AA/SDS recasting issue...

[Emeldahay]

Originally posted by Helmetman@Jan 17 2006, 10:31 PM
There was a time when AA/SDS threads were worth hitting.

But now it seems everyone has said everything there is to be said - at least three times over.

SDS threads make very little progress about he subject itself and end up spiralling into petty little arguments between RPF major players.

What follows are PAGES and PAGES of 'he said, she said' babble.

It's so dull, I think I'm about to drop off to sleep.

Can't you think of something else to do with your evenings?

[snapback]1161421[/snapback]​

Well said

 

[OldKen]

all i have to say is thinking AA is going to get off scott free against LFL, is like thinking that OJ simpson wasnt.

to be honest, and i hate to say this, but even if everything you say is 100% accurate... (which i highly doubt)

the man is going against LFLs powerhouse of attorneys...

thats really all that needs to be said, the man is going to go bankrupt. period.

if he gets off scott free, that would mean he could sue for the rights and proffits of of everything that shows the TK likeness...

i will EAT my entire SW figure collection if this happens. on video. and post it here.

:lol

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray+Jan 17 2006, 07:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Jan 17 2006, 07:19 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-SithLord

@Jan 17 2006, 05:15 PM
The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA.

[snapback]1161464[/snapback]​

AA worked on the stormtrooper molds from February 1976 to June 1976.

three years after AA created the stormtrooper molds:

And there in lies the pivotal point of errors, you are stating things as fact that are now in dispute...

And, based on UK copywrite law:

UK law is void in this suit... Only US laws will apply in this case...

[snapback]1161530[/snapback]​

[/b]

I do not know how the law will be interpreted, nor can profess what the outcome may be. I can give my opinion of what it should be or could be.

AA made the armor and the helmets. That can be easily proven. We've seen photos here as evidence of that.

Obviously AA has documentation to show when he worked on the pieces for LFL. There's no big mystery there. There should also be documentation as to when the items were received. Obviously they were received by the costume department before principle photography. And he was paid by LFL...not using cash .

UK law is not void in my opinion. You fail to realize that LFL was working in the UK under UK labor laws at the time. Do you think that subcontracting the production of costumes for a motion picture to a boat-builder when they should have been contracted to someone within the motion picture labor union made it a legitimate deal? If anything, US law is void by that very reason. And if you can provide a legal argument as to why UK law is void then please do. You are simply reiterating what the complaints say. Because you read something in a complaint, which is just the plaintiff's opinion, won't necessarily mean that that is what will be the interpretation of the law. The question is does AA have rights to make the armor, whereas you seem to be focused on the fact he sold armor to Californians which means you already assume and have decided he doesn't have rights to the helmets and armor and therefore UK law is void.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by oldken@Jan 17 2006, 07:29 PM
i will EAT my entire SW figure collection if this happens. on video. and post it here.

:lol

[snapback]1161547[/snapback]​

:lol

Well I hope you don't have to do that. I'm just saying let's give this time because there's a lot more to it than just what we can assume from reading the complaints, etc....

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[Darbycrash]

Thomas we all agree AA worked on moulds but even in his interview he just says he made the molds and never has claimed to made the sculpt. Also a reminder Sithlord that this is being tried in a US Federal court and the motion to dismiss was thrown out. So in other words US law will be looked at.

Also before you go on with another volume maybe you would like to answer my question about the ethics of a contractor making money off their employers idea.

Is it ok for a photographer to sell photos that they were hired to take without their clients permission?

Its funny I have heard someone of you say we are trying to demonize AA a man who has worked on a legendary film. What about AA trying to demonize George Lucas the man that had the vision and made it a reality. He hired AA in good faith to do a job.

 

[Emeldahay]

Originally posted by oldken@Jan 18 2006, 12:29 AM
all i have to say is thinking AA is going to get off scott free against LFL, is like thinking that OJ simpson wasnt.

[snapback]1161547[/snapback]​

I can just see Ainsworth standing in court struggling to put his hand into a black rubber chemical glove. :lol

 

[CWR]

AA made the armor and the helmets. That can be easily proven. We've seen photos here as evidence of that.

Made the armor yes, sculpted the armor maybe but I think LF is planning to show proof otherwise.

I don't think fabricating parts gives AA any rights to them. If he sculpted the likeness without being under employ of LF in any way, than he might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise I think he has no hope of beating this lawsuit.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 17 2006, 07:42 PM
Thomas we all agree AA worked on moulds but even in his interview he just says he made the molds and never has claimed to made the sculpt.

Also before you go on with another volume maybe you would like to answer my question about the ethics of a contractor making money off their employers idea.

Is it ok for a photographer to sell photos that they were hired to take without their clients permission?

Its funny I have heard someone of you say we are trying to demonize AA a man who has worked on a legendary film. What about AA trying to demonize George Lucas the man that had the vision and made it a reality. He hired AA in good faith to do a job.

[snapback]1161554[/snapback]​

I'm assuming they are positive molds.

Not to worry...I won't do anything like that again anytime soon :confused

I don't think AA is trying to demonize GL. It all depends on their agreement. If there was no agreement then AA is in his rights to use his work as he sees fit. For a photographer, often he will keep the negatives and the rights to make copies of the photos and the employer will use specific ones (under license if you will) for advertising or whatever. Less often the photographer will reliquish all rights to his work to the employer. So my answer is it's ok if the photographer has the rights...that is...if the rights were not given to the employer. Now, what if the photographer photographed something that the employer created? Let's say the employer had a sculpture and it was photographed. The employer would still have the rights to it since the photo perfectly represents the sculpt and no creativity was required to make the photo. If the photo was solarized or manipulated extensively then ok it would be originally authored. Also keep in mind that AA was not hired by GL, he was hired by someone representing GL. I'm sure he's never met GL so his interest is not in demonizing anyone but rather simply protecting what his lawyers tell him are his rights to his work.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by CWR@Jan 17 2006, 07:47 PM
I don't think fabricating parts gives AA any rights to them.  If he sculpted the likeness without being under employ of LF in any way, than he might have a leg to stand on.  Otherwise I think he has no hope of beating this lawsuit.

[snapback]1161558[/snapback]​

I disagree. Since his services were retained as a freelance artist, it is for that very reason that under UK law he has rights to the work in lieu of a contract stating otherwise.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 17 2006, 06:39 PM
UK law is not void in my opinion.  And if you can provide a legal argument as to why UK law is void then please do.

It's actually quite simple US courts rule on US laws, same as UK courts rule on UK laws...

Because you read something in a complaint, which is just the plaintiff's opinion, won't necessarily mean that that is what will be the interpretation of the law.

And in the same sense you can't take one mans word as the truth...

Obviously AA has documentation to show when he worked on the pieces for LFL. There's no big mystery there. There should also be documentation as to when the items were received. Obviously they were received by the costume department before principle photography. And he was paid by LFL...not using cash .

And do you believe LFL doesn't have records as well? You have stated over and over again there was no contract, where do you gather this as fact?

Do you think that subcontracting the production of costumes for a motion picture to a boat-builder when they should have been contracted to someone within the motion picture labor union made it a legitimate deal?

Well now we are getting somewhere you now state AA was a subcontractor of LFL, thus employed by LFL to do work, we have AA stating he was paid for his work... And under UK law "However, if a work is produced as part of employment then it will normally belong to the person/company who hired the individual."

 

[CWR]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 17 2006, 03:53 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 17 2006, 03:53 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-CWR

@Jan 17 2006, 07:47 PM
I don't think fabricating parts gives AA any rights to them.  If he sculpted the likeness without being under employ of LF in any way, than he might have a leg to stand on.  Otherwise I think he has no hope of beating this lawsuit.

[snapback]1161558[/snapback]​

I disagree. Since his services were retained as a freelance artist, it is for that very reason that under UK law he has rights to the work in lieu of a contract stating otherwise.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1161563[/snapback]​

[/b]

Well if for some reason AA wins the lawsuit (I still maintain this is highly doubtfull if not impossible) he will be one of the richest men on the planet after he seeks all of the back revenue GL made off of the Stormtrooper likeness.

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 17 2006, 05:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 17 2006, 05:50 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Jan 17 2006, 07:42 PM
Thomas we all agree AA worked on moulds but even in his interview he just says he made the molds and never has claimed to made the sculpt.

Also before you go on with another volume maybe you would like to answer my question about the ethics of a contractor making money off their employers idea.

Is it ok for a photographer to sell photos that they were hired to take without their clients permission?

Its funny I have heard someone of you say we are trying to demonize AA a man who has worked on a legendary film. What about AA trying to demonize George Lucas the man that had the vision and made it a reality. He hired AA in good faith to do a job.

[snapback]1161554[/snapback]​

I'm assuming they are positive molds.

Not to worry...I won't do anything like that again anytime soon :confused

I don't think AA is trying to demonize GL. It all depends on their agreement. If there was no agreement then AA is in his rights to use his work as he sees fit. For a photographer, often he will keep the negatives and the rights to make copies of the photos and the employer will use specific ones (under license if you will) for advertising or whatever. Less often the photographer will reliquish all rights to his work to the employer. So my answer is it's ok if the photographer has the rights...that is...if the rights were not given to the employer. Now, what if the photographer photographed something that the employer created? Let's say the employer had a sculpture and it was photographed. The employer would still have the rights to it since the photo perfectly represents the sculpt and no creativity was required to make the photo. If the photo was solarized or manipulated extensively then ok it would be originally authored. Also keep in mind that AA was not hired by GL, he was hired by someone representing GL. I'm sure he's never met GL so his interest is not in demonizing anyone but rather simply protecting what his lawyers tell him are his rights to his work.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1161561[/snapback]​

[/b]

Thomas I used to work as a professional photographer. And yes you are correct I was able to keep the negatives. However I could only sell pictures produced by those negatives with the permission of my client. If I went off on my own and started selling them without an agreement I would be sued in seconds. Not to mention would probably never be hired again. And you will have to take my word on this most of my work was in the music industry. I have some shots I could easily profit off of.

If I design a security process for a client they own the intellectual rights to it. So if you would answer my question the way I phrased instead of the way you twisted it around we might have a good lesson in business ethics.

 

[DARKSIDE72]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 17 2006, 06:53 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 17 2006, 06:53 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-CWR

@Jan 17 2006, 07:47 PM
I don't think fabricating parts gives AA any rights to them.  If he sculpted the likeness without being under employ of LF in any way, than he might have a leg to stand on.  Otherwise I think he has no hope of beating this lawsuit.

[snapback]1161558[/snapback]​

I disagree. Since his services were retained as a freelance artist, it is for that very reason that under UK law he has rights to the work in lieu of a contract stating otherwise.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1161563[/snapback]​

[/b]

:rolleyes He has still broken all the copyright and license laws Thomas. There is no way around that. Freelance artist... :confused :lol

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 17 2006, 07:58 PM
It's actually quite simple US courts rule on US laws, same as UK courts rule on UK laws...

You forgot about the treaties.

And in the same sense you can't take one mans word as the truth...

Nor a company's word....

And do you believe LFL doesn't have records as well?  You have stated over and over again there was no contract, where do you gather this as fact?

Why would you like to know? Anyway, if there was a contract obviously we would have seen it in the complaint FROM DAY ONE.

Well now we are getting somewhere you now state AA was a subcontractor of LFL, thus employed by LFL to do work, we have AA stating he was paid for his work...  And under UK law "However, if a work is produced as part of employment then it will normally belong to the person/company who hired the individual."

Maybe you are getting somewhere...I already came and left . AA was technically not an "employee" of LFL as defined by the US Supreme Court. Whether it would be freelance or subcontracted I do not know. But UK law states specifically that freelance work in lieu of a contract gives rights to the author of the work, not the employer. Nice try though .

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 17 2006, 08:03 PM
If I design a security process for a client they own the intellectual rights to it.  So if you would answer my question the way I phrased instead of the way you twisted it around we might have a good lesson in business ethics.

[snapback]1161572[/snapback]​

It still boils down to whether there was an agreement or not. If there was one, we'd have seen it in the original complaint.

And business law in the UK differs somewhat from that in the USA. Otherwise we would not have international corporate lawyers .

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by DARKSIDE72@Jan 17 2006, 08:10 PM
:rolleyes He has still broken all the copyright and license laws Thomas. There is no way around that. Freelance artist... :confused  :lol

[snapback]1161576[/snapback]​

Wel then, which laws are you referring to? I've made it clear where the complaint falls short based on the international treaties, and UK law, AND on the fact that AA did his work before the "motion picture version" of the stormtrooper was copyright. :unsure

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 17 2006, 07:10 PM
You forgot about the treaties.

Nope didn't forget about treaties, what International treaty are you refering to that both the US and UK are parties to, thus would be enforceable?

Anyway, if there was a contract obviously we would have seen it in the complaint FROM DAY ONE.

Nope, wrong this if it exist will come out in the Discovery stage like the majority of the supporting evidence...

Please review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as to how this case will proceed... At this time they are in section 3, most of the evidence won't be presented to the courts until the later part of section 5...

AA was technically not an "employee" of LFL as defined by the US Supreme Court.

Wait I thought my reply was in regards to UK law, now you are stating US law as being the deciding factor in UK desisions???

Whether it would be freelance or subcontracted I do not know.

Well at least you now state you don't know, and that AA could have very well been under contract, in truth freelance is a very lose term, but add into the equation that AA was at least shown conceptual artwork, and I wouldn't be so quick to claim he owns the rights...

 

[exoray]

I believe the misconception that you have to "do something" to "get" copyright persists because the US didn't become a party to the Berne Convention until 1989

Thus the Berne Convention is void prior to 1989 (that includes 1976) as far as to the US goes...

"Who owns a piece of work

Normally the individual or collective who authored the work will exclusively own the work. However, if a work is produced as part of employment then it will normally belong to the person/company who hired the individual.

Freelance or commissioned work will usually belong to the author of the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, (i.e. in a contract for service).

Rights cannot be claimed for any part of a work which is a copy taken from a previous work. For example, in a piece of music featuring samples from a previous work, the copyright of the samples would still remain with the original author.

Only the owner, or his exclusive licensee can bring proceedings in the courts."

Thomas you do realize that this is a summary of the current UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988? This was not the UK law in effect in 1976, and again void in regards to the year 1976...

The legal ownership of a "work," which can take any of the following forms: written text, program source code, graphics images, sculpture, music, sound recording, motion picture, pantomime, choreograph and architecture. Before January 1, 1978, a work had to be published to be copyrighted.

So what you are saying is AA didn't and could copyright his claimed creation because it was never published? I guess LFL beat him the punch, funny he never disputed ownership back then...

Therefore, since the McQuarrie sketches were not published in 1975, but rather in 1979, after AA completed the work on the original stormtrooper molds, those sketches are not valid,

Thomas, you can copyright an unplublished work even before, 1979 read the actuall copyright papers on the trooper sketches included in the court paperwork, in gives specific directions on doing so... There is unpublished and published copyrights... The fact that the trooper sketches were not published until 1979 has no bearing on the ("unpublished) 1975 copyright of them, they would have obtained a new ("published") copyright at that time...

So unless the McQuarrie sketches were submitted to the Library of Congress they would not be considered copyright.

Do you actually believe LFL went through the trouble of filling out the paper work, paying the fee, but forgot to send in a copy of the sketch they were copyrighting???

So even IF LFL has Reg. Cert. No. GU 59-037 (1975) and IF the Mcquarrie sketches or paintings were published and IF they were submitted to the Library of Congress, AA still has the rights to the work based on UK Law and the Berne Convention which the USA is signatory to.

In 1976 there were not...

I checked the Library of Congress and could not find the sketches or paintings.

You actually went to the library of Congress and requested to look at them, or you browsed what was more then likely an incomplete database you found?

"In 1989 the United States Supreme Court resolved much of the confusion surrounding the issue of who was an "employee" and who was an "independent contractor."" "?if the creator of the work is not an employee, but instead a freelancer, than the "work made for hire" requirements of the independent contractor prong must be satisfied. This means that the work must be specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher, the work must fall into one of the nine enumerated categories of work, and there must be a signed writing between the parties where they agree that the work will be considered a "work made for hire."
"A freelancer's creative work in order to qualify as a "work made for hire" must satisfy the exact requirements of the Copyright Act. (1) The work must have been specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher. (2) The work must "fit" into one of nine narrow statutorily enumerated categories of work: (i) contribution to a collective work, (ii) part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (iii) translation, (iv) supplementary work (i.e., prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to another author's work such as an index or forward), (v) compilation, (vi) instructional text, (vii) test, (viii) answer material for a test, or (ix) atlas. (3) The parties must agree in a written and signed document that the work shall be considered a "work made for hire." In addition, although it is not stated in the Copyright Act, the "work made for hire" document must be signed by both parties prior to the commencement of the work. If the publisher fails to satisfy any of these requirements the work will not qualify as a "work made for hire" and the publisher could lose copyright ownership of the work."

Well that's pretty clear that if there was anything in writing, then the creation of the ST was "a work for hire" as it clearly meets all three the requirements... Also note the last line, "could lose" it's not a written in stone loss because a requirment wasn't met...

SINCE THE SKETCHES WERE UNPUBLISHED THEY FELL UNDER STATE LAW AT THE TIME.

Again there were previsions to get a copyright on unpublished work, at the time they were copyrighted...

Since they were under state law, AA would not be subject to state law.

Sorry since he is being sued in California he damn well is subject to California law, as well as Federal...

Also any copies he received for reference would have to have the copyright mark on them along with the name and year of creation for them to be valid copies. The burden of proof would be on LFL to prove they gave AA such copies.

Again this is civil court, you don't need proof, only a preponderance of evidence or is it more likely then not to have happened...

"Under the United States' copyright law, new works created using existing works are referred to as ?derivative works.? The United States copyright law requires creativity in order to obtain copyright protection. In the United States mere skill and labour, without a minimal degree of creativity, is not sufficient to attract copyright protection."

In the end LFL copyrighted the movie ANH as a whole, including the ST we have come to love, AA has no copyright on file before then and has never disputed LFL copyright... So exactly what rights does he have?

 

[KevVader]

Originally posted by CWR+Jan 17 2006, 07:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CWR @ Jan 17 2006, 07:02 PM)</div>

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 17 2006, 03:53 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-CWR

@Jan 17 2006, 07:47 PM
I don't think fabricating parts gives AA any rights to them.  If he sculpted the likeness without being under employ of LF in any way, than he might have a leg to stand on.  Otherwise I think he has no hope of beating this lawsuit.

[snapback]1161558[/snapback]​

I disagree. Since his services were retained as a freelance artist, it is for that very reason that under UK law he has rights to the work in lieu of a contract stating otherwise.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1161563[/snapback]​

Well if for some reason AA wins the lawsuit (I still maintain this is highly doubtfull if not impossible) he will be one of the richest men on the planet after he seeks all of the back revenue GL made off of the Stormtrooper likeness.

[snapback]1161571[/snapback]​

[/b]

IF (big if) that happens, you can almost guarantee that LFL will appeal....he may not see dime one for some time....

 

[Trallis]

i just want to say SithLord, while I don't agree on your stances on any of this, thanks for that post. It was very well researched and thought out. Great resource, and further testament to show those people sitting around deciding to make posts claiming we are losers for continuning to discuss this any further, that we have much to discuss.

And hey Amaldahay, it makes me laugh that you say "well said" to helmetman,who insulted all of us, but then go on to post again in this thread for your second time this evening.