AA case begins

[Larry Young]

Almost the same thing is happening now in comics as to who owns the rights to Superman, unbelievably.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Almost the same thing is happening now in comics as to who owns the rights to Superman, unbelievably.

Really? Not to go off on another subject, but I hadn't heard about that. I'm not that big a comic follower but you'd think something like that would have made some news.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Really? Not to go off on another subject, but I hadn't heard about that. I'm not that big a comic follower but you'd think something like that would have made some news.

Pfft...go off on the tangents, Mike. We all know each other's positions.

I know Seigel and Shuster did the creating, but thought DC did the owning. What is the new wrinkle?

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Pfft...go off on the tangents, Mike. We all know each other's positions.

I know Seigel and Shuster did the creating, but thought DC did the owning. What is the new wrinkle?

:lol

 

[SithLord]

Good points CustomCreations. Maybe AA's lawyers argument is based on the work he did turning the clay sculpts into the final design provides him with some ownership, with part ownersip to the sculptor (whoever that is) as well as LFL for the McQuarrie paintings.

Well according to the defense it wasn't possible to design the tools based on clay sculpts...for whatever technical reasons...if you've seen the photo does the head sculpt look like the final design?

 

[SithLord]

What the **** does this prove? :rolleyes

It was the Mcquarrie pre production paintings that were used to SELL Star Wars to the studios.

That McQuarrie sketch was used in the complaint. There's no copyright on the painting you show. :rolleyes Nor are the front views shown in great detail apart from the concept drawing I show in my comparison.

 

[Knightjar]

Well according to the defense it wasn't possible to design the tools based on clay sculpts...for whatever technical reasons.

AA's technique (at least his current method for vac-form mould-making) means hand sculpting the actual positive former using a slow-curing epoxy paste, so any existing clay designs would not have been used directly in his manufacturing process.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Now can I precurser all of this with the statement that I've NEVER vacformed anything in my life so please take this with a pinch of salt, HOWEVER.........

If I was given a clay sculpt of a helmet I needed to vac form, presumably I would;

1) Make a new male cast in a flexible/workable material (by first making a female cast of the clay sculpt and then a new male master from that)

2) Cut this new male cast into sections so I could vac form (i.e. face separate from back/cap)

3) Mount these new male sections on board to allow vac forming and drill the air holes. The face would be straight up, the back/cap tipped upwards, to allow the maximum amount of undercut.

Presumably if the new male mould material was flexible enough, AA could have been able to make some minor alterations to the mould (ear and brow areas, teeth and eye definition, etc)

Is this how it would be done? We should assume the clay sculpt is 95% true to the final version

Cheers

Jez

 

[Onigiri]

Its not the same thing at all actually. The rights to Superman were purchased from Seigel and Schuster back in the day for a fairly low sum without their anticpating the financial juggernaut that Superman would become. Their respective families have sued several times in the interim for a larger piece of the pie. They have previously been awarded more money but keep upping the ante. This is in no way what happened in this case. AA was hired to do a job basewd on a set of requirements provided by his employer (LFL). He si now saying that he created the stormtrooper and should hold the rights. Shuster and Seigel created Superman autonomously and shopped the character around It would be the same as saying AA scu;pted and vac formed teh troopers and then shopped the final product around to different producers until someone said 'hey, we like your idea...we're going to find a way to make a movie around that. Here's some money"
Not the same

Almost the same thing is happening now in comics as to who owns the rights to Superman, unbelievably.

 

[Knightjar]

That's a logical set of assumptions. However -

Vac-forming moulds need to be made from rigid material or they would distort during the forming process.

The method AA has demonstrated using (whether or not this method was used on all the helmet moulds seems to be a matter of dispute!) does not involve casting the clay sculpt, rather the male part of the mould is a sculpt in its own right. He sculpts the male directly using an epoxy paste that he then heat-cures.

Your description of the positioning of the front/back pieces is pretty much spot on how AA lays his out.

Now can I precurser all of this with the statement that I've NEVER vacformed anything in my life so please take this with a pinch of salt, HOWEVER.........

If I was given a clay sculpt of a helmet I needed to vac form, presumably I would;

1) Make a new male cast in a flexible/workable material (by first making a female cast of the clay sculpt and then a new male master from that)

2) Cut this new male cast into sections so I could vac form (i.e. face separate from back/cap)

3) Mount these new male sections on board to allow vac forming and drill the air holes. The face would be straight up, the back/cap tipped upwards, to allow the maximum amount of undercut.

Presumably if the new male mould material was flexible enough, AA could have been able to make some minor alterations to the mould (ear and brow areas, teeth and eye definition, etc)

Is this how it would be done? We should assume the clay sculpt is 95% true to the final version

Cheers

Jez

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

That's a logical set of assumptions. However -

Vac-forming moulds need to be made from rigid material or they would distort during the forming process.

The method AA has demonstrated using (whether or not this method was used on all the helmet moulds seems to be a matter of dispute!) does not involve casting the clay sculpt, rather the male part of the mould is a sculpt in its own right. He sculpts the male directly using an epoxy paste that he then heat-cures.

Your description of the positioning of the front/back pieces is pretty much spot on how AA lays his out.

Thanks Knightjar,

But couldnt he make a copy of the clay sculpt (by effectively recasting) USING the epoxy material - and then before its fully set he makes his changes and heat-cures?

Cheers

Jez

 

[Knightjar]

That certainly sounds feasible - just not the method he describes using. I believe he intends showing the court a video of him making a mould (not the original one of course) using the epoxy sculpting method in order to demonstrate the process.

Thanks Knightjar,

But couldnt he make a copy of the clay sculpt (by effectively recasting) USING the epoxy material - and then before its fully set he makes his changes and heat-cures?

Cheers

Jez

 

[SithLord]

AA was hired to do a job basewd [sic] on a set of requirements provided by his employer (LFL). He si [sic] now saying that he created the stormtrooper and should hold the rights. Shuster and Seigel created Superman autonomously and shopped the character around It would be the same as saying AA scu;pted[sic] and vac formed teh[sic] troopers and then shopped the final product around to different producers until someone said 'hey, we like your idea...we're going to find a way to make a movie around that. Here's some money"
Not the same

His employer at the beginning was not LFL. Just Nick Pemberton. It was allegedly only after he did the work that he found out who it was for as then LFL agreed to "order" a set number of helmets and armor. There was allegedly no money up front, no contract, and no contract fees for the tool design and therefore no explicit release of the rights of AA's work he did up to that point.

 

[SithLord]

AA's technique (at least his current method for vac-form mould-making) means hand sculpting the actual positive former using a slow-curing epoxy paste, so any existing clay designs would not have been used directly in his manufacturing process.

I found something interesting in relation to that...

BRITISH IMPERIAL COPYRIGHT BILL OF 1910

As to architecture and artistic crafts the Conference recommended resolution 9 that an original work of art should not lose the protection of artistic copyright solely because it consists of or is embodied in a work of architecture or craftsmanship but it should be clearly understood that such protection is confined to its artistic form and does not extend to the processes or methods of reproduction or to an industrial design capable of registration under the law relating to designs and destined to be of manufacture or trade.

Keep in mind I'm just trying to understand how AA's attorneys might be trying to argue the case...and if there's any basis to their arguments.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

I found something interesting in relation to that...



Keep in mind I'm just trying to understand how AA's attorneys might be trying to argue the case...and if there's any basis to their arguments.

Wait now. If that law is how I'm reading it, and is still in effect, then it is saying that while it was okay for AA to make the helmets for the movie and that use (and be paid for it) it was NOT okay for that helmet then to be used as a mass manufacture item for trade. In other words the artistic use turned into a manufacture for profit use and hence how it now falls under "industrial design."

:confused

 

[SithLord]

AA is a tradesman, his design was related to a process of manufacture and based on that Act, is separate from whatever similar artistic content is inherent to his design. As I interpret it, he's not fighting for the way it looks, he's fighting for the way it was created.

Also here based on the US 1978 Act...

Generally speaking, copyright protection extends to creative work such as art, music, literature and computer software. Creative work includes paintings, drawings, sketches, photographs, collages and sculpture. The protected work need not be unique. That is to say, if two artists by coincidence create works that are virtually identical to each other without copying, each will be entitled to copyright protection if the other requirements of the statute are met. This is true even though the works may be substantially similar to one another.

And allegedly AA never saw the clay sculpt...so the big question is how did his design come to be?

The copyright statute prevents others from making a substantial copy of a protected work—whether they’re selling their art, entering it in competitions or perfecting their techniques—but there is no precise definition of substantial copy. Cases have held that creating a three-dimensional work from a two-dimensional drawing is an infringement as long as the unauthorized three-dimensional copy is substantially similar to the two-dimensional drawing.

As to the meaning of this test, one of the leading copyright jurists in the United States, Judge Learned Hand, stated that, in his opinion, if one compares the protected original work to the allegedly infringing work and the comparison discloses that the works are substantially similar, then there is an infringement. This is a very subjective test, and those artists who copy the works of others run a great risk that a judge could conclude that the line between inspiration and copying has been crossed.

So whatever the outcome, it will rely on the statues and the subjective opinion of the judge insofar as the degree to which AA's designs and the McQuarrie paintings/sketches and the clay sculpture share similarity or whether they just inspired the design of the tools.

 

[atacpdx]

Unfortunately for AA, a major part that will likely not hold up is his argument that he never saw source material from LFL related sources on which to base his work. The odds that his work would resemble so strongly the original McQuarrie designs, without having seen something, are astronomically against AA. It would be like me asking any one of you to build a model of the Omsi building here in Portland that you have never seen, have no reference to and only a vague oral description of, and low and behold you produce an exact replica.

As for the copyright issues, Exoray is correct Sithlord. While it is a nice piece of argument, it is based on fundamental misunderstandings of copyright law. And by the way, folks just because there is no copyright marking/statement on a piece of work does not mean it isn't protected.

Again guys, the legal armchair QB's aside, this is a vastly uphill fight for AA. I understand the "love for the underdog" "LFL is rich so screw 'em" etc. but this really does come down to the basic rights that film makers need to make movies a viable business so we can enjoy them. AA had a number of chances to back down, negotiate etc. before this ever saw a coutroom. He gambled. He'll likely lose. If so, he can only blame himself.

1 sure thing though? Win or Lose, as I stated in a previous post, his barristers will win despite never getting a dime from AA.

 

[defstartrooper]

Again guys, the legal armchair QB's aside,

Care to share your qualifications ?

I do believe that AA saw at least some artwork by McQuarrie maybe not the final paintings but sketches but then that's neither here nor there, it really doesn't matter if he saw 5 zillion paintings the argument is whether his design is the same as McQuarries.
Yeah there are similarities but there are also differences i don't think it's clear cut at all.

The court really won't be interested in how he came about the design unless LFL can either show it is a design they already owned or it was designed under contract by AA, we know the 2nd option is out of the question so that leaves LFL with convincing the judge AA's helmet and armour are McQuarries design or the mystery sculpt that nobody has seen yet or been mentioned in the case.

 

[atacpdx]

Care to share your qualifications ?

Does being 50% owner in a lawfirm that handles these types of cases on a regular basis qualify? Course if you had bothered to read my earlier posts you'd have known that!:cool

 

[Knightjar]

I do believe that AA saw at least some artwork by McQuarrie maybe not the final paintings but sketches but then that's neither here nor there, it really doesn't matter if he saw 5 zillion paintings the argument is whether his design is the same as McQuarries.

AA Doesn't dispute having been sent at least one sketch by McQuarrie. He even has a copy of the picture showing the side-view of a trooper with a light saber (posted earlier in this thread) displayed in his shop next to copies of his invoices for the first batch of helmets.