AA/SDS recasting issue...

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Gytheran

Sr Member
Ok,

If you've been following the latest AA armor thread, you would realize the eventuality of this topic was inevitable. Lets go ahead and get it out of the way, shall we? :confused

Here at the RPF we have a certain set of guidelines that we have to follow in order to maintain our membership, i.e. the CoC.

Specifically, reguarding recasting:
7. Selling/trading of recast items:
Deliberately recasting another memberÂ’s creation without permission is something this community does not support. A member found selling/trading items recast from another member without permission will face possible disciplinary action.
Furthermore, in the explaination of the disciplinary process, the act of recasting is considered by the Moderation team to be an "Extreme Case", being afforded the option to circumvent the regular disciplinary process also afforded to acts of fraud and threats.

It is also widely known, by anyone who has been here a while, this community vehemently opposes the act of recasting and have on MANY occasions backed various artisans of this forum when this act has transpired.

The point I'm making, which is abundantly clear, is recasting is NOT tolerated here.

That brings us to this thread:
http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=98991

Here we have Andrew Ainsworth's armor, which he is currently selling from his website: http://www.sdsprops.com/armour-intro.htm

If you've read the AA armor thread above, you'll see parts of the AA armor is recast and modified from GF armor. We have the word of GF who has stated one of the part in question was a custom creation on his(GF's) part and would be IMPOSSIBLE for someone to "accidentally" create an exact duplicate. This individual, despite his ties to the original production, has taken the works from one of the RPF membership, copied and claimed it as his own, and is now selling it openly.

And that is where we stand.

Is AA going to be held to the same standards as anyone else who has been found to recast our members' work? Are we going to stop promoting and selling his wares, as we have for every other instance of recast work. Or is AA going to have special privelages, not afforded to ANY OTHER member, to allow his items to be sold here, despite the fact he is selling items stolen from GF?

I'm genuinely curious to hear the thoughts of the RPF membership, as well as the official RPF position on the matter.

By all means, please discuss.

Thanks.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Trallis

Well-Known Member
i guess you're asking should people be allowed to sell their AA stuff on the junkyard, right?

Interesting question.

the evidence in that thread was pretty indisputable by the end.
Regardless of whether anyone thinks he should have the rights to sell this stuff because hes the original maker, that doesnt take away the fact that he lied about his product in order to sell it.

If AA was a member here, he would most likely be banned right now
 
Interesting debate and one I AGREE needs to be discussed. LetÂ’s home people can keep it civil.

My opinions are as follows (IÂ’ve stated them before in other threads and you will see that they are consistent).

1) SDS Armour does not come from “the original moulds”. However, I didnt think that the claim over originality was SDS’s position (and certainly wasn’t at the two trade shows where they showed the armour off). If they have said that the armour is from the original moulds then imo this was wrong of them. Wrong and stupid. Note that this doesn’t affect my view on the helmets which IMO DO come from the original moulds.

2) I do not believe it is possible for an artist to plagiarise his own work. If AA made the originals then in my view that allows him the “rights” (ethically speaking, not legally) to reclaim his own work, so long as he doesn’t state its something it isn’t (i.e. see 1. above).

3) Following on from the above, even if some of the “suspect” armour parts in question were a bespoke sculpt done recently by another artisan (such as GF or TE), it’s still plagiarism by the latter since the intention was to precisely duplicate the original artisans work. Basically you can’t condemn an artist (“A”) for copying the work of another artist (“B”) who copied the original artist (“A”) in the first place. This is compounded further when you consider that “B” copied all of “A” whereas “A” only copied part of “B”.

In summary it would be incredibly hypothetical to censure the original artist, and yet at the same time extol the virtues of those who for years openly profiteered by plagiarising the original artistÂ’s work.

These are my views, itÂ’s not for me to say they are right or wrong so people can disagree with them if they wish. However they are presented as opinion and not fact.

Cheers

Jez
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

yakcam

Sr Member
Hmmm, so if AA were to become member of this board, would any of the members here who have recast his work be liable for banishment?

Just wondering.

Cheers,

Kraig
 

JOATRASH FX

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Hello all,

While I've been laying low on this whole issue, I agree with Jez's points #2 and #3. If I made something and someone copied it, I wouldn't have any moral qualms about taking said copy and using it myself. (I would however, have a professional issue with it since I want my work to come 100% from me, but that isn't the issue here.)

AA's work was one of the baselines from which all Trooper suits sprouted and if he wishes to improve his work with the help of works that sprung from his original, then he should be allowed to.


/Joe F
 

Trallis

Well-Known Member
that isnt the issue. The issue is that he is obviously recasting a ROTJ suit and selling it claiming it is an ANH suit and IMPLYING that it is from the original molds. it is very clear that he is trying to make people think it is from the original molds without actually saying it.the evience is all in the other thread. if i pay alot of money for a product, it better be what i thought i was buying. Do not try to tell me that people buynig this armor think that it is a recast of parts that come from a ROTJ suit.
 

RKW

Sr Member
This sure is a difficult for me to make a decision. The emotional side of me thinks that since AA is the original artist then he SHOULD be deserving of some leeway than just an ordinary fan in this matter. AA is not a member so the COC doesnÂ’t apply to him and I think any decision the RPF makes wonÂ’t really affect his continuing business.

The logical side of me thinks that AA is clearly misrepresenting his product(s) as he did email at least one individual about the issue of original moulds by stating that he used the “original skins” instead. Now you could argue that all marketing involves an element of exaggeration and so should AA be punished for this? But if this forum is trying to uphold some kind of honour system in a hobby that is rife with deception then the logical decision would be to ban any further sales/promotion of his work based on his continuing deliberate deception.

The one thing I have learnt out of all this is just how much of the current TK suits are NOT original. I donÂ’t believe AA even realised just how much of the current suits are scratch built so as far as he was concerned he was simply copying his own work. He has clearly learnt differently and has basically had to do what all the other makers have done or are currently doing. So SDS provides a suit that is no worse or better than what other armourers currently provide but he has the provenance of his name associated with it.

PS

Mike_d, the origin of the helmet is a completely different issue to the rest of the armour. We all know the SDS helmet is not from a TE/GF etc.

Edit

The sooner this focking board gets a spellchecker the better.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

vaderdarth

Master Member
Does it say on his website that it's from ANH moulds???

I thought he changed the wording to "Original Maker" on the suit, and left original moulds for his Helmet.

If the man made a change in the marketing, we're simply spinning in circles.
 

jeezycreezy

Well-Known Member
It's such a grey area (and everyone's moral compass will point in a different direction) that I doubt we could ever reach a mutually satisfactory consensus (our history on this very subject proves it).

Unless it was put to a vote I think all that will result from this is another massive, pages long thread full of contradicting opinions and disharmony.

I think the best we can do is to encourage people to educate themselves, form their own opinions based on what they read here or elsewhere, and proceed with caution.

They can either condone AA with a purchase or condemn him by not.

Cheers.
TJ
 

Lord Abaddon

Sr Member
Jez, Kraig, Joe, RKW and TJ...all very well said. I actually agree with all of you. And, like RKW said, I had no idea there were so many differences, so many changes, etc. to all the TK suits.

I would say at this point that as AA isn't a member here, there really is no reason to continue such a discussion. Nobody is shilling for him, there have been no mass sales here, no runs or anything, so really how and in what way would the CoC even apply?
 

exoray

Master Member
Originally posted by BingoBongo275@Jan 9 2006, 05:56 AM
2) I do not believe it is possible for an artist to plagiarise his own work. If AA made the originals then in my view that allows him the “rights” (ethically speaking, not legally) to reclaim his own work, so long as he doesn’t state its something it isn’t (i.e. see 1. above).
This is based on a big assumption that it it is "his" work... At best it is one step removed since it is based on ROTJ armor, something he had no part in... And the question of who actually did the ANH is still on hold...

3) Following on from the above, even if some of the “suspect” armour parts in question were a bespoke sculpt done recently by another artisan (such as GF or TE), it’s still plagiarism by the latter since the intention was to precisely duplicate the original artisans work. Basically you can’t condemn an artist (“A”) for copying the work of another artist (“B”) who copied the original artist (“A”) in the first place. This is compounded further when you consider that “B” copied all of “A” whereas “A” only copied part of “B”.
Well a nice twist, but a copy of someones work or not, it is still not yours to use at will... Some of the parts in question are original sculpts by GF, do you honestly believe AA has the rights to these newly sculpted parts to do what he wants because he had some hand in the original armor?

I would say at this point that as AA isn't a member here, there really is no reason to continue such a discussion. Nobody is shilling for him, there have been no mass sales here, no runs or anything, so really how and in what way would the CoC even apply?
I would say it's VERY important for the RPF to take a stand on this issues since the court paperwork CLEARY points to and CLEARY states that the RPF was the initial point of public exposure for the sale of AA/SDS products. Call it what you want but the RPF is now legally involved in this mess, and IMO it would be best to take a proactive stance...

Also there are several recasters that are talked about on the RPF that are not members why should AA have special rights?
 

Jedirick

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Originally posted by jeezycreezy@Jan 9 2006, 09:11 AM
It's such a grey area (and everyone's moral compass will point in a different direction) that I doubt we could ever reach a mutually satisfactory consensus (our history on this very subject proves it). 

Unless it was put to a vote I think all that will result from this is another massive, pages long thread full of contradicting opinions and disharmony.

I think the best we can do is to encourage people to do educate themselves, form their own opinions based on what they read here or elsewhere, and proceed with caution.

They can either condone AA with a purchase or condemn him by not.

Cheers.
TJ
[snapback]1154419[/snapback]​

I think this is very wise thinking.

Mindsets among those involved strongly indicate there will never be an agreeable conclusion.

As a member of the staff, I am somewhat relieved that AA is not an RPF member so that I'm not placed in a position to render or vote for a particular official opinion.


IMO...
Would I have bought AA armor a year ago? maybe. Would I now? probably not. Is that a comdemnation? Not really, as honestly some of that is based on acquired personal preference for others armor over AA's. Something I have determined while reading the countless threads on this subject. Do I regret selling my GF armor years back? Well, yeah but that doesn't have a thing to do with this. :D

I will say I do not think denying any member the opportunity to sell his set of SDS armor here serves much purpose except to punish those who bought armor in good faith. There will always be those here who prefer SDS armor over anothers and I just can't condemn them for that.

At this time, would I happily sanction a "dealer" of SDS productline openly selling armor sets in the JY, No. Not as much because of the recast question as the current legal sensitivity and based on it's outcome, any ripple effect impacting the RPF's health and wealth.

Quite honestly I am more interested in the outcome and impact of the AA/LFL legal situation than the seemingly unresolvable - which recaster, was a recaster first, the chicken or the egg?
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Clutch

Master Member
Originally posted by exoray@Jan 9 2006, 08:35 AM
I would say it's VERY important for the RPF to take a stand on this issues since the court paperwork CLEARY points to and CLEARY states
[snapback]1154429[/snapback]​
I believe he means CLEARLY. Don't hate me. I thought I learned a new word for a second there. :)
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
Putting this to a vote may give some members a sense of authority that doesn't really belong to them here. The moderators are the only authority on this issue. Putting things like this to a vote will only allow those who wish to associate with an AA thread (from either side), and the vast majority, no matter how they feel about it, won't vote whatsoever. It won't be like the "majority" vote will mean anything in the grand scheme of things. If we do put it to a vote, can it be set up anonymously??? An anonymous vote is a fair vote. Anything else is a display that may bring unwanted attention to a member. No I don't mean myself......you already know how I'd vote. :)

The only important issues here as I see it are:

1. Does it fall under the COC guidelines, even loosely???

2. Do the moderators feel it is necessary to act in any capacity concerning the issue???

If both of these can't be answered with yes, this all may be a waste of time.

Dave
 

vaderdarth

Master Member
Oh and for those that keep implying they have connections to the LFL legal team against AA and continuously provide us with a play by play of "inside information regarding this case"......it is not only improper to "leak" information you have to the RPF, it's against the law. The LFL legal team knows this full well. This could be grounds to have the case dismissed. Just a word to the wise.
 

Lord Abaddon

Sr Member
Originally posted by exoray+Jan 9 2006, 09:35 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Jan 9 2006, 09:35 AM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-BingoBongo275
@Jan 9 2006, 05:56 AM
2) I do not believe it is possible for an artist to plagiarise his own work. If AA made the originals then in my view that allows him the “rights” (ethically speaking, not legally) to reclaim his own work, so long as he doesn’t state its something it isn’t (i.e. see 1. above).
This is based on a big assumption that it it is "his" work... At best it is one step removed since it is based on ROTJ armor, something he had no part in... And the question of who actually did the ANH is still on hold...

3) Following on from the above, even if some of the “suspect” armour parts in question were a bespoke sculpt done recently by another artisan (such as GF or TE), it’s still plagiarism by the latter since the intention was to precisely duplicate the original artisans work. Basically you can’t condemn an artist (“A”) for copying the work of another artist (“B”) who copied the original artist (“A”) in the first place. This is compounded further when you consider that “B” copied all of “A” whereas “A” only copied part of “B”.
Well a nice twist, but a copy of someones work or not, it is still not yours to use at will... Some of the parts in question are original sculpts by GF, do you honestly believe AA has the rights to these newly sculpted parts to do what he wants because he had some hand in the original armor?

I would say at this point that as AA isn't a member here, there really is no reason to continue such a discussion. Nobody is shilling for him, there have been no mass sales here, no runs or anything, so really how and in what way would the CoC even apply?
I would say it's VERY important for the RPF to take a stand on this issues since the court paperwork CLEARY points to and CLEARY states that the RPF was the initial point of public exposure for the sale of AA/SDS products. Call it what you want but the RPF is now legally involved in this mess, and IMO it would be best to take a proactive stance...

Also there are several recasters that are talked about on the RPF that are not members why should AA have special rights?
[snapback]1154429[/snapback]​
[/b]
You're right in that the big question, who mades the suits initially, is on hold until the courts (or some settlement) decide. Consequently this question should probably wait until that time.

As for your question of if AA has the right to use someone else's interpretation of his work. How about asking, has anyone else had the right from the late '70s to today to make a profit off AA's interpretation of LFL's work? It can go either way and is basically a subjective answer.

The RPF can take what stance it wants to, that's up to the administration. However, anyone with any eye knows this board is basically illegal from get get go. ALL Stormtrooper armor is illegal. ALL copies of licensed merchandise are. To support or not support a "statement" about AA, especially with the entire legal case still pending and in motion, would likely make no difference one way or another.

And AA should have special consideration because unlike "other recasters" he isn't a recaster as the term is normally used...he worked on SW, he made the armor (in what capacity still to be determined) and he hasn't taken something that wasn't essentially his in the first place and copied it.

I think all this discussion should be put on hold until LFL and SDS come to a conclusion of their case. Do to anything more is to go on assumption and speculation.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top