helmets in the films with ears matching the SDS. If anything, the two helmets that TE owned have much closer ears to the originals than the SDS does. It's almost as though the SDS ears are a new sculpt entirely. What do you think? Is there a possibility that more than one type of ear was used or the film helmets? The picture of the helmets stacked at SDS make it difficult for me to tell how they match up to the ears that SDS uses today.
I'm possibly retreading ground that was ironed out in previous debates, but I don't recall. I find these helmets interesting, regardless of their origin. I'm happy to be proven wrong by Sithlord, and he does bring a lot of evidence to the table. I just can't make up my mind what each piece of evidence means. There is more than one hypothesis for each inconsistancy. It is funny how it remains a puzzle to this day. Some of the mold alterations do seem viable to me, but other things still don't add up. I like stumbling on answers.
Thanks for indulging me Sithlord. You bring up some valid points.
I appreciate your understanding reply...all is well and good in these occasionally heated discussions. :love Also I can be a bit blunt sometimes so if it offends just let me know.
Good question about the ears....thusly...they did differ and there are ears like the SDS ears...I did this so long ago...I'm sure if I used the HD DVD sources then the point would be better made...but this comp took long enough... :cry
Good question about the ears....thusly...they did differ and there are ears like the SDS ears...I did this so long ago...I'm sure if I used the HD DVD sources then the point would be better made...but this comp took long enough... :cry
Last edited:
