Great example!
AA case begins
- Thread starter Jumpin Jax
- Start date
Great example!
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
Too simplistic. There are two other things that are part of this case as I understand it:
1) In the UK a 2D work is considered different from a 3D work in who and how it was created. Consequently AA's work and McQuarrie's work would be considered two different designs and creations.
2) The question of what was actually contracted, or even if there was a contract. If AA was contracted, he has no case, if he wasn't contracted then he has a case (related to #1).
Now if AA created the Alien based upon the two points above he might well be able to sue...and I think that's why this is getting such notice in the entertainment industry as well. It's basically questioning the (if I have the term right) idea of derivative work.
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
Actually now that you said that I think you're right, he did full 3D models long ago.
He didn't do sculpting, he just pretended to...well I mean the Space Jockey....not sure about the suit...
Last edited:
Artistic Design vs. Industrial Design
From a legal standpoint, both in the US and UK, a film as a whole is considered an "artistic creation" and is therefore afforded the longer copy protections. The few cases in existence that have argued the merits of items like props, logos etc. have ruled that they are protected under the same "artistic" protection standards as the film itself. However there has not been a case like this wherein the actual creation process has been called into question.
Around my firm our best guess is that assuming LFL's experts show reasonably that the "flavor" of the design was establish by LFL's team, even if AA sculpted parts for the forming process and made changes to the appearance for practical purposes etc. it will still be ruled as work done for an "artistic production" and LFL's protections will hold. One thing to note is that in the briefs, AA admits his work/design was subject to approvals by LFL representatives. That acceptance of "direction" by AA from LFL creates an implied ownership/contractual arrangement.
Any way you slice it, AA has a huge uphill battle to try and avoid being crushed.
From a legal standpoint, both in the US and UK, a film as a whole is considered an "artistic creation" and is therefore afforded the longer copy protections. The few cases in existence that have argued the merits of items like props, logos etc. have ruled that they are protected under the same "artistic" protection standards as the film itself. However there has not been a case like this wherein the actual creation process has been called into question.
Around my firm our best guess is that assuming LFL's experts show reasonably that the "flavor" of the design was establish by LFL's team, even if AA sculpted parts for the forming process and made changes to the appearance for practical purposes etc. it will still be ruled as work done for an "artistic production" and LFL's protections will hold. One thing to note is that in the briefs, AA admits his work/design was subject to approvals by LFL representatives. That acceptance of "direction" by AA from LFL creates an implied ownership/contractual arrangement.
Any way you slice it, AA has a huge uphill battle to try and avoid being crushed.
Actually AA's helmets cost more than licensed companies and here's why:
1) SDS helmets are all handmade by AA, a skilled artisan who made the original helmets that are also signed by him. Not by an unskilled factory worker in China.
2) The helmets are made in the UK not China. They are made from a similar material to the originals, not fiberglass.
3) AA's company is relatively small compared to a big licensed company.
4) His helmets don't contain lead:lol (sorry had to throw that in there for a joke).
MR and Rubies pay heavy licensing fees and have access to originals but somehow still manage to produce very inaccurate stuff.
As Jez indicated that's not correct. And Liz Moore didn't sculpt anything other than C3PO. Lucasfilm was wrong in their account of that, so what else are they wrong about? And someone mentioned a very good point that LFL hasn't brought forward anyone yet that did the work. The difference between SW and Aliens is that AA didn't have a contract, so why bring up Aliens?
I've showed comparisons of that prototype and the SDS again and again and you simply cannot get the sharpness of the SDS from the prototype...and they are shaped differently in more than just the tumblehome. I'm not sure why that's a recurrent theme because I'm not even a real expert and I can tell the difference.
The SDS vs an original...how could you make it look original from that crappy prototype?
In fact I find the TE helmet somewhat lacking in relation to the Mos Eisley helmets...
How can you get this from a prototype?
The inside of the prototype and the SDS don't match:
Here's the SDS against yet another prototype...
I've always found the prototype argument to be just an attempt to link the SDS to something that wasn't original.
But the SDS does have features of the original and not features indicative of a modified helmet. Just because there's no swoop doesn't make it the prototype. It's just not a tenable argument based on the features the SDS that do match the originals, and there are many. Just because it's lacking in two or three features doesn't negate it entirely because there are differences between the original pulls. We've been through this before many times.
We don't really know what he has. But he has or did have prop pieces from 1976 left over that he can compare to the helmets he makes...
Sure, but think about this. If someone were to offer an ANH Vader helmet from the original molds, there's going to be something wrong with it after all these years almost certainly because of the condition of the molds, and that will need repair or it will just come out as being inaccurate.
If AA is lying he's lying, but I still don't think the prototype story holds water and the helmets do have some merit. What they came from is anyone's guess at this point.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
As much as I look at his images and scratch my head, both sides argue against each other out of habit. For some strange reason, SL is pulling for AA. That's his prerogative.
Even if he took direction from John Mollo, it was up to AA and his own industrial experience to make it work as a wearable costume. Mollo would have no experience in those fabrication techniques. There's a difference between artistic and design direction. And if LFL bought the helmets off him per helmet, as mentioned, they did not then hire him to devise the method or technique or tools required to make the suits and helmets, nor did they pay for that, only the finished product. That separates them from any rights to the process of fabrication. I believe that it is not about what they are, it is about how they were made. The art department was incapable of making the suits in plastic and my guess is that fiberglass would be impractical and expensive to make in those numbers. AA saved LFL a heck of a lot of money making those suits which some don't seem to appreciate and instead say that anyone that made fishponds could have done the work. The biggest problem I have is that AA claims the design process led to the way the helmets and armor looks and that's at odds with what we know since the case began.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Still has higher costs than hobby producers though, i seriously doubt most of them have employees or business premises or the costs associated with running a business, wonder if they declare every penny to the taxman ? doubt that too.
Last edited:
I'm simply addressing the counter arguments at face value because there are always two sides to a story. Even if AA is lying about the helmets, we still don't know the origin of the helmets. I'm arguing the helmets, not the suits. And there's a difference between being interested in how he will defend himself, and defending him. He has lied about some things, no question about that. But I don't believe the helmets came from a prototype. It's just a theory and I'm providing a counter-argument to that theory. I'm also relating some of what he explained to me when I asked the same questions about how they were made....as he's explained to many of us here. Plus I like to ruffle the feathers of the TK helmet makers because they consider themselves morally infallible when they were the ones that pushed AA into business.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Oh, I don't think anyone pushed that hard. Pushing is a bit of an extreme way to put it, unless dollar signs (Or pound sterling symbols in his case) count as a shove from others.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
I know we had someone who used to be a member here rat him out to LFL, but did they honestly think this guy would share? Is that your theory as to why it was done?
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Whatever it was it wasn't for the L:loveVE of the hobby
