AA case begins

[SithLord]

Well I've had comments before about helmet angles, rear tube shapes, etc from people that haven't taken the time to look at enough helmets, so there you go...all the angle and shapes you could ever want...take from it what you can or want. The point is simple...there were helmets with flatter rear tubes and helmets with more curved rear tubes, and it has nothing to do with the angle at which they are viewed. One simple comparison won't make that point. I'm spilling it all out here because how many times have we been through this and people still suggest the rear tube shape has to be curved to a certain extent and there were no flat rear tubes onscreen? Well hello there were. And that photo of the single rear view is a ROTJ helmet. The pointis, there's variation and it's based on how they were trimmed and how they were pulled. Is it relevant to the case? Well if there was "expert" testimony against AA based on the SDS helmets themselves indicating that because of their flaws he could not have the original molds as he claims, I would think that is relevant to the case, especially if that was part of the argument that led to LFL winning the default in the US. And yes there is an AA defense at this point in the case, not just a LFL offense. That's the whole point of taking it to the UK...

 

[Reactor drone]

Excelent compilation of comparison photos,it's good to see the variation in the individual helmets and I think for people who haven't read every AA/SDS thread around they're very helpful.

There's a lot or variability in how these helmets were assembled and trimmed.

Can't wait to see how this case turns out.

 

[ArtisanProps]

Is it relevant to the case? Well if there was "expert" testimony against AA based on the SDS helmets themselves indicating that because of their flaws he could not have the original molds as he claims, I would think that is relevant to the case, especially if that was part of the argument that led to LFL winning the default in the US. And yes there is an AA defense at this point in the case, not just a LFL offense. That's the whole point of taking it to the UK...

Having the original molds has nothing to do with this case, because it's already
been established that AA provided Lucas with the Costumes which could make AA the
Author, or Artist of the work giving him all Copyright Privileges to make any and
all the changes he wishes without anyones permission. So even if AA redesigned
the whole helmet making it flawless. As long as he is the original artist. He has
Copyright, and can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to the costumes....


Someone would have to say that AA had nothing to do with the film in order
for the Plugs/Molds to be of any use to him, but everyone knows and it's been
Documented that AA did the Costumes which could lead people to believe
he is the original artist

Now Unless Lucas can prove that Brian Muir was the original artist
( which is why Brian Muir was called ) and not AA, Lucas may lose especially
if there are no legal Documents to state that AA was a "work made for Hire"

AA also lost in the US because of Default from not showing up.. It got draged
to the UK to try and enforce the settlement.. So to enforce the settlement
Lucas has to prove AA is comitting Copyright Infringement

and good job on the Photo comp. Your right no two pieces will look the same when your dealing with Vacuforming

 

[defstartrooper]

Now Unless Lucas can prove that Brian Muir was the original artist
( which is why Brian Muir was called ) and not AA, Lucas may lose especially
if there are no legal Documents to state that AA was a "work made for Hire"

Well actually they have to prove anyone but AA sculpted the final design or that AA sculpted it but to their design.
Brian Muir i think has been called because he did some sculpting work on the armour he's stated that in the past but said the helmet was nothing to do with him, whether he sculpted the complete armour or if his sculpt is identical to the final suit i don't know.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Going back to the moulds (and I know they may not be directly relevant to the case), in my view the key thing is what happened in "the missing years" between 1976 and 2003/4 - and only AA knows that.

Having looked at this many times over recent years, my personal view is that AA still DOES have the original Stormtrooper helmet moulds. However they are now in a state where many of their features have changed considerably from their 1976 state.

I still think the face is in great condition, with the markings on the inside of the face section around the frown supporting its originality (such as certain markings between the teeth). I was convinced by its provenance when comparing the insides of original and replica TIE helmets I had access to a few years back.

The "webbing" on the underside of the tubes (and the reduced undercut) is strange, but could be the result of AA altering the moulds in order to make vac-forming easier (potentially in 1977/78 when he made the revised "prototype" version). I understand the contrary view that its simply the result of AA recasting a "prototype" face plate - however I dont agree with this view since the softness of the "prototype" face plates would have eliminated the tells found on the inside, mentioned above.

Regarding ther back and cap. In my view these could be the originial moulds - theyre certainly from an original source as the curvature of the cap is 100% spot on. However the (lack of) droop in the back is so different from the many original helmets I have now seen makes me think its (at best) a significant rebuild.

My theory is that when AA came to make his "prototype" helmets back in 1977/78 (after the screen-used stuff was all finished), he rebuilt the back section, which by his own admission had suffered significant damage during original production. Fast forward to 2003/4 and I can only assume he ditched the prototype's metal "U" bend and vacuum hose and rebuilt the back section from photos. I also think he "cleaned up" parts of the moulds, in his view to actually improve them - not really understanding that irrespective of state, original is best.

So there you have it - my opinion on what AA's moulds really are. I still think they are the originals, but have clearly had a lot of work done to them between 1976 and 2003. It'll be interesting if the court does deal with this, but somehow I dont think its actually all that relevant to the case itself.

Cheers

Jez

 

[ArtisanProps]

Well actually they have to prove anyone but AA sculpted the final design or that AA sculpted it but to their design.
Brian Muir i think has been called because he did some sculpting work on the armour he's stated that in the past but said the helmet was nothing to do with him, whether he sculpted the complete armour or if his sculpt is identical to the final suit i don't know.

For some reason I thought I read that BM also did the helmet, but I think I stand
corrected .. In that case. yes they would have to prove someone else did
indeed
sculpt the helmet, but I think if they see that BM did at least sculpt the armor
and not AA the judge will rule in favor of Lucas seeing how AA also offers
the armor for sale, making him guilty of Copyright Infringement..

Going back to the moulds (and I know they may not be directly relevant to the case), in my view the key thing is what happened in "the missing years" between 1976 and 2003/4 - and only AA knows that.

Having looked at this many times over recent years, my personal view is that AA still DOES have the original Stormtrooper helmet moulds. However they are now in a state where many of their features have changed considerably from their 1976 state.

Yes I think Your right AA Probably does have the molds.. If He is the original
Artist giving him Copyright, then all the changes he made are ok. Crap he can
make brand new molds for that matter, make alterations, enhance the looks,
Ect. and Uncle George wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it..

 

[Zenwalker]

Jez, what do you mean by the 'webbing on the underside of the tubes', please clarify.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Jez, what do you mean by the 'webbing on the underside of the tubes', please clarify.

I mean that when you look at an SDS from side-on, the lack of undercut almost gives the impression that the chin section and tubes join as a straight line, instead of it following the path of the undercut. DOes that make sense?

See this pic from SithLord

On the proto, there's clear webbing. Not so on the SDS but its not far off. However I wonder if this was AA changing the moulds to make it easier to get the helmets off the buck, when he made the proto's in 1977/78

Cheers

Jez

 

[GINO]

That's what I've been saying all along.
However, I'm still confident in my beliefs that he doesn't have original molds.
P.S. The entire mouth section on the SDS stunt was re-worked and the entire face sharpened. I very strongly believe the face and cap/back come from the post ANH 'improved' version, which in turn I believe was derived from the last state of the original mold (hero face). We really should stop calling it the prototype as it is only causes confusion.

 

[SithLord]

That's what I've been saying all along.
However, I'm still confident in my beliefs that he doesn't have original molds.
P.S. The entire mouth section on the SDS stunt was re-worked and the entire face sharpened. I very strongly believe the face and cap/back come from the post ANH 'improved' version, which in turn I believe was derived from the last state of the original mold (hero face). We really should stop calling it the prototype as it is only causes confusion.

You might be right and he doesn't have the original molds, but we don't really know for sure. You have always suggested in the past that the SDS was derived from the prototype helmet as we know it from the auctions... as the helmet with the vacuum tube rear section...and not the hero helmet. Now you are saying that the SDS comes from the last state (whatever that hypothetical state might be) or the hero face.

As far as modifying the face, take a closer look at original helmets...because I frankly don't see how that is possible.

The teeth of the originals vary based on trimming. For example, the bottom original shows the teeth straighter, but they are also narrower...so just cut in more. But what is the original starting point?

We get an answer to that question by looking at the TIE helmet teeth, which are not trimmed. This is a comparison of the SDS TIE helmet (the first one) from the inside teeth area, an original screen-used TIE helmet and then a screen capture of the teeth area of a TIE helmet. How can you get this kind of detail, this kind of similarity...even better relief of detail on the SDS...even in the gaps between the teeth...than an original TIE face? So it is basically impossible that the mouth area was reworked and to suggest that has no basis in fact.

And how do you suggest the entire face could have been sharpened or modified when you have this level of minute details from the interior of an early pull SDS stunt helmet interior that matches the interior of an original screen-used helmet? This is the right tear area as seen at high magnification.

Again, can you show me here where there was re-working? How exactly is it possible that the SDS is sharper in the chin area than the original but it has the exact curvatures in such a complex 3D shape in every respect?

THe original on the left, an SDS on the right...show me where the SDS face has been sharpened or altered. Look at the section between the eyes...that ledge...it's even sharper on the SDS than the original.

Details like this don't come out of thin air or from previous pulls, especially since no fan helmet has had them before...so it is my belief that the face was not reworked.

 

[ArtisanProps]

Ok After reading the transcripts of the case that AA defaulted on, I now
firmly believe AA's Ass will be extremely sore after Uncle Georges Attorneys
get through with him .. they are claiming that...............

1) AA used the artwork from lucas to make the stormtrooper costume. Now since
this drawing is not AA's, it's very crucial to establishing that Lucas is the
Author/Artist and Copyright holder, making all the Costumes AA is now selling
A "Derivative Work". Without permission to sell. it is considered Infringement of Lucas's Copyright

2) Lucas's Attorneys also say that AA is using the Imperial Logo on all of his edit.. Oooops, on the Tie and gunner helmet's
which is definately a problem for AA LOL "Dumb Ass"

3) Uncle George is not happy that AA is claiming to be making these costumes
with original molds and states that AA is using misleading claims to exploit the
sales of his products...

I guess in a sence the molds are in question, but very, very, unimportant to
this Case. It's just another nail in the Coffin..

Here are the transcripts if anyone wants to read the claims..

http://rpf.exoray.com/LFL_vs_SDS/1st_a_c.pdf

 

[nicklambo]

Not sure if any one has seen these before but these are the moulds AA is using ( I believe)....

You can clearly see where the mold has been reworked to allow the release of the rear section better..

 

[defstartrooper]

I think those are the battlespec moulds it's known he had new moulds made for that helmet his er " budget " line.

As for the US case it's the same argument they will use in the UK but will the court agree that the final design is similar enough to the McQuarrie art to find him guilty of IP theft ?
I don't know what the criteria will be but there's not one part of the costume the same on the art as on the actual costumes, i think that part of their case is weak.
However in the case of the armour Brian Muir has said he sculpted it, to what extent he sculpted it and how close it was to the final suit i don't know so depending on the evidence surrounding that i think there could be a strong case of IP theft with the armour.
AA didn't use the imperial logo on his stands he did however use them on the TIE and Gunner helmets but later removed them i suspect due to a C+D issued by LFL he'll most likely plead ignorance of the logo being a registered design and point out he removed them when he found out it was, not a big issue certainly not a $20m one.
Uncle George not being happy that he claims to be using the original moulds and misleading people into buying his products is not related to IP theft it's a trade description issue and even if he was lying about the moulds LFL won't recieve a penny for it.

 

[AnsonJames]

.

 

[defstartrooper]

There's definitely been a lack of integrity on AA's part as far as I'm concerned.

He was paid to do some work in 1976 and that should have been the end of it, instead he's used loopholes to profit from the work of others.

He didn't sculpt the armour - that's Brian Muir's work.
The Imperial cog logo belongs to Lucas.
He didn't design the Death Star gunner, the Imperial navy or rebel helmet - these are Mollo designs.
In fact the Mollo designs are also very close to what is seen in the movie.

His armour moulds are not original and the helmet moulds are dubious to say the least.

I'd say he's in for it.

All may be true but then it all applies to several other people except for the paid to do a job in 76 bit and the claims of original moulds neither of which relate to IP theft.

 

[AnsonJames]

He not going to leave court tomorrow unscathed.
I guarantee it.

 

[defstartrooper]

He not going to leave court tomorrow unscathed.
I guarantee it.

Probably true i just find it strange how one individual deserves financial ruin for ripping off studios stuff when that's what 99% of the people in the prop/costume replica game do.

 

[JoeR]

Probably true i just find it strange how one individual deserves financial ruin for ripping off studios stuff when that's what 99% of the people in the prop/costume replica game do.

I agree partly, but if you are stupid enough to have a website and invite unwanted attention you only have yourself to blame,especially after what happened to GF.

 

[Onigiri]

Because most in this hobby have the common sense not to thumb our noses at a C n D from LFL. Its not like Lucas didnt give AA a chance to back off. AA didnt heed the warning and in point of fact offered NEW infringing items AFTER the initial C n D. Hard to feel any sense of pity for someone that misguided and arrogant. He (AA) is EXACTLY in the situation that he himself PUT himself in. He has shown a pattern of behavior of dishonesty and misrepresenation aside form the obvious IP theft and didnt have the simple common sense to back off....oh no...he stepped it UP and even has the temerity to countersue. Nope...I think he is going to get exactly what he deserves.

Probably true i just find it strange how one individual deserves financial ruin for ripping off studios stuff when that's what 99% of the people in the prop/costume replica game do.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Probably true i just find it strange how one individual deserves financial ruin for ripping off studios stuff when that's what 99% of the people in the prop/costume replica game do.

So you agree he is ripping off LFL.

My dislike of this person stems from his arrogance. If he would have kept as underground as GT, TE or any other number of crafters, here and elsewhere, we would not be having this conversation. He could have said he was the original crafter involved in the manufacture of trooper helmets and armor and the underground would have still bought from him. People would probably not have paid the ridiculous prices his lies about using original molds has gotten him, but he could still have made a nice tidy sum, and probably not gotten too much attention from LFL.