AA/SDS recasting issue...

[vaderdarth]

I agree completely Kev. Until it's over, it ain't over... We can't inject "accusations" in the place of "court rulings". Those two things are quite different. That's why I keep harping on leaving that legal stuff alone until we really have a real verdict either way. It really doesn't matter how "rock solid" one thinks his case is..............."stuff" happens to change the outcome during every single case. There are two sides to this mess and both sides are convinced they are in the right. A jury and a judge get to decide that, not us.

Dave

 

[RKW]

I donÂ’t know, IÂ’ve read a hell of a lot of hot air in this thread with endless never-ending cyclic arguments but it all just seems so simple to me.

The FACT is that SDS IS OPENLEY DECIEVING the public over its armour claims. IT'S NOT ORIGINAL, this is NOT speculation, opinion or rumour but FACT. I donÂ’t need to wait a year for some Judge thousands of miles away to acknowledge this FACT for me.

I really couldnÂ’t give a crap who has the moral or legal right to make TK armour. But what I really canÂ’t abide is this sycophantic behaviour by some members who try to fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to justify being LIED to by a dealer as some how acceptable behaviour. WhatÂ’s even more nauseating is that most of these same sycophants are the very same people who would post umpteen threads about how it was wrong for a prop maker to claim that their prop was cast of a screen used item when clearly it wasnÂ’t.

Until SDS changes what they tell potential customers and their advertising description of the armour then frankly it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[vaderdarth]

Exoray, I'm not in any way implying that you are getting "insider information" from the LFL legal team............I am saying that the "language" you tend to use regarding the legal issues makes the reader "think" that you have insider information. This sort of stuff is what we have to avoid when we type these things in order to keep it objective. The "legal truth of the matter" is something that Judges get paid lots of money to figure out. Last I heard, this case was either gonna be settled or take years and years to sort out. At this point, neither one of those things has occurred.

Please accept my apology for wording my post in such a tone. No personal offense meant.

Dave

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by RKW@Jan 10 2006, 10:13 AM
<snip>
I really couldnÂ’t give a crap who has the moral or legal right to make TK armour. But what I really canÂ’t abide is this sycophantic behaviour by some members who try to fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to justify being LIED to by a dealer as some how acceptable behaviour. WhatÂ’s even more nauseating is that most of these same sycophants are the very same people who would post umpteen threads about how it was wrong for a prop maker to claim that their prop was cast of a screen used item when clearly it wasnÂ’t.

Until SDS changes what they tell potential customers and their advertising description of the armour then frankly it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[snapback]1155200[/snapback]​

That is what we call some serious "Rose Colored Lense" syndrome. What first piqued my attention to this whole quagmire was the LFL/SDS battle. I thought AA standing up to LFL was admirable, albeit misguided. That is like saying that the kit bashers who crafted the first X-Wings and TIE Fighters are the owners of those models, since they crafted them. I could use a parallel with tattooing. I put a custom piece on someone but try to claim it is mine. BZZT. I was paid for the work done, like any contract artist. I no longer have any claim on that tattoo.

I seriously doubt Lucas would leave AA the rights to anything since he kept everything under strict lock and key for himself.

As far as the authenticity of his claims to them being the same molds used on ANH, too much evidence to the contrary has been posted here, and likely many other places. It is very hard to take this fella's side in this fight, and as an artist of my own style, it sets a bad precedence...in my opinion. "I sculpted this greeblie, therefore it is mine." "I painted this piece, and I don't care if it is hanging in the Guggenhiem, it is mine and I am going to sell it."

I know those are reachs, but artists have been sacrificing their pieces to commision for millienia. They never gave a second though to any claim after the piece was done, other than "look what I did". You would think that would be enough for anyone, but greed is a hell of a motivator.

 

[gavidoc]

I've always viewed AA as nothing more then a contractor who was hired by LFL at the time to make some armor for them. Correct?

If as a contractor he designed and actually built the suits, doesn't mean he "owns" the rights to the design unless it said that he owned exclusive rights to the work correct?

So in essence what he has thus become is another propmaker who is making replicas of the original work of Lucasfilm.

Just so happens that he owns the original molds for the helmet and possibly for the armor. Doesn't make a bit of difference folks. He's a copier just like everyone else.

Now, if you want to grant him special "rights" and "bennies" because he was the original maker, so be it.

However, if it has been proven that he recast the work of another artisan to make his parts, then well he's a recaster. Plain and simple. He's the original maker. He should be able to remake his molds and go from there.

What is the typical MO of a recaster? To obtain a part that someone else has made, dump rubber on it, and resell it for less to make a quick buck.

Even when they just use a single part off of an original maker, they're still doing it to cut corners so they don't have to do as much legwork in the manufacture of their own product.

Recasters benefit financially off the work of others with little or no time investment of their own.

What has AA done? He has taken certain parts of GF's armor and used it in the manufacture of his REPLICA armor which is based on the original design he did for LFL. He has chosen to benefit financially off the work of another with little or no time investment of his own on those certain parts so he can turn a profit.

The RPF stance (maybe not the members, but the staff) should be that since AA/Sheparton Design Studios is using a current member's work to help him in the manufacture and sale of replica armor that is benefitting Sheparton Design Studios financially with no repayment to the original artist, that his product should not be allowed to be sold on the RPF unless it is specifically stated that it is a tainted product that is using recast parts.

Question is whether or not the staff will do the right thing. Based on their track record, I have my doubts.

 

[imaginager]

I whole heartedly agree with Qui-G, mostly with Gav. If AA accepted money for whatever role he had in the creation/construction of the Stormtrooper, a professional standard indicates that he has no rights to the Stormtrooper beyond what any other fan-artist enjoys today. The only thing, therefore, that distinguishes AA from TE, GF and GINO, et. al. is AA's for hire contributions to the production of "Star Wars".

That single distinction is not without value to some collectors. Myself included. However, in view of all of the information available, including what has come from various debates on this and other forums, reasonable doubt does exist regarding the provenance of AA's current offerings. I can determine that reasonable doubt exists simply on the basis of the existence of this very thread.

If AA's ab plate - as just one example - more closely matches an early TE (or a GF ab plate) than a screen-used ANH ab plate, then it most certainly is possible that AA copied the work of a fan-artist. If AA copied the work of a fan-artist then I agree with Gytheran: SDS products should not be traded at the RPF. It is, I believe, stipulated that other of AA's armor pieces are significantly different to what has previously been available. However, given the manner in which SDS has conducted operations, I'm really not altogether inclined to accept that as anything other than: other of AA's armor pieces are significantly different to what has previously been available.

Both TE's and GF's ab plates were derived from an ROTJ suit. The point has been made that the ROTJ suit comes from the ANH suit that AA formed. So stipulated. However, unless AA has access to a screen-used ROTJ suit or an ROTJ tour suit (both of which are possibilities), then his ab plate ought to look more similar - if not dead on - to an original screen-used ANH ab plate.

Here are the 2 problems. We don't know if AA has access to a screen-used ROTJ suit/tour suit. We also don't have access to a screen-used ANH ab plate for evaluation to the SDS ab plate. At present, there is no smoking gun. All that the RPF can show is marked similarity to a fan-artist's derivation of an ROTJ suit.

That is my understanding, trying to follow the facts of the armors' development paths.

If AA were a member here (and, there were no pending LFL action) he would - I hope - be asked to present proof that he either reworked a screen-used ROTJ suit, or can provide sufficient evidence of the provenance of his molds. Frankly, I'm unconvinced that AA could pass this test if he were an RPF member.

Since AA is not a member here - AND - the RPF does not possess that smoking gun indicating iron-clad proof of recasting - AND - other scenarios exist that suggest means by which AA's offerings conform to the CoC, this all comes down to an IF THEN statement that will continue to loop until the LFL vs SDS action concludes.

I believe it to be within the Mods' purview to make the call either way - allow SDS pieces to be traded or ban their trade. I'm just glad I'm not a Mod...

EDITED: (1) tags, spelling...
(2) Claification for Braks on ANH ab plate

 

[Art Andrews]

Originally posted by isd804@Jan 10 2006, 03:59 PM
We also don't know what a screen-used ANH ab plate looks like[/i].

[snapback]1155257[/snapback]​

[/b]

??? What? Umm... Am I missing something here?

 

[vaderdarth]

Braks, for one, we have never seen the inside of a screen used AB plate from an ANH suit. For that matter, we haven't seen the inside of any screen used AB plate. We've only seen the insides of the resulting fan copies of screen used pieces. Yes they should be fairly close........but not necessarily identical. Recasters of screen parts clean up and sharpen parts of their moulds all the time. There is likely all sorts of "differences" on the undersides of these armor pieces.

Somebody has got to have a screen used ANH suit.............or at least a screen used AB plate (on a later suit perhaps).

 

[RKW]

Originally posted by isd804@Jan 10 2006, 03:59 PM
Here are the 2 problems. We don't know if AA has access to a screen-used ROTJ suit/tour suit. We also don't know what a screen-used ANH ab plate looks like. At present, there is no smoking gun. All that the RPF can show is marked similarity to a fan-artist's derivation of an ROTJ suit.

We already have the smoking gun. We do know what an original abplate should look like aswell as an original ROTJ abplate. An original has a narrow and LONG stem leading up from the ab buttons to nearly the top of the armour. Same on the ROTJ. The original SDS ab plate instead had the short stumpy stem as ONLY FOUND on the original TE/GF ab plate. He has since modified it to be longer like the original. Also the original has a distinctly different vac formed area behind the vertical four button strip. This means that SDS COULD NOT have even used an original ROTJ ab plate.

HTH.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Okay, now I am very confused. So Gav what you're saying, and I assume what the others are saying, is that no SDS props should be sold here by decision of the administration because in effect SDS would be a "banned" member.

So why then are things made by EDC, GoldenArmor, Universal Armor, etc. sold in The Junkyard all the time? How is this any different? Shouldn't members be stopped from selling them too if they can't sell SDS items they bought (via eBay, here, or direct)? Within the past month I've seen all of the aforementioned props by banned members sold in the Junkyard. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the potential outcome of this thread.

 

[imaginager]

Originally posted by RKW@Jan 10 2006, 08:50 AM

HTH.

[snapback]1155297[/snapback]​

Actually, it doesn't in my opinion.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by RKW+Jan 10 2006, 11:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Jan 10 2006, 11:50 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-isd804

@Jan 10 2006, 03:59 PM
Here are the 2 problems. We don't know if AA has access to a screen-used ROTJ suit/tour suit. We also don't know what a screen-used ANH ab plate looks like. At present, there is no smoking gun. All that the RPF can show is marked similarity to a fan-artist's derivation of an ROTJ suit.

We already have the smoking gun. We do know what an original abplate should look like aswell as an original ROTJ abplate. An original has a narrow and LONG stem leading up from the ab buttons to nearly the top of the armour. Same on the ROTJ. The original SDS ab plate instead had the short stumpy stem as ONLY FOUND on the original TE/GF ab plate. He has since modified it to be longer like the original. Also the original has a distinctly different vac formed area behind the vertical four button strip. This means that SDS COULD NOT have even used an original ROTJ ab plate.

HTH.

[snapback]1155297[/snapback]​

[/b]

However as has been shown in countless pictures, not evey piece either pulled the same or always looked the same with certain things. Has it been determined from the actual suits from ANH that all the ab plates had the same primary features? Or from TESB? Or ROTJ? Yes, maybe it is a GF...but have all the other sources been looked at? Comparisons to ONE suit hardly makes a case when so many variations exist.

 

[Art Andrews]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 10 2006, 04:42 PM
Braks,  for one,  we have never seen the inside of a screen used AB plate from an ANH suit.  For that matter,  we haven't seen the inside of any screen used AB plate.  We've only seen the insides of the resulting fan copies of screen used pieces.  Yes they should be fairly close........but not necessarily identical.  Recasters of screen parts clean up  and sharpen parts of their moulds all the time.  There is likely all sorts of "differences" on the undersides of these armor pieces. 

Somebody has got to have a screen used ANH suit.............or at least a screen used AB plate (on a later suit perhaps).

[snapback]1155290[/snapback]​

You know, I love stormtroopers as much as anyone but I am just completely lost here because this seems utterly ridiculous. Now we care about what the inside looks like? OH, you think YOUR stromtrooper is accurate? Well, does the inside have this and this and this?.?. WTF? I understand that the insides are sharper and show details from the molds that may not be seen on the outside but for crying out loud. I thought that it was a stormtrooper that we all loved...the OUTSIDE... you know... the part that we SEE in the movie. This whole thread and argument has just gotten a bit ridiculous. You don't need to see the INSIDE of an ab plate to see that the ab plate used by AA looks very similar to the one reworked by TE and neither looks like the dozens and dozens of pics we have of screen used ab plates. I just don't get it anymore. It seems more like there is argument for the sake of argument than to actually get anywhere. Next we will be arguing that the molecular structure is different... we can't see it but it is and that makes Andrew a *******/saint and makes his armor worthless/priceless depending on who you talk to... I dunno. I guess I just don't give a damn what the inside looks like if the outside doesn't match what we see on screen no matter who it comes from... TE, GF. Gino, AA... whoever.

 

[synasp]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 10 2006, 09:56 AM
The RPF stance (maybe not the members, but the staff) should be that since AA/Sheparton Design Studios is using a current member's work to help him in the manufacture and sale of replica armor that is benefitting Sheparton Design Studios financially with no repayment to the original artist, that his product should not be allowed to be sold on the RPF unless it is specifically stated that it is a tainted product that is using recast parts.

Question is whether or not the staff will do the right thing. Based on their track record, I have my doubts.

[snapback]1155252[/snapback]​

blab blab blab, question is whether or not gavidoc will do the right thing. Based on his track record, I have my doubts.

The problem is, this is a terrible argument. You say some crap, then sign it with "will they do the right thing?" presuming your claims are the right thing, which they are most definitely nothing more than your opinion.

I'm sure everyone is a legal genius and privy to ultra-secret information or prophetic intuition, but I humbly offer the opinion that nothing said here means anything more than each individual's opinion.

What does that mean? It means some of you--if you can be burdened with such a grand request--could humbly step down from your pulpit and rejoin us peons.

...or around and around we go... ...never to anywhere but here...

 

[Treadwell]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 10 2006, 11:51 AM
So why then are things made by EDC, GoldenArmor, Universal Armor, etc. sold in The Junkyard all the time?  How is this any different?  Shouldn't members be stopped from selling them too if they can't sell SDS items they bought (via eBay, here, or direct)?  Within the past month I've seen all of the aforementioned props by banned members sold in the Junkyard.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the potential outcome of this thread.

[snapback]1155299[/snapback]​

Seconded. I cannot recall a single instance of someone being prevented from reselling pre-existing items obtained from members who were later banned. Why start now?

 

[Trallis]

I understand where you're coming from, but it is not all opinion. There are facts that prove AA's suit is a ROTJ derivitive. The strips on the legs and arms for example. In ANH they were ABS strips which were placed there, in ROTJ they were part of the mold. its tough to explain, so read the first page of the other thread. His pieces could not possibly have this feature unless they came from a rotj suit. This is a fact.

It is also a fact that the ab area matches GF and TE suits but does not match ANH suits, but AA changed that by extending it afterwards when he realized that mistake.

I do agree that we keep going round and round, but we shouldnt. Some people will just keep coming up with strange reasons to try to justify being decieved. I could only even begin to understand some of your arguments if this guy was just honest about the recasting that he is doing.

 

[Trallis]

Originally posted by Treadwell+Jan 10 2006, 12:48 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Treadwell @ Jan 10 2006, 12:48 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 10 2006, 11:51 AM
So why then are things made by EDC, GoldenArmor, Universal Armor, etc. sold in The Junkyard all the time?  How is this any different?  Shouldn't members be stopped from selling them too if they can't sell SDS items they bought (via eBay, here, or direct)?  Within the past month I've seen all of the aforementioned props by banned members sold in the Junkyard.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the potential outcome of this thread.

[snapback]1155299[/snapback]​

Seconded. I cannot recall a single instance of someone being prevented from reselling pre-existing items obtained from members who were later banned. Why start now?

[snapback]1155347[/snapback]​

[/b]

I think this counts for something. In this thread the mod made the right call
http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?...ic=102302&st=20

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 10 2006, 12:51 PM
Okay, now I am very confused.  So Gav what you're saying, and I assume what the others are saying, is that no SDS props should be sold here by decision of the administration because in effect SDS would be a "banned" member.

So why then are things made by EDC, GoldenArmor, Universal Armor, etc. sold in The Junkyard all the time?  How is this any different?  Shouldn't members be stopped from selling them too if they can't sell SDS items they bought (via eBay, here, or direct)?  Within the past month I've seen all of the aforementioned props by banned members sold in the Junkyard.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the potential outcome of this thread.

[snapback]1155299[/snapback]​

I'm not aware of EDC, GoldenArmor, Universal Armor, etc. selling works that were recast using other members stuff without their permission.

I'm not saying that AA stuff should not be allowed. Your selective interpretation of what I wrote is what is causing the confusion.

Here is the part you seemed to misunderstand.

.... that his product should not be allowed to be sold on the RPF unless it is specifically stated that it is a tainted product that is using recast parts.

Of course, all AA would have to do is get permission from GF to use his stuff. After the fact I know, but he would have still asked and you wouldn't have a problem anymore. Of course, he'd be admitting finally that is stuff didn't use original molds as implied.

 

[RKW]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 10 2006, 05:06 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 10 2006, 05:06 PM)</div>

Originally posted by RKW@Jan 10 2006, 11:50 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-isd804

@Jan 10 2006, 03:59 PM
Here are the 2 problems. We don't know if AA has access to a screen-used ROTJ suit/tour suit. We also don't know what a screen-used ANH ab plate looks like. At present, there is no smoking gun. All that the RPF can show is marked similarity to a fan-artist's derivation of an ROTJ suit.

We already have the smoking gun. We do know what an original abplate should look like aswell as an original ROTJ abplate. An original has a narrow and LONG stem leading up from the ab buttons to nearly the top of the armour. Same on the ROTJ. The original SDS ab plate instead had the short stumpy stem as ONLY FOUND on the original TE/GF ab plate. He has since modified it to be longer like the original. Also the original has a distinctly different vac formed area behind the vertical four button strip. This means that SDS COULD NOT have even used an original ROTJ ab plate.

HTH.

[snapback]1155297[/snapback]​

However as has been shown in countless pictures, not evey piece either pulled the same or always looked the same with certain things. Has it been determined from the actual suits from ANH that all the ab plates had the same primary features? Or from TESB? Or ROTJ? Yes, maybe it is a GF...but have all the other sources been looked at? Comparisons to ONE suit hardly makes a case when so many variations exist.

[snapback]1155310[/snapback]​

[/b]

Was that a response just to deliberately be argumentative? I have gone to the trouble as have others of providing clear photographic evidence. What have you done other than make baseless accusations? What other sources? There are only two TE & GF and both early ab plates looked identical. Don't just waste our time setting everybody else challenges. Why don't YOU actually do some reseach and post photo evidence to back up your arguments then perhaps we would all have something to discuss.

I've done all I can to help other members. I've stated my case with clear photographic evidence to back it up. Now if people want to ignore it because they either like the sound of their own voice instead or are in the pocket of SDS then so be it.

I'm done, clearly a waste of time.

 

[RKW]

Originally posted by isd804+Jan 10 2006, 04:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(isd804 @ Jan 10 2006, 04:58 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-RKW

@Jan 10 2006, 08:50 AM

HTH.

[snapback]1155297[/snapback]​

Actually, it doesn't in my opinion.

[snapback]1155305[/snapback]​

[/b]

Well unless you explain in detail what it is you don't understand then I or anyone else won't be able to help you understand.