AA/SDS recasting issue...

[Darth Domain]

the fact that LFL is in a battle with AA should suggest that they feel it is a copy right infringement that he is selling this armor. Now, that is fair enough and it is their right to pursue this. LFL is a very large and very powerful opponent, so, i must admit i do feel that AA may not stand a chance of winning this, but then again i may be wrong. However, if LFL was to issue a license to someone for producing armor now, would it turn out to be a wasted exercise as the chosen manufacturer may produce something as screen accuarate as a supreme vader.. I have a rubies by the way but acknowledge that although i am very pleased with it, rubies could have done better. So, why did LFL not issues AA with a liscense, or if not him, why did they not issue someone with a license that would not produce cheap plastic crap help together with nothing more stronger than gum? I would like a cool armor produced by a seller which is screen accurate but, liscensed where there could be no arguments about recast etc. Why did LFL not do that. Can someone explain this to me (like i'm a two year old)

 

[OldKen]

Originally posted by RKW+Jan 20 2006, 07:34 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Jan 20 2006, 07:34 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Starkids1990@Jan 20 2006, 10:37 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-RKW

@Jan 20 2006, 02:23 PM
One thing is clear is that LFL has the rights over the ROTJ costumes, a film AA had nothing to do with. Prove in court that AA used ROTJ armour and....

[snapback]1163890[/snapback]​

Uh....I believe the ROTJ suits were recast from the ANH suits with changes made. Therefore if AA did the original vac-forming buck and designed the way it looked to accomidate the vac-forming process in it's 3D form then......
yep...he did have "a form" of involvment with ROTJ. Will have to wait and see though.

I think your missing my point. The whole defense by some is trying to show how AA has some right to the ANH armour because of a lack of paperwork backing up LFL rights to it. But LFL commissioned Nathan & Bermans to do the ROTJ armour and although it will have incorporated the last remaining scraps of AA's original ANH work LFL will clearly own the rights to the ROTJ armour. Unless you're now suggesting that AA could now sue Nathan & Bermans for recasting his work without consent or commission?

[snapback]1164084[/snapback]​

[/b]

then he could counter sue for all the money lucas made off of TK merchandise etc.

:unsure right.

 

[exoray]

It's obvious that when you advertise on the internet you are not targeting any single group. To say so then you would be specifically targeting every group/nation/province/state on the planet which is rediculous.

Thomas I ask again have you read the court papers? His direct solicitation to California residents, that LFL called him on was in regards to personal emails specifically address and titled by name to California residents soliciting new products while he denied targeting California residents to the courts at the same time... He was also advertising in a US based magazine, yes it has International distribution, but it's primary audience is the US...

So yes AA lied in regards to not directly soliciting sales to California...

The law before 1989 is clear in regard to the rights belonging to the author of the original works in the absence of said contract.

First you are taking a giant leap in assuming there wasn't any contract, there was AA admits to making the helmets for a certain pound amount, thus he did make a deal... The fact that LFL has not brought it forward in the case thus far was explained, but you don't seem to grasp the rules of Federal court and when things are done...

Also the law is not as black and white as you paint the picture, again only flaunting the side that fits your argument...

First from summaries of the pre-1989 code you have quoted...

The author of the work is the first owner of the copyright, unless the work is made under a contract of employment or apprenticeship in which case the employer or master owns it.

Pivital concept and wordings is 'contract of employment' AA admits being paid for his work, thus employed, and there was obviously some sort of agreement, be it verbal or in writing thus creating a legal binding contract in the UK... Was he employed as an employee, freelance artist or contractor? Would that make any difference? The law isn't specific and that decission would have to be based on previous case law...

Also in regards to commisioned work (pre-1989) the wording is clear the the commisioner (LFL) is the owner... I don't have a database of UK case law but even though there is a list of commisioned work covered by the law, I know other types of commisioned work have been tried under that clause, because of advances in technology issues... If AA was commisioned by LFL to make the items and they are covered by case law decisions, then the wording is clear the LFL owns the rights...

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Well, I have to quote what OldKen said earlier..."At least this thread isn't going in circles." :rolleyes I find it funny that some cannot see some of what AA has done as shady, duplicitous and downright "Johnny Come-Lately". He jumped on the bandwagon to make the almighty dollar and got his thing caught in his zipper. My only issue is ethics with the guy, from the "borrowed" pieces to the shody workmanship complaints that have surfaced here by people who, no doubt, want to be satisified customers.

The court documents Exoray posted cemented home how shady this guy is, in my opinion. Others have their opinion about how upright he is. How they can come to that is beyond me, but I am not going to begrudge them that right.

What is getting old is the circle of the thread. I came reading with an open mind at first and slowly edged myself into the anti-AA camp. The court documents - I have to reiterate - drove it home for me. Here are the facts set before us, and that is all I base my opinion from. The only he said/she said I am interested in is the stuff Exoray posted and updates. These are the facts. The rest is all opinion and conjecture. None of us here know AA or LFL from Adam, really.

I personally find it hard to defend anyone after reviewing the documents and seeing AA's only fight being "Well, you don't have a jurisdictional right to prosecute"(loosely). He hasn't addressed the allegations made by LFL at all. I am sure this will come later in the case, but right now, to those in the know - us - it seems a bit lopsided.

We will not be changing each other's minds anytime soon on this case. It is THE exercise in futility to try. Some of us are getting wound up over this whole thing. I think the recaster part of this thread, which has widley gone ignored, will be something to be discussed AFTER the case gets resolved.

 

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by RKW@Jan 20 2006, 06:34 PM
I think your missing my point. The whole defense by some is trying to show how AA has some right to the ANH armour because of a lack of paperwork backing up LFL rights to it. But LFL commissioned Bermans & Nathans to do the ROTJ armour and although it will have incorporated the last remaining scraps of AA's original ANH work LFL will clearly own the rights to the ROTJ armour.

No, I get your point. But "if" AA did the final design of the 3D plastic armor then B&N utilized that final plastic armor design for ROTJ.
That paperwork or lack thereof is what I'm hoping comes out as the case proceeds, along with the "original molds".
If your asking me do I believe AA has any "rights" to the armor I can say No, he has no legal rights unless that UK loophole plays into this. AA sincerely believes it will or is the most insane man ever draw breath. My opinion is that credit for the final design used to make the vac-form bucks goes to AA. Not the legal rights or the intellectual property rights....just simply the credit as the maker of the stormtrooper armor.

Unless you're now suggesting that AA could now sue Bermans & Nathans for recasting his work without consent or commission?

[snapback]1164084[/snapback]​

"IF" he were to win this case then yes he could, as well as pursue any and all Stormtrooper armor builders in the prop community.
If you are suggesting that I think he will win then let me state again that I think AA will lose and lose big in the case.


Again I go back to the Imperial Cog question.
I really want some new thoughts about that as it relates to the recasting issues brought up at the start of this thread.


(*edit* :lol :lol :lol Qui-Gonzalez....evidently we were thinking the same thing. You beat me to the punch while I was typing about the recasting issues. You are probably right about having to wait until the court case is finished).

 

[OldKen]

what qui-gonzalez said. :thumbsup

and furthermore...

even if the other side did have valid points as to where AA has the rights to produce TK armor without the LFL liscense...

LFL is going to win i garauntee.

sorry i always hope for the little guy, but the big guy usually wins.

id say that LFL has more money than SDS and better lawyers... so... (sense the sarcasm?)

it would actually be cool to see him win. just because he is the underdog, but the fact of the matter is, he has been shady about several things. period.

and LFL is going to win this, i think the evidence is indisputable.

but spin her around again, see if we are in the same place tommorrow.

i have to admit though, even though i feel its a pointless debate, i come here like i used to read the morning funnies before school, its just part of my daily routine now.

 

[KevVader]

Originally posted by Darth Domain@Jan 20 2006, 06:41 PM
the fact that LFL is in a battle with AA should suggest that they feel it is a copy right infringement that he is selling this armor. Now, that is fair enough and it is their right to pursue this. LFL is a very large and very powerful opponent, so, i must admit i do feel that AA may not stand a chance of winning this, but then again i may be wrong. However, if LFL was to issue a license to someone for producing armor now, would it turn out to be a wasted exercise as the chosen manufacturer may produce something as screen accuarate as a supreme vader.. I have a rubies by the way but acknowledge that although i am very pleased with it, rubies could have done better. So, why did LFL not issues AA with a liscense, or if not him, why did they not issue someone with a license that would not produce cheap plastic crap help together with nothing more stronger than gum? I would like a cool armor produced by a seller which is screen accurate but, liscensed where there could be no arguments about recast etc. Why did LFL not do that. Can someone explain this to me (like i'm a two year old)

[snapback]1164088[/snapback]​

...because Rubies and other companies pay buckets of $ in licensing fees to LFL. There is some true "licensed" garbage out there...but it is licensed.....that's the difference. LFL gets their cash....they're happy....

 

[KarlBud420]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Jan 20 2006, 08:51 PM
Well, I have to quote what OldKen said earlier..."At least this thread isn't going in circles." :rolleyes I find it funny that some cannot see some of what AA has done as shady, duplicitous and downright "Johnny Come-Lately". He jumped on the bandwagon to make the almighty dollar and got his thing caught in his zipper. My only issue is ethics with the guy, from the "borrowed" pieces to the shody workmanship complaints that have surfaced here by people who, no doubt, want to be satisified customers.

The court documents Exoray posted cemented home how shady this guy is, in my opinion. Others have their opinion about how upright he is. How they can come to that is beyond me, but I am not going to begrudge them that right.

What is getting old is the circle of the thread. I came reading with an open mind at first and slowly edged myself into the anti-AA camp. The court documents - I have to reiterate - drove it home for me. Here are the facts set before us, and that is all I base my opinion from. The only he said/she said I am interested in is the stuff Exoray posted and updates. These are the facts. The rest is all opinion and conjecture. None of us here know AA or LFL from Adam, really.

I personally find it hard to defend anyone after reviewing the documents and seeing AA's only fight being "Well, you don't have a jurisdictional right to prosecute"(loosely). He hasn't addressed the allegations made by LFL at all. I am sure this will come later in the case, but right now, to those in the know - us - it seems a bit lopsided.

We will not be changing each other's minds anytime soon on this case. It is THE exercise in futility to try. Some of us are getting wound up over this whole thing. I think the recaster part of this thread, which has widley gone ignored, will be something to be discussed AFTER the case gets resolved.

[snapback]1164138[/snapback]​

Spot on.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Darth Domain@Jan 20 2006, 07:41 PM
I would like a cool armor produced by a seller which is screen accurate but, liscensed where there could be no arguments about recast etc. Why did LFL not do that. Can someone explain this to me (like i'm a two year old)

[snapback]1164088[/snapback]​

So people cannot replicate it and sell copies of it for $$$ . LFL, as history has shown, seems to take efforts to make sure replicas are intentionally inaccurate so they cannot be passed off as originals or cast from originals...

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[KevVader]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 20 2006, 10:47 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 20 2006, 10:47 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darth Domain

@Jan 20 2006, 07:41 PM
I would like a cool armor produced by a seller which is screen accurate but, liscensed where there could be no arguments about recast etc. Why did LFL not do that. Can someone explain this to me (like i'm a two year old)

[snapback]1164088[/snapback]​

So people cannot replicate it and sell copies of it for $$$ . LFL, as history has shown, seems to take efforts to make sure replicas are intentionally inaccurate so they cannot be passed off as originals or cast from originals...

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1164223[/snapback]​

[/b]

I dunno...they gave MR molds to replicate the ROTS Vader lid....and CGI files for the Clonetrooper lids....

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 20 2006, 07:49 PM
Thomas I ask again have you read the court papers?  His  direct solicitation to California residents, that LFL called him on was in regards to personal emails specifically address and titled by name to California residents soliciting new products while he denied targeting California residents to the courts at the same time...  He was also advertising in a US based magazine, yes it has International distribution, but it's primary audience is the US...

Yes I've read every word of the court papers..thank-you for your research on that. I know about the emailsÂ…I got them myself. But I don't live in California so if he was targeting California then why did I get one as well? There's no logic. And the only reason emails were sent was to inform previous customers independent of where they lived. If CA residents were targeted specifically then so too were people in Poland. How can both be specifically targeted if the emails were sent out indescriminantly?

So yes AA lied in regards to not directly soliciting sales to California...

The keyword is directly. Which is false. There was no sales campaign directed specifically to CA since I got the emails as well.

First you are taking a giant leap in assuming there wasn't any contract, there was AA admits to making the helmets for a certain pound amount, thus he did make a deal...  The fact that LFL has not brought it forward in the case thus far was explained, but you don't seem to grasp the rules of Federal court and when things are done...

Giant jeap? Hardly. If there was this magical contract then it would have appeared in the initial complaint and the case would be irrefutable. Why would LFL waste an incredible amount of money on legal fees amending complaints, etc., grasping at straws if they had the one thing that would lock down the case?

Also the law is not as black and white as you paint the picture, again only flaunting the side that fits your argument...

Please be so kind as to point out the side that I've missed. The law is black and white. No contract. No rights.

Pivital concept and wordings is 'contract of employment' AA admits being paid for his work, thus employed, and there was obviously some sort of agreement, be it verbal or in writing thus creating a legal binding contract in the UK...  Was he employed as an employee, freelance artist or contractor?  Would that make any difference?  The law isn't specific and that decission would have to be based on previous case law...

There's a difference between an employment contract, a contract for services, and a contract to transfer copyright. The law is clear in regard to freelance versus bona fide employees. Employees lose the rights. Freelance artists retain them in the absence of a contract stating otherwise. If you are well versed in the law or have access to legal counsel, then please prove me wrongÂ….because LFL has done nothing to address UK law in their complaint. Why? Because they would have no foot to stand onÂ…

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[CWR]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 20 2006, 08:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 20 2006, 08:14 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-exoray

@Jan 20 2006, 07:49 PM
Thomas I ask again have you read the court papers?   His  direct solicitation to California residents, that LFL called him on was in regards to personal emails specifically address and titled by name to California residents soliciting new products while he denied targeting California residents to the courts at the same time...  He was also advertising in a US based magazine, yes it has International distribution, but it's primary audience is the US...

Yes I've read every word of the court papers..thank-you for your research on that. I know about the emailsÂ…I got them myself. But I don't live in California so if he was targeting California then why did I get one as well? There's no logic. And the only reason emails were sent was to inform previous customers independent of where they lived. If CA residents were targeted specifically then so too were people in Poland. How can both be specifically targeted if the emails were sent out indescriminantly?

So yes AA lied in regards to not directly soliciting sales to California...

The keyword is directly. Which is false. There was no sales campaign directed specifically to CA since I got the emails as well.

First you are taking a giant leap in assuming there wasn't any contract, there was AA admits to making the helmets for a certain pound amount, thus he did make a deal...  The fact that LFL has not brought it forward in the case thus far was explained, but you don't seem to grasp the rules of Federal court and when things are done...

Giant jeap? Hardly. If there was this magical contract then it would have appeared in the initial complaint and the case would be irrefutable. Why would LFL waste an incredible amount of money on legal fees amending complaints, etc., grasping at straws if they had the one thing that would lock down the case?

Also the law is not as black and white as you paint the picture, again only flaunting the side that fits your argument...

Please be so kind as to point out the side that I've missed. The law is black and white. No contract. No rights.

Pivital concept and wordings is 'contract of employment' AA admits being paid for his work, thus employed, and there was obviously some sort of agreement, be it verbal or in writing thus creating a legal binding contract in the UK...  Was he employed as an employee, freelance artist or contractor?   Would that make any difference?  The law isn't specific and that decission would have to be based on previous case law...

There's a difference between an employment contract, a contract for services, and a contract to transfer copyright. The law is clear in regard to freelance versus bona fide employees. Employees lose the rights. Freelance artists retain them in the absence of a contract stating otherwise. If you are well versed in the law or have access to legal counsel, then please prove me wrongÂ….because LFL has done nothing to address UK law in their complaint. Why? Because they would have no foot to stand onÂ…

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1164240[/snapback]​

[/b]

The reason LF has not addressed UK law is because.......
They don't need to. That is why LFL has submitted depositions to keep the case in the U.S. If the case were in the UK, you would then have a reason to bring up UK law as it relates to this case. As it stands UK law will not have any bearing on this case. I appreciate that you know what you are talking about but after the judge ruled against AA's wanting to keep the case in the UK, only US law will be used to decide the outcome.

 

[lonepigeon]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 21 2006, 03:47 AM
So people cannot replicate it and sell copies of it for $$$ . LFL, as history has shown, seems to take efforts to make sure replicas are intentionally inaccurate so they cannot be passed off as originals or cast from originals...

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1164223[/snapback]​

That's just a false rumor that just continues to be spread by conspiracy theorists.

RE: The Imperial cog - I believe prior information from others and AA included was that the helmets were finished by the prop department (paint, weathering etc). I believe this includes the addition of the Imperial and Rebel symbols.

Excellent words by Qui-Gonzalez.
Exoray has many good points as well.
I can see how the "employee" wording could be a problem since I sign many work-for-hire contracts with Lucasfilm to stipulate that I am NOT an employee. IMO even without such a contract the law seems to favor LFL because of the verbal agreement, the job paper trail (invoice, paycheck etc) and the fact that the Stormtrooper armor design was derived from the work of Ralph McQuarrie which was already copyrighted at the time. In the documents quoted in this thread copyright of derivative works remained with the owner of the source material (LFL).

Anyway, I've just been looking in on the conversation from time to time since this thread remains on the front page every day.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Jan 20 2006, 08:51 PM
Well, I have to quote what OldKen said earlier..."At least this thread isn't going in circles." :rolleyes I find it funny that some cannot see some of what AA has done as shady, duplicitous and downright "Johnny Come-Lately". He jumped on the bandwagon to make the almighty dollar and got his thing caught in his zipper. My only issue is ethics with the guy, from the "borrowed" pieces to the shody workmanship complaints that have surfaced here by people who, no doubt, want to be satisified customers.

I personally find it hard to defend anyone after reviewing the documents and seeing AA's only fight being "Well, you don't have a jurisdictional right to prosecute"(loosely). He hasn't addressed the allegations made by LFL at all. I am sure this will come later in the case, but right now, to those in the know - us - it seems a bit lopsided.

What I find interesting is that you can label what AA has done so easily while while at the same time acknowledging that both LFL and AA haven't even gotten into the real meat and potatoes of the legal arguments in regard to UK law. LFL is avoiding it, AA's lawyers are trying to redirect the case to where it's juristiction justifiably falls...the UK. What if AA has the rights to his creations? Would he still be shady and duplicitous? Shody workmanship? How many people have shown their helmets on RPF...damn fine helmets. Yet how many have complained about problems? How many helmets were sold? Hundreds. Yet a few people come on here and claim that all the helmets are shoddily made...that the FX is sturdier....who cares? You're actually going to troop with an $850 helmet? Buy a TE helmet for that . I paid $650 for my CRPROPs helmet...and that wasn't even first generation. And you guys complain about the cost of a helmet from the original maker? I can't see the signature through any of my helmets unless I have a bright light right up against the inside. You guys can accuse AA all you like, it won't change that he made the original armor and helmets and that he was nice enough to offer collectors the chance to own examples of his work...of his designs. McQuarrie didn't design the final look or we would have the McQuarrie stormtroopers running around the Death Star with lightsabers in their hands. And if you don't like his work then sell it. If I got the Death Star commander helmet from the original molds how much would it be worth if it was the only one? A lot more than $850.

You say AA got "caught". Well that presumes he's guilty already. And yet you say that AA hasn't addressed the allegations. If he's not addressed the allegations then what right do you have to say he is guilty already? None.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by CWR@Jan 21 2006, 12:27 AM
The reason LF has not addressed UK law is because.......
They don't need to.  That is why LFL has submitted depositions to keep the case in the U.S.  If the case were in the UK, you would then have a reason to bring up UK law as it relates to this case.  As it stands UK law will not have any bearing on this case.  I appreciate that you know what you are talking about but after the judge ruled against AA's wanting to keep the case in the UK, only US law will be used to decide the outcome.

[snapback]1164247[/snapback]​

Sorry but I fail to see the logic in that. So by your account we can ignore UK law because LFL prefers only to deal with the case in CA? That doesn't change UK law nor what happened in the UK between LFL and AA in 1976. And the judge only ruled on the case in how it relates to sales of product to Californians, and not on whether what happened in the UK was pertinant or not. Of course for sales of product to Californians CA juristiction is relevant, but what still needs to be determined is who had the original rights and that has to be judged from the standpoint of where the original work was completed and that was in the UK. Of course a judge from CA will not want the case to go there because he/she has no juristiction there and serves the interests of CA residents. There are four outcomes....see if you can figure them out....

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by lonepigeon+Jan 21 2006, 12:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lonepigeon @ Jan 21 2006, 12:33 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-SithLord

@Jan 21 2006, 03:47 AM
So people cannot replicate it and sell copies of it for $$$ . LFL, as history has shown, seems to take efforts to make sure replicas are intentionally inaccurate so they cannot be passed off as originals or cast from originals...

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1164223[/snapback]​

That's just a false rumor that just continues to be spread by conspiracy theorists.

[snapback]1164249[/snapback]​

[/b]

With all due respect....look at a Don Post Deluxe Vader helmet, a Rubies Vader helmet, an Altmanns, an MR stormtrooper helmet, the MR Count Dooku saber, etc.....

Where's the conspiracy? So those are all perfectly screen accurate pieces? Please....

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

I would be more than happy just to wait and see where the case goes than to keep this thread going ad infinitum...

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by KevVader@Jan 20 2006, 11:56 PM

I dunno...they gave MR molds to replicate the ROTS Vader lid....and CGI files for the Clonetrooper lids....

[snapback]1164229[/snapback]​

I'm not saying all replicas are like that....but a number of them are...given some time and a few comparisons I might find such indicators in even the ROTS Vader helmet and Clonetrooper helmet ...do we even know if they are the same size, for example? I do admit they both look sweet...

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[lonepigeon]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 21 2006, 04:14 AM

There's a difference between an employment contract, a contract for services, and a contract to transfer copyright. The law is clear in regard to freelance versus bona fide employees. Employees lose the rights. Freelance artists retain them in the absence of a contract stating otherwise.

Thomas

[snapback]1164240[/snapback]​

From my experience this isn't entirely true.
I've signed many contracts to give LFL the rights to my artwork in work-for-hire arrangements.
However, if there was no contract LFL would not get the rights to my work, but really I would not have full rights to it either because it depicts their characters.
Here's a simple example:
1. LFL hires me to create picture of Luke Skywalker
2. I draw image of Luke Skywalker and submit it to them.
3. Without a contract they can't publish it because they don't have the rights.
4. No contract for me means my artwork would be no different than fan artwork. I own it, they can't take it away BUT I could not duplicate it for sale because it would infringe on LFL's copyright.
AA's situation would seem very similar to the example.
The difference is in step 3- I'm not sure how this applies to film.

 

[SithLord]

I don't disagree with you Chris, and that's a great way of explaining the complexity of the relationship between your original work and what that work depicts (ie: a character that is copyright) but keep in mind that the UK law differs from the US law with respect to who owns copyright when the work is freelance. The difference in AA's case could be that the stormtroopers he created are sufficiently original in design as to be considered different than McQuarrie's (and therefore LFL's). This is something only a court or someone experienced in such cases could determine.

:cheers,

Thomas