Like I said, it all depends on how the courts interpret that because technically, to have a published piece of work, you just have to show it to someone ie: make it public. Once shown to an individual, it is no longer considered private and has been made public as someone other then the owner is now aware of it.
AA/SDS recasting issue...
- Thread starter Gytheran
- Start date
Like I said, it all depends on how the courts interpret that because technically, to have a published piece of work, you just have to show it to someone ie: make it public. Once shown to an individual, it is no longer considered private and has been made public as someone other then the owner is now aware of it.
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
Sorry Flynn but you've stated several times absolute statements about AA losing and why. Your comments are no more nor less assumptions about the case than Thomas' are.
This is all assumption on our part. More might come out, less might come out, each side has some plan in mind. My attorney once told me that court is a chess game with each side moving their pieces and trying to guess what the other will do within the rules of the court. So nobody knows anything and it's all guessing.
But it still is interesting to see this played out and just how much comes to bear.
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
Someone presents a reasonable argument that disagrees with your "professional assesment" and you resort to snide comments? Nice. Glad to know you're such a defacto expert with all proof and knowledge in hand. Maybe you should contact LFL and let them know you have their case all sewn up for them? :rolleyes
Same old story. If you disagree with the anti-AA group you either don't know what you're talking about, get snide retorts, or whatever because the anti-AA camp is absolutely 100% knowledgeable about everything and anything and can predict the future before them. Well I hope you guys bet on the Panthers in the last playoff game.
And if all of this doesn't show just how complex a court case can be, especially one essentially spanning nearly 30 years, and how there is no way in hell anyone can actually know anything about what transpired either then or is now...nothing will.
And again, this is all a waste of time (even if interesting to the more open minded among us).
Trallis
Well-Known Member
yah it's on his faq page:
What/who is Shepperton Design Studios and Andrew Ainsworth?
Andrew Ainsworth established Shepperton Design Studio's in 1974 and we produced a range of products and designs for the British film industry in the late seventies, early eighties. He sculpted, fabricated and produced the original helmets used for the first movie in 1976 and using the same moulds and processes is doing the same again almost 30 years later.
Darbycrash
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 18 2006, 08:40 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 18 2006, 08:40 AM)</div>
Someone presents a reasonable argument that disagrees with your "professional assesment" and you resort to snide comments? Nice. Glad to know you're such a defacto expert with all proof and knowledge in hand. Maybe you should contact LFL and let them know you have their case all sewn up for them? :rolleyes
Same old story. If you disagree with the anti-AA group you either don't know what you're talking about, get snide retorts, or whatever because the anti-AA camp is absolutely 100% knowledgeable about everything and anything and can predict the future before them. Well I hope you guys bet on the Panthers in the last playoff game.
And if all of this doesn't show just how complex a court case can be, especially one essentially spanning nearly 30 years, and how there is no way in hell anyone can actually know anything about what transpired either then or is now...nothing will.
And again, this is all a waste of time (even if interesting to the more open minded among us).
[snapback]1161996[/snapback][/b]
Mike that comment was directed at Thomas basically because he doesn't stay consistant with his arguments. And no matter what you say he tries to confuse things by pulling out information that doesn't necessarily apply to the situation. Now Mike instead of attacking the fact that yes I do have a very good understanding of court discovery and work with the system daily. Why don't you answer my question about professional ethics?
Darth Kahnt
Sr Member
Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 18 2006, 10:40 AM
Someone presents a reasonable argument that disagrees with your "professional assesment" and you resort to snide comments? Nice. Glad to know you're such a defacto expert with all proof and knowledge in hand. Maybe you should contact LFL and let them know you have their case all sewn up for them? :rolleyes
Same old story. If you disagree with the anti-AA group you either don't know what you're talking about, get snide retorts, or whatever because the anti-AA camp is absolutely 100% knowledgeable about everything and anything and can predict the future before them. Well I hope you guys bet on the Panthers in the last playoff game.Â
And if all of this doesn't show just how complex a court case can be, especially one essentially spanning nearly 30 years, and how there is no way in hell anyone can actually know anything about what transpired either then or is now...nothing will.
And again, this is all a waste of time (even if interesting to the more open minded among us).
[snapback]1161996[/snapback]
I enjoy reading this thread because I am getting a feeling for both sides in this case, I will not post my personal opinions out of fear of getting flamed by someone who disagrees with me. In the interests of a fair and open minded environment I wish people woufl refrain from bashing others who do not agree with their opinions and "facts".
Anyhow, I think Thomas has presented very professional and reasonable arguments here and I for one enjoy reading what he has to say, as I do for some others in the LFL/Anti-AA camp.
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
Originally posted by DarthKahnt+Jan 18 2006, 05:49 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarthKahnt @ Jan 18 2006, 05:49 PM)</div>@Jan 18 2006, 10:40 AM
Someone presents a reasonable argument that disagrees with your "professional assesment" and you resort to snide comments? Nice. Glad to know you're such a defacto expert with all proof and knowledge in hand. Maybe you should contact LFL and let them know you have their case all sewn up for them? :rolleyes
Same old story. If you disagree with the anti-AA group you either don't know what you're talking about, get snide retorts, or whatever because the anti-AA camp is absolutely 100% knowledgeable about everything and anything and can predict the future before them. Well I hope you guys bet on the Panthers in the last playoff game.Â
And if all of this doesn't show just how complex a court case can be, especially one essentially spanning nearly 30 years, and how there is no way in hell anyone can actually know anything about what transpired either then or is now...nothing will.
And again, this is all a waste of time (even if interesting to the more open minded among us).
[snapback]1161996[/snapback]
I enjoy reading this thread because I am getting a feeling for both sides in this case, I will not post my personal opinions out of fear of getting flamed by someone who disagrees with me. In the interests of a fair and open minded environment I wish people woufl refrain from bashing others who do not agree with their opinions and "facts".
Anyhow, I think Thomas has presented very professional and reasonable arguments here and I for one enjoy reading what he has to say, as I do for some others in the LFL/Anti-AA camp.
[snapback]1162378[/snapback][/b]
Well said Chris.
exoray
Master Member
Actually it's more along the lines that it's not my job to teach someone how the court system works and how to read legal documents... Too many people have watched too many Hollywood court dramas and believe that is how the court system works... This is Federal Civil Court, this is a whole new beast beyond what I will say what the common persons understanding of how courts works to be...
A perfect example of why I dropped this statement, is that Thomas misquotes legal summaries to fit his picture, his whole last escapade has revolved around the fact that LFL (TSWC) didn't register the trooper likeness before AA did his work and bases this whole argument on the fact that the some picture wasn't published until 1979 all revolving around his misquoted legal summary below...
The above is a false statement, pure and simple... It's only half the story, the side that fits his argument... The whole "it had to be published" talk and claims are false... Below is the link to the official US government copyright site, take a few seconds to read the big box titled "NOTE" under 'Publication'
Copyright.Gov
In short is states this
That is the other half of the story that was conviently left out because it did fit in the argument...
I have in front of me copies of the registration paperwork of the copyright for GU59035 (RE-903-687) and GU59037 (RE-903-689) both depicting storm troopers and both paid for and registered in 1975... The online database actually shows a registration year of 1974, but the paperwork in front of me states 1975, and was submitted as evidence...
Sorry but the short truth is LFL (TSWC) obtained a US Federal copyright to the storm trooper likeness, and even the name associated with them well before AA was even in the picture...
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
A ) It was answered before.
B ) The answer, like any that doesn't fit some people's criteria, is dismissed, ignored or insulted.
C ) My *opinion* doesn't matter. Nor does your's, Flynn's, Ben's, Thomas', nor anyone else's because we do not know all the facts, nor what either side is thinking. All this is is speculation, pure and simple. A million docs can be dredged up from any database anywhere, posted, speculated upon, assumptions made, etc. but the only FACT is that we know NOTHING about what either side is actually doing.
So you can play semantics, talk about ethics, discuss how wrong everyone else is but your own world view...and it still in the end means nothing.
The only thing that has come out of this is a very interesting look into how very complex a court case can be, how two sides determined they are right can act, and how the answer is always in the middle.
The UK law at the time still holds. Without signing off the rights, AA would be the author of the final design of the 3D sculpt of the stormtrooper...final design....and therefore retains those rights based both on UK copyright law at the time and on international copyright law at the time. He used his own materials, used his own methods of fabrication, and the product required significantly more than ordinary craft to create and therefore was not derivative.
And, remember that if he created the molds, it is those molds he has the rights to. If he has the rights to the mold design, then he has the rights to use the molds as he sees fit and that includes production of derivative works from those molds...ie: helmets/armor. AA would have those rights as an artist and designer if he created the molds. The derivative works happen to resemble the stormtroopers in McQuarries paintings, although from McQuarrie's interview it seems they are not his design.
By the way, what are the VP numbers of those two paintings? I still don't see them on L O C I S: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS INFORMATION SYSTEM. I wonder how much you had to you pay to get those?
So it's immaterial that GL obtained copyright to the likeness of the stormtrooper because he did not have copyright to the designs of the molds, which themselves do not look like stormtroopers, but one can create derivative works that when put together can resemble stormtroopers in the motion picture...however those stormtroopers as coming from AA's molds were not copyright until 1977 by LFL.
:cheers,
Thomas
Darth Kahnt
Sr Member
Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 18 2006, 07:57 PM
Well said Chris.Â
[snapback]1162429[/snapback]
Thanks Mike.
:confused
Thomas,
What you said is utterly false in regards to the rights of a copyright holder. It doesn't matter that AA designed the molds or supposedly the final 3d version of the stormtrooper. His designs are a derivate work based on the original design that was placed under copyright by TSWC in 1975. The idea that you can change a design by a certain percent and make it yours....well....just not true.
He might own the rights to the molds (just as any contractor working for any company in an R&D prototyping capacity would) but he doesn't own the "rights" to make parts out of those molds without the permission of the copyright holder.
TSWC placed a copyright on the idea and design of the Stormtrooper in 1975. Based on the two conventions you mention, they are upheld in the UK based on those treaties (or whatever you want to call them).
I also have experience in this sort of work as I am also employed in an R&D capacity. I've worked both sides of the fence (as contractor and coporate employee) and I'm aware of my rights in regards to any work I design and what you say is incorrect.
CWR
Well-Known Member
I think it is rediculous that anyone thinks that George Lucas does not own the copyright on everything and anything that has to do with the Star Wars franchise. This whole argument just seems like an incredible waste of time and energy. AA supporters should remember that GL is responsible for Star Wars and without GL we would not know of AA because there would be no Stormtrooper.
Trallis
Well-Known Member
personally i dont think the copyrights matter. We believe that TE, GF, Gino, etc. have done nothing wrong. However they own no copyrights.
Within the hobby, there are different rules.. we choose to ignore the copyrights in certain situations.
It is the lying, recasting, and misrepresentation that matters here. And there is no hiding from that.
By the way: dont tell me its okay to recast because he is the original maker. No. He was the original mol maker. He was the first to make castings of this item. This means he was at one point authorized to make molds of a sculpt that someone else created. He is no longer authorized and at no point did he obtain a real screen used helmet or armor and make molds of that, nor does he have original molds, which are the thingsth at he would need to do to gain our support
Within the hobby, there are different rules.. we choose to ignore the copyrights in certain situations.
It is the lying, recasting, and misrepresentation that matters here. And there is no hiding from that.
By the way: dont tell me its okay to recast because he is the original maker. No. He was the original mol maker. He was the first to make castings of this item. This means he was at one point authorized to make molds of a sculpt that someone else created. He is no longer authorized and at no point did he obtain a real screen used helmet or armor and make molds of that, nor does he have original molds, which are the thingsth at he would need to do to gain our support
Durasteel Corporation
Well-Known Member
There are so many grey areas here its absurd to keep hashing this crap out.
The ultimate truth is this:
There is money behind making accurate trooper suit.
Certain people want to get in on that action....be it TE, AA, GF, XP, ST, JC, MP or R2D2....heck even GT from 'certain point of view' (at one time it was the best around)
MONEY MONEY MONEY and the fricking EGO that comes with being the defacto trooper guro make it so hard for people to leave well enough alone. Your dog probably loves you more than those who buy from you. They just want what they want, thats it. Nothing personal. If you want to be worshipped build a time machine, go to the future, get technologied and come back to wow us. Or go make a bunch of kids laugh. Build a house for homeless people. For crying out loud, stormtrooperes arent real....theyre cool, but there is more to life than anatomically correct white plastic.
AA should no more be banned than 99% of us who are guilty of recasting on some level. But AA didnt kiss peoples arse around here, and he didnt give a rats butt about what those people thought they owned or had "privy rights" to something they really didnt.
The hypocrasy around here is like the environmentalist who built his cabin in the woods.....last year.
REALITY CHECK: you survive this field via who you know and what they want. Think about that very carefully. Its who you know and what they want.
GET OVER IT
And heres a creative hint.....for those who are angry at AA.....why not just let these threads die huh? The continuous posting only gives AA more free advertising....kinda counterintuitive aint it.....revelation. :rolleyes
Please gentlemen....let this crap go. You guys waste more time bickering when we could be researching things....do the recent Solo flash hider or bracket threads ring a bell??
.
exoray
Master Member
Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 18 2006, 10:45 PM
By the way, what are the VP numbers of those two paintings? I still don't see them on L O C I S:Â LIBRARY OF CONGRESS INFORMATION SYSTEM. I wonder how much you had to you pay to get those?
In total about 60 cents for those pages + shipping, but you can get them for free from my website...
I can only suspect that because you can't find them in a database you are leading that they are false? The painting title on the registration form is consistant with the painting (picture) attached... I don't believe for one second that you would even endorse the idea that the copyright office would have issued a registration without an attached picture, or that the documents are falsified?
Interesting that you toss out LFL claims of rights to derivative works of thier artwork (and probably sculpts, molds) while at the same time stating AA has these rights...
Care to quote the 1956 code in full that was in effect in 1976? It is different then the 1988 UK code you keep refering to... Most importantly in regards to who is the first owner... Prior to the 1988 revision to the UK copyright code the Copyright Act 1956 was in effect, so that is the only UK code that is important... I don't have the full text but I know that first ownership details were quite different... Most interestingly (under the 1956 Act) in regards to many commissioned works the first copyright owner was the commissioner not the commisioned artist, unless a contract to the contrary was written, this is exactly opposite of the 1988 Act you keep refering to... Did LFL commision AA to do the work?
Well even though you state the Berne Convention applies to the US in 1976, please Google up when the US became a member, and you will notice that it's void as far as the US is concerned... Hint: US membership March 1, 1989
The UCC woud apply but it's very limited...
