AA/SDS recasting issue...

Discussion in 'Replica Props' started by Gytheran, Jan 8, 2006.

  1. Gytheran

    Gytheran Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,242
    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:
    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.
     
  2. propsculptor

    propsculptor Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,772
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't AA already Banned for breaking the RPF rules?
     
  3. Gytheran

    Gytheran Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,242
    That was a different, non-related AA. "AA Designs" :)
     
  4. Trallis

    Trallis Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    746
    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
     
  5. Star Wars Helmets

    Star Wars Helmets Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,730
    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
     
  6. yakcam

    yakcam Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486
    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
     
  7. JOATRASH FX

    JOATRASH FX Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,696
    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
     
  8. Trallis

    Trallis Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    746
    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.
     
  9. mike d

    mike d Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    555
    Off topic..deleted:)
     
  10. RKW

    RKW Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,476
    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.
     
  11. vaderdarth

    vaderdarth Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,741
    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.
     
  12. jeezycreezy

    jeezycreezy Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    705
    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
     
  13. Lord Abaddon

    Lord Abaddon Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,671
    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?
     
  14. exoray

    exoray Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,631
    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...

    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 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?
     
  15. Jedirick

    Jedirick Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,145

    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?
     
  16. Clutch

    Clutch Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,336
    I believe he means CLEARLY. Don't hate me. I thought I learned a new word for a second there. :)
     
  17. RKW

    RKW Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,476
    Because a movie isn't live.

    HTH :D
     
  18. vaderdarth

    vaderdarth Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,741
    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
     
  19. vaderdarth

    vaderdarth Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,741
    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.
     
  20. Lord Abaddon

    Lord Abaddon Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,671
    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.
     
  21. Birdie

    Birdie Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,660
    If AA is the original artist, why can't he 'create' it again? Why does he need to recast someone else? Is it a case of can't be bothered, or just can't?
     
  22. lambotour

    lambotour Well-Known Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    846
    Good point, however, after reading everyone's opinion time and time again in these types of threads, I do not believe that the case ruling will change the minds of those who are pro or con. Let's be honest, the courts have been wrong before (Michael Jackson) so who's to say they will be right this time, no matter which way it goes.

    It will basically be a matter of taste & cost, respect and who you choose to believe. Do you prefer a TE, GF, Gino, AP, FX etc? How much are you willing to spend? If you believe the recast accusations, will you respect the said armor makers and not buy an AA suit? Who do you believe, AA or LFL? Unfortunately with the lack of availability of a TE, GF or a Gino, one who has the funds would purchase an AA over an FX most certainly. Given the fact that AA was involved, in some way, with the ANH armor production, is enough for some.

    These AA/SDS threads, while interesting and informative, remind me of a song that's been re-released by different artists. It's the same song, just a different variation.

    :)
     
  23. CWR

    CWR Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    360
    It has not been determined that AA was the original artist. From what I understand he only vacuum formed the suits and if that's the case he has no more authority than any of the others that have made armor.

    I suppose you could argue that his hands touched original armor but that is a stretch to say they are from the original moulds which is what he was saying in e-mails to customers. He needed to copy a Jedi suit or another members work because he most likely does not have many if any original moulds left.
     
  24. jeezycreezy

    jeezycreezy Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    705
    [hypothesizing]

    In my opinion, no.

    Recasting (in the pejorative sense) should only apply in the case of copying another person's replica.

    I break replicas down into two categories:

    1) Those cast from an original prop

    And

    2) Those from an original sculpt

    In the first case someone took the initiative get ahold of an original prop. No mean feat, especially in the case of props made some 30 years ago.

    In the second case someone took a lot of time to sculpt an artistic representation of something.

    In either case the work they did to recreate a prop is theirs and theirs alone. Legally they may not hold the rights to the likeness, but I think we as a community should agree that they own the rights to their work without question.

    It may be semantics, but this is the distinction I make in this case (ie. replicating an original prop is okay, replicating a replica is not).

    So if AA did join the RPF, at best those members who make stormtrooper items might be asked to cease and desist (I wouldn't opt for this as stormtrooper accuracy would suffer greatly as a result). But they should certainly not be banned in my opinion.

    [/hypothesizing]

    Cheers.
    TJ
     
  25. DARKSIDE72

    DARKSIDE72 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,105
    Therein lies the question... HOW did a fishpond maker whom is hired to vacume form suddenly become a master sculpter and design the iconic Star Wars Stormtrooper...? :confused Which up untill this point every character,ship,shot, had been conceptualized via sculpt,model,painting,drawing, storyboard etc by the LFL/Fox art department. To say or even think that LFL doesn't own the copy right to its own design of the ST is completly ludicrous. (Well we have to wait for the courts to decide that blah blah blah) Bull $hit. LFL OWNS the rights to everything and anything star wars.

    If he owned the StormTrooper :lol as he claims, why would he wait 30 years to cash in on his creation? Better yet why wouldn't he undertake legal proceedings against LFL for copy right infringement and back pay for using his design?
     
  26. Jedirick

    Jedirick Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,145
    Something that I apply to much of my reasoning when it comes to the RPF.

    We are here for the collector/hobbiest. The guy here interested in building a replica prop of his own and/or acquiring those props as part of a personal collection.

    When a hobbyist decides he can regularily profit from the steady production of replicas, his interest just moved from hobby/collector to businessman What many here refer to as a dealer.

    Now he can be a dealer for MR or other licensed products, reproduce a mirad of machined replicas of found parts, make unlicensed blaster kits, sell armor or whatever but he needs to face the fact he is no longer "in it for the hobby." The dealer may be a foremost authority in the hobby on a particular prop, weapon or costume or a highly skilled artist or machinist BUT members here need to realize he is no longer a hobbiest. he has crossed over into an area inundated with legal criteria.

    A whole new set of rules applies and how he chooses to operate his business (licensed product or not) has much stronger legal ramifications and all the risks that come with operating a business should be weighed accordingly. Unfortunately some fail to do so and draw unwanted and sometimes unwarranted attention on the hobbiest.


    Furthermore, people who make unsupported claims about that business, unsubstantiated statements about the owner(s) or by innuendo link fellow hobbiests to that business need to realize they also have stepped into a world where they can be held answerable.
    Its one thing to theorize and grandstand among collectors. It is whole different bag when one's statements and actions could be interpreted as affecting or in some way interferring with a operating-for-profit business.

    Ask me for an opinion on a particular member-hobbiests activities and I will probably be forth coming pronto. Ask me for an opinion on a member-dealer business activities and the more legally sensitive, the less I would be inclined to offer.


    To best of my knowledge only dealers have been served up C&D's for unlicensed reproduction or had any other type of related legal problems.

    Obviously the RPF is a very attractive customer base for any prop dealer but let us not make the mistake assume the RPF is here to provide for dealers well being. We are here for the hobby collector. The dealers are here for the buck$.

    That is why under the link for the JY, one will find;
    "This section is for collector-to-collector listings, want to buy and trade threads"

    While we are not going to exclude dealer-members from occassional advertising in the JY we ain't looking for any to set up camp there either.
     
  27. Kerr Avon

    Kerr Avon Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,841
    They even think they own more than that, they thought they even owned the design of the Graflex camera flash handle, British grenades and other found parts.

    Silly lawyers.
     
  28. Trallis

    Trallis Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    746
    if AA joined the RPF those members would abolutely not be asked to stop. They make recasts of an original screen used prop which costed a great deal of money and alot of work.
    Why would we say stop so this guy can sell his recasts of your stuff. They're all recasters. some are honest some are not.

    I don't think there should be any debate about this issue. I feel sympathy towards the people who own the armor, and its a nice suit, but this community cannot just suddenly turn a blind eye on shady business practices that have been grounds for other members to be banned in the past. THE MAN IS FLAT OUT LYING TO HIS CUSTOMERS TO GET THEM TO BUY HIS STUFF

    Don't tell me he has rights to this stuff so he can advance his work. If he cared about improving his work and really cared about the hobby, he would be straight with us and give us the truth about what he is doing. He did not. He said exactly what he needed to say to result in him making the maximum amount of profit on these suits. He would not have made anywhere near as much money if he had said "this suit is a copy of a suit that is a copy of a suit from rotj, which is really similar to the suit i made."

    Listen I'm sure alot of people have strong feelings, and who wouldn't after dropping that much cash, but we need to start being honest with ourselves. Just cause he is a historical figure to us and made the original stormtrooper helmets doesnt mean we have to treat him like a god.

    He lied and took your money, and you sit there and support him.
     
  29. jeezycreezy

    jeezycreezy Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    705
    [​IMG]


    I think it's fairly clear that AA wants to at least give the impression he is selling the real deal here, even if he doesn't bang you over the head with the specific details of how he achieved his "accurate replica".

    Besides, the lack of an admission of wrongdoing is hardly proof of innocence.

    Cheers.
    TJ
     
  30. atacpdx

    atacpdx Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    941

    I'm not sure who/what you are reffering to but once documents are filed with the court, they are public record and it is perfectly legal to post them here. As for "leaking inside information" they would only be doing so if they are actually on the teams, (either side) and then it would be breech of attorney/client privilege assuming it isn't already public info (ie court filings, motions etc.). I haven't seen or heard anything here that would even remotely approach standards for "Dismissal" though it does make for nice drama to think that is happening....

    My question is now that AA's claims are basically found to be bunk, how does that affect those banned for yelling from the rooftop's and now in the light of day are found to be right after all?
     
  31. MattMunson

    MattMunson Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,145
    I think ultimately, the ethics of most people on this board are for sale for a few bucks. If something comes along that is cool enough, and it takes recasting it to get it, then people will do it.

    We talk a lot on this board about ethics, doing the right thing, etc, but in my many years with the hobby, I've found this all to be very academic. For the most part, if someone wants something, it typically does not matter where it comes from.

    Sorry to be a wet blanket and all, but my experience with the hobby has shown this to be the case.
     
  32. DARKSIDE72

    DARKSIDE72 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,105

    Only when combined with everything to make a complete blaster,saber,etc. You can legally replicate found parts all day long. LFL can't touch you.

    Dealers: To the best of my recollection, it has only been dealers who have been indiscreet who have been served with a C&D and or taken to court by LFL, GF,SMT,and now AA.
     
  33. Trallis

    Trallis Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    746
    just to elaborate heres what he said to Ghost Host, this was posted by GH on the other thread. If you don't think that banner is enough, what about him saying all this?
    Is he not saying these suits are made from the original molds? He's not even dancing around it or refusing to say it. He is claiming he has the original molds and some have been refurbished. Yah, refurbished meaning replaced with recasted parts from GF
     
  34. MattMunson

    MattMunson Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    3,145
    PS, "recasted" is not a word. In a thread about recasting, we should at least try to use semi-proper grammar. :)
     
  35. Osmotic

    Osmotic Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    117
    Gytheran

    I see where you’re trying to go here but I don’t see exactly what you want ‘us’ to do.

    AA is not a member here so you can’t have him expelled. He hasn’t applied for membership (as far as I’m aware) so you can’t have him denied. He has no ‘official’ vender of his merchandise here so you can’t have his product removed.

    The only viable action I can see is to prevent people selling their personal property which they purchased in good faith.

    Not disagreeing with your stance I just donÂ’t see what action can be taken.
     
  36. _Lee_

    _Lee_ Well-Known Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    846
    When there were people making suits and selling them,he decided the time was right and didnt want to sit back and let others make money out of something he made..the helmets inparticularly.From what i have seen AA looks to have recast a GF suit,but he is no more and no less the same as every other armor producer out there IMO.They are all guilty of the same thing...making profit from a copyrighted item.
     
  37. Trallis

    Trallis Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    746
    recently a member was told by mods that he could not talk about selling his clone armor here because it had parts which he bought from someone who turned out to be a recaster.
    I thought this action made sense, because no one on the RPF should be interested in buying recasted stuff anyway, even if they are buying it from someone who bought it in good faith.
     
  38. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    [​IMG]

    That is the overall banner for the products section of the site, part of the template for all the product pages. It was there when there were just helmets that, most agree, were at least partially from original molds.

    Now that other non-original mold items have been added, I agree the banner should be changed but I read it as more of a overall catchphrase than a statement about the specific product one has selected. The copy within the product window itself is what's important.
     
  39. Trallis

    Trallis Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    746
    but he wont change it because he wants you to believe that.

    And what about the "accept no compromises" part? wouldnt buying a suit not from the original moulds be the exact compromise he is telling you not to accept? Sorry but i'm confused
     
  40. DARKSIDE72

    DARKSIDE72 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,105
    First AA was a vacume former. He didn't create or design squat. His so called helmet was the first item to raise many a red flag over the inconsistencies with any screen used helmet.
    Secondly trooper suits and helmets are not recent developments.
    People have been building suits for a LOOONG time. GF's first suits were sculpted by him. GT recast his suit. GF and TE collaborated on GF's remastered suit with TE's ANH helmet. TE paid thousands for his screen used helmets and later a screen used ROTJ suit to later resculpt and offer the TE ANH. Then there are all the others. To claim that these guys recast AA's work is laughable.
     
  41. Darth Mawr

    Darth Mawr Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,147
    You over looked one inportant bit of information in this statement. The recaster in reference was a BANNED member of the RPF. He was banned as I underestand it for being a recaster.

    As it's been mentioned before AA is not a member here AFAIK.
     
  42. CWR

    CWR Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    360
    Well said,

    The fact is TE and others spent a lot of time and money to bring the community more authentic helmets and armor. AA using any derivitive of this to make money is not O.K. Just because he had a vacuum forming machine and made suits off of moulds that were sculpted by someone else does not give him automatic rights to recast items that took others time and money to create.
     
  43. _Lee_

    _Lee_ Well-Known Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    846
    Sorry,i seem to have worded my previous post wrong.

    I wasnt implying that other guys have recast AA's work.I was merely stating that many people were making money from copying the Stormtrooper design and seeing as though he worked on the originals,he wanted to step into the market himself.I understand the argument here is about AA recasting someone elses work,but i just cannot understand why people can complain when he is doing what many others have done.You could say the same about TE recasting the original helmets/suits he owns,he is still making a copyrighted item and something someone else made.Just because someone owns a screen used helmet,it doesnt give them the green-light to produce replicas of them.

    Obviously the argument would be that AA has gone public with his suits and if he is proven to have copied GF's then he is in the wrong.

    This is an argument that will never be settled IMO.
     
  44. CWR

    CWR Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    360
    I know that no one but LFL has the right to make TK armor but I am greatful that TE and GF spent the time and money to bring the community more accurate props. What I am saying is that I think TE and GF made a difference and improved on what we had while AA just capitalized on their efforts. That is what I am not in favor of.
     
  45. Art Andrews

    Art Andrews Community Owner Community Staff

    Trophy Points:
    5,550
    As much as I don't like to, I have to agree with you. What AA has done is not right, but you can't bitch about what AA is doing and at the same time say how great what others have done. No matter how they try to justify it, they had no more right to copy the helmets suits that they made than AA has to copy "their" stuff. If you are going to point a finger then it has to be pointed all the way around. Nothing like a good-old double standard.


     
  46. vaderdarth

    vaderdarth Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,741
    I absolutely agree..........what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't ostracize one person for doing what others have already done. The original ST design didn't belong to TE or GF, they didn't do the work that made the suit they copied........so therefore......... You can't have it both ways. They are either all guilty or all innocent.

    Dave



    [snapback]1154689[/snapback]​
    [/b][/quote]
     
  47. CWR

    CWR Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    360
    I don't think I would think badly of AA if he had an original suit and was the first to bring that level of authenticity to the community. The fact is TE, GF, and others improved on what we had before and AA has not. If AA would have made a screen accurate ANH suit that was clearly on a Jedi or TE/GF recast, I don't think we would be discussing this. The helmets though not entirely screen accurate could be said to have been derived from some assemblance of original moulds but clearly the armor was not. Everyone that has made TK armor has violated the law to some extent but we are discussing the law within our own prop community not federal or local state laws. The question is what should or can be done about the violations within the RPF community?
     
  48. DARKSIDE72

    DARKSIDE72 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,105

    Of course no one can justify what they have copyed without a license to do so. The difference between GF,TE , and "the others" is they were for the most part low key in their sales. Fans selling to fans quietly. AA poped up with a big fancy website and blatantly spouted off "buy the original helmets from the original molds etc etc" (debunked) $800 a pop etc and now the same with this armor recast off of fans work. Advertising all over the place, slapping LFL and the prop licence holders dirrectly in the face. There is a big difference.
     
  49. Lord Abaddon

    Lord Abaddon Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,671
    I would say that AA has indeed helped improve upon what already existed...his products show more definitively what some of the ANH helmets had to them, and possibly some of the armor.

    Remember, in that thread only a few pieces were alleged to have been copied. Some were already being suspected as original ANH. Others were yet to be determined by those here.

    I think in it's own controversial way, we are ALL way better educated to the crazy nuances, changes, differences, and diversity of TK armor because AA came out of the closet and decided to go out there with his stuff.
     
  50. voice in the crowd

    voice in the crowd Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,486

    This statement is not fact it is a belief of some people on this board. Until this point is proven it cannot be stated as a fact as you have used it DARKSIDE72. Andrew Ainsworth has stated he sculpted the original stormtrooper pieces and vacuum formed them for the movie it may or may not be true but there is no evidence yet that he didn't. When that evidence comes along please use it until then this comment is misleading to anyone reading this thread.


    Sory for digressing anyway back on topic in my opinion here is what should happen if AA is proven 100% to have recast / stolen other peoples work -

    If AA has recast GF pieces in his sculpt then he cannot obviously be banned as he isn't a member here.

    However his products should then not be discussed or shown on this forum the same way any other recaster is treated. Showing and discussing recast props if effectively an advertisement to the unscrupulous. GF is a member of this board and if his work has been used regardless if he made his sculpts based on AA's original work it is still recasting his work.

    If AA has recast TE pieces the treatment should still be dished out the same as to any other recaster even though TE is no longer a member of this forum. Because someone has left it should not diminish their rights to be protected by the COC.

    I don't think there is anything in the COC about people who have left the boards but I still don't think it fair that if someone leaves that it is then fair game to recast their work. Maybe the MODs have something to say on this unusual issue of a former members work being stolen. Possibly something could be added to the COC.

    One thing for certain recasting must be proven 100% without doubt before action is taken.

    In reality there doesn't really seem to be any course of action that will make any difference to AA/SDS if proven guilty (in the high court of the RPF :p ).

    What are peoples suggestions if AA/SDS proven guilty?
    Boycott products (the people who argue against SDS don't buy his products anyway so it will make no difference), no discussion of SDS products thus limiting advertising to potential customers who frequent these boards, burn him at the stake...... What?

    I just don't know what people want to happen if these allegations are proven to be true. The MODs should possibly step in to decide what should be done about this situation.


    Cheers Chris.
     

Share This Page