AA/SDS recasting issue...

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by isd804@Jan 15 2006, 06:18 PM
Hmm.

http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?...dpost&p=1141246

And, hmm.

http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?...dpost&p=1157151

[snapback]1159966[/snapback]​

Exactly isd804. Those postings left me with many questions regarding what would the case be of an artist who works on a movie and is a member of the RPF do/think/feel if someone else obtained the prop by auction, private sale, etc... and started selling copies of the prop.
Do you as a member and original artist have any say in this? Is it recasting by the other member? And the scenario you presented left me wondering should clarifications be made to the CoC.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by Starkids1990@Jan 15 2006, 09:24 PM
My intent is to focus on what is the actually wording used in the court document. The wording of which, can in itself be interpretated quite differently than what has been so far presented.

Yes, I understand what you are saying but you interpreted and jumped to the assumption that fabrication was directly related to the fabrication of the forming bucks and sclupting the parts... When in fact when taken in full context it appears that LFL point was that AA fabricated (vac formed) and assembled parts based on LFL designs and models...

was at most merely involved in the fabrication and assembly of parts based on Plaintiff's artwork, drawings, models and sculptures

If anyone can produce the name of another artist connected to the actually making (sculpting) of the vac-form buck that led to the creation of the Stormtrooper armor then by all means share this information for posterities sake so we all have a more clear picture of how our beloved props where created.

I believe you will agree that the only person around these parts that would have that answer would be LFL themself, and if the case continues we might have an answer... Like I have said before there are dozens of custom sculpted creatures in ANH, LFL had a staff of talented people working for him all on whom will probably never be known... And again I ask do we have any conclusive evidence that AA sculpted the bucks used? Anything beyond hearsay, AA's claims and 30 years of common belief based upon the two previous?

So far all evidence presented by LFL has showed a similarity to but not an exact match for the results of the vac-form buck that was used.

Well I guess you are trying create some sort of "if you take someone elses design tweak it some percent, change the medium it then becomes yours" type of scenerio... This is simply not the case under US law, especially when you were contracted to derive the new design by the original owner... These same types of variations can be seen all day in Star Wars books, toys and video games, the artist in all these cases have limited ownership of thier design because it's based on someone elses copyrighted likeness...

 

[imaginager]

Originally posted by Starkids1990
Exactly isd804. Those postings left me with many questions regarding what would the case be of an artist who works on a movie and is a member of the RPF do/think/feel if someone else obtained the prop by auction, private sale, etc... and started selling copies of the prop.
Do you as a member and original artist have any say in this? Is it recasting by the other member? And the scenario you presented left me wondering should clarifications be made to the CoC.

[snapback]1160084[/snapback]​

SK,

Since I've never performed contract work for a studio you'll have to take my answer at face value.

Assuming I'm a member here...

If I sold my work to a studio, it would belong to the studio. I would be unable and unwilling to reproduce and sell it here, or anywhere else.

An RPF member who came by the piece could:

(1) reproduce it for their personal collection;
(2) need to ask my permission to reproduce same item I sold to a studio (that they somehow acquired) if they intend to sell it here, or elsewhere.
.........I would respond to both the RPF member and the Mods stating my desire on the issue so that my position is clear.

Assuming I'm not a member here...

If I sold my work to a studio, it would belong to the studio. I would be unable and unwilling to reproduce and sell it.

An RPF member who came by the piece could:

(1) reproduce it for their personal collection;
(2) reproduce and sell it wherever and however they saw fit.

Is this a bitter pill? Well, having learned from AA, I would charge a lot more than he did for similar work...

EDIT: Thanks, as well, to Exoray for the legal info.

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by isd804@Jan 16 2006, 12:07 AM
SK,

Since I've never performed contract work for a studio you'll have to take my answer at face value.

Assuming I'm a member here...

If I sold my work to a studio, it would belong to the studio. I would be unable and unwilling to reproduce and sell it here, or anywhere else.

An RPF member who came by the piece could:

(1) reproduce it for their personal collection;
(2) need to ask my permission to reproduce same item I sold to a studio (that they somehow acquired) if they intend to sell it here, or elsewhere.
.........I would respond to both the RPF member and the Mods stating my desire on the issue so that my position is clear.

isd804,

I disagree with your outline for how it would go down. You would not have any say over what this member would want to do with your work. Main reason being, it isn't your work. It is the work of the Studio that paid you for your services in the creation of that work. He could break the law anyway he wanted to in regards to the piece in question and can't be labeled as a "recaster".

How can he be recasting something when he would be making 1st gen castings of the Studio piece in question?

Now let's say that he makes casts of the piece he bought that you made for Studio X. This is after Studio X took claim to the product you provided them when they paid you for the work.

He makes some 1st Gen casts of the part (while including some tells in the casts to identify them as his) and sells them here at the RPF. You purchase one and use it or pieces of it in the creation of your own. You think, why not? I'm the original creator of it and I'm technically just copying my own work.

You then sell your version of this piece which is "just like" the one you sold to the Studio. Only problem is that your new version is identified as having pieces in it that include the "tells" that the original buyer put in his parts.

You would then be the recaster even though you were the original maker of the Studio Prop.

Confused yet?


In a nutshell, anything you would make for the Studio is the Studio's. Instead of an employee with benefits, you're an independent contractor that they don't have to pay extra to use the services of. Your sweat and labor is the Studio's sweat and labor.

 

[Trallis]

i think the important fact is that that member who had made that item originally would not suddenly gain the right to that item again just because someone else here bought it. If that person could not make the item before, why should they suddenly have rights to make copies of it because someone else obtained it.

It's kind of like selling a patent on something, you no longer have the right to make it, even though it was originally your idea. You were paid for it. It was not stolen away.

AA was paid for his work by Lucas. He was paid for his talents(in molding and casting, and maybe sculpting[doubtful]). It's not like they went down and said hey i heard you make some sweet helmets can we buy like 50? they went down there and gave him detailed instructions and paid him to carry them out.

Edit for more comments:
I think alot of people are forgetting that recasting a screen used prop or studio piece is an accepted practice. It is a promoted practice. It is just as acceptable in this hobby as selling castings of your own sculpt(although it differs in legality, which in this situation is irrelevant because LFL owns the copyrights to the helmets, not SDS or the original prop recaster).Making castings of someone elses work or casting of a screen used prop is not accepted. It doesn't matter if you were involved in the movie to begin with.

 

[imaginager]

Gav,

Not sure I disagree with you, the fellow RPF member asking my permission, that is.

However, (in addition to seeking permission seeming the most courteous course of action :$ ) since the CoC reads:

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.


...I resolved my outline where both parties are members by paying attention to the word "creation" in #7, above. No mention is made of ownership, so my position is that #7 applies. I created it. The studio acknowledges that I created it and they paid me for it and they own it.

What's your take on the word "creation" in CoC #7?

Interesting point, though. Regardless, the member is only subject to "possible" disciplinary action, so it might be worth the gamble for him or her.

EDIT: Btw, I agree with everything else you said...

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by isd804@Jan 15 2006, 11:36 PM
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.


What's your take on the word "creation" in CoC #7?

[snapback]1160167[/snapback]​

Defining creation to a specific, is getting into a can of worms...

From what I gather you are heading into the area that if you didn't create it from scratch it's fair game... But all the while 99% of every item this forum is about is not an original creation of an RPF artist, but more so a derivative based on someone elses creation...

But, this is back on topic of what this thread is about, is AA above and beyond the forum standards, just because he isn't a member? Or is it because he had some part in the original production that pushes him above reproach?

Move on to the second part...

A member found selling/trading items recast from another member without permission will face possible disciplinary action.

Is this not clear? The AA helmet stand is a recast, and it appears that many parts of his new armor are infact recast as well... So if a member sells his items here aren't they clearly violating this? Or does AA's involment with ANH grant immunity to all his items?

 

[SithLord]

TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts. The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA. And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches.

:cheers,

T

 

[imaginager]

Originally posted by exoray
Defining creation to a specific, is getting into a can of worms...

From what I gather you are heading into the area that if you didn't create it from scratch it's fair game...

Well, a can of worms as far as this thread goes, certainly. In my opinion, "creation" means one performed new work to make a thing. Like casting a screen-used item, or creating an original item, or creating from scratch the likeness of a copyrighted image, just to name a few examples. If you did not create it from scratch, as it were, it is still not fair game.

It's the new work that I believe the CoC is attempting to protect, after a fashion. Whether that involves a member's entirely original creation, or the member's copying of a studio's screen-used piece that has come to be in the legal possession of the member.

EDIT: Well, clearly new work leaves some holes that unethical folks can drive trucks through... I'm going to take a seat, now. I think we all have to agree that copying a screen-used item is not recasting, by our peculiar standards, if we are to get anywhere with a definition.

Originally posted by SithLord+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord)</div>

TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts.
[/b]

No legal rights, agreed. I believe the RPF CoC places any other RPF members who directly copy (recast) their items, subject to possible disciplinary action, however. That's the way I read the CoC, anyway... :unsure

<!--QuoteBegin-SithLord
The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA. And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches.

T, are you asserting that AA has a legal right (whether UK or US) to reproduce the armor he currently offers? Even if the armor, to one degree or another, deviates from what is seen on-screen?

Allan

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 15 2006, 11:17 PM
TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts. The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA. And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches.

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1160194[/snapback]​

No the rights do not belong to AA Sithlord they belong to LFL lets get that straight. LFL paid AA to make those for them. Oh and Mike since you can jump in and welcome the new comers how about answering my question. The one you seem to be afraid to address.

 

[TKBIG]

(*edit*)
Ahhh crap... I had been typing this long reply and came back to see that I missed a lot of postings.

So if a member sells his items here aren't they clearly violating this? Or does AA's involment with ANH grant immunity to all his items?

Exoray that one statement is exactly what I wish to know.

The MR stand is a direct recast of something not made by AA.
Parts of the SDS armor are seem to be direct recasts of something made by AA but tweaked greatly by GF. But AA made the dang thing to begin with (even though it is LFL's intellectual property).


Ohhh...my head hurts.....why oh why did AA start making ST armor?
Life seemed simple back then without all these who made what first debates.

And knowing how things are going......the court case will be settled and we will never have answers one way or the other.

..........I'm going to bed.

 

[exoray]

TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts.

Sure they do but it's very limited do to the legal systems "Unclean Hands" stance... It's the same problem with any original artist in this community in regards to producing replica props, even when it's a 100% original sculpt... You do have some rights to your creations even if they infringe on someone elses IP rights, but you have little if any legal recourse to defend your rights... Kinda like being stuck between a rock and a hard place...

The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA. And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches.

LFL is the orignial author of the items in question, and has been licensing the rights to use them for 30 years uncontested... I have not seen one piece of legal support in regards to AA having any rights these items, I have heard hearsay about mysterious UK laws and rights, but as to be expected no one has been able to provide anything in writing or even suggest where these hearsay rights originate... Clearly under US law it has everything to do with LFL copyright of the trooper sketches and likeness (please note likeness, to violate copyright it doesn't have to be exact copy just a likeness) as case law does not support a granting of new ownership based on a change of medium, for example a 2D sketch to a 3D model... And certainly being hired/contracted to perform work doesn't grant ownership to your work, this is also established in law...

 

[Trallis]

Regardless of who has the moral rights to make recasts, i think this is ludicrous. The argument isnt about the recasting to me.. its about the lying. Look exaggerate all you want to sel a product but don't tell people the opposite of the truth. That is my problem with him.

The rest of the issues should be discussed after everything is revealed in court.
As of now, i'd rather not discuss whether he has rights to this stuff because we are basing it on maybes.
Maybe he is the real scuptor.
Maybe he does have some original molds.
Maybe the fate of the original molds is known by LFL.
Without knowing any of this for sure how can we know or even begin to debate who has the moral right within our hobby to sell this stuff?

If he was just a guy who was hired to make a mold of a pre-sculpted helmet and copy it, which is a possibility, how could a statement like
"The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA. "
be accurate.

Let's wait, once things are more certain, don't you think it would be easier to discuss?

 

[AnsonJames]

So you're saying that any propmaker or modelmaker that ever made an item for a studio based on sketches or plans own the copyright to that item?
LFL own the copyright to the design pure and simple - the designs came from LFL and not AA.
It's like saying the guy that fabricated the body for the Ford Mustang owns the copyright on it which of course is not the case - Ford own the copyright because they commisioned the design in the first place.
The whole concept and design of the Stormtrooper comes from LFL and it wouldn't exist without them.

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 16 2006, 06:17 AM
TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts. The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA. And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches.

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1160194[/snapback]​

 

[DARKSIDE72]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 16 2006, 12:17 AM
TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts. The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA. And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches.

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1160194[/snapback]​

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by DARKSIDE72+Jan 16 2006, 05:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DARKSIDE72 @ Jan 16 2006, 05:58 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-SithLord

@Jan 16 2006, 12:17 AM
TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts. The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA. And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches.

:cheers,

T

[snapback]1160194[/snapback]​

[snapback]1160292[/snapback]​

[/b]

I think he is wishing he could take back what he said. Sometimes things sound good in your head. Then you put them down and go "aww crap" and realize it was not quite...smart.

 

[skyit]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 16 2006, 08:04 AM
LFL is the orignial author of the items in question, and has been licensing the rights to use them for 30 years uncontested...  I have not seen one piece of legal support in regards to AA having any rights these items, I have heard hearsay about mysterious UK laws and rights, but as to be expected no one has been able to provide anything in writing or even suggest where these hearsay rights originate...  Clearly under US law it has everything to do with LFL copyright of the trooper sketches and likeness (please note likeness, to violate copyright it doesn't have to be exact copy just a likeness) as case law does not support a granting of new ownership based on a change of medium, for example a 2D sketch to a 3D model...  And certainly being  hired/contracted to perform work doesn't grant ownership to your work, this is also established in law...

[snapback]1160234[/snapback]​

i agree. and the 1975 paint registered by Lucas is 2 years before they contacted AA. That paint show a likeness stormtrooper.

 

[AnsonJames]

Are we going to see a website run by Brian Muir offering Vader helmets any time soon?
He obviously owns the rights to the likeness of Vader because he sculpted the original helmet doesn't he? :lol

 

[skyit]

Originally posted by AnsonJames@Jan 16 2006, 12:13 PM
Are we going to see a website run by Brian Muir offering Vader helmets any time  soon?
He obviously owns the rights to the likeness of Vader because he sculpted the original helmet doesn't he? :lol

[snapback]1160309[/snapback]​

to do it he must register the copyrigths as Lucas did in the far 1975. Meucci "sculpted" the phone but he lost the rigths over it because Bell copyrighted them.

 

[AnsonJames]

Originally posted by skyit+Jan 16 2006, 12:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skyit @ Jan 16 2006, 12:19 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-AnsonJames

@Jan 16 2006, 12:13 PM
Are we going to see a website run by Brian Muir offering Vader helmets any time  soon?
He obviously owns the rights to the likeness of Vader because he sculpted the original helmet doesn't he? :lol

[snapback]1160309[/snapback]​

to do it he must register the copyrigths as Lucas did in the far 1975. Meucci "sculpted" the phone but he lost the rigths over it because Bell copyrighted them.

[snapback]1160310[/snapback]​

[/b]

A bit like the design for the Stormtrooper then?
Lets just hope that Lucas hasn't got an ABS trooper from ANH stashed in the archives.
If LFL produce a helmet or a set of armor in court and it's compared to AA's product - any difference in them then it's the end of AA's case...





Edited for spelling.