AA/SDS recasting issue...

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by gavidoc+Jan 18 2006, 07:10 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gavidoc @ Jan 18 2006, 07:10 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 18 2006, 08:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Gytheran

@Jan 18 2006, 07:02 PM
Are you going to answer the question, Mike?

[snapback]1162432[/snapback]​

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.

Mike,

Please direct me to the Post # in this thread where either Darbycrash's or my questions were answered by you directly and I'll stop being the newsreporter to your Harry Truman during the strikes of 1946.

[snapback]1162473[/snapback]​

[/b]

Mike getting your answer to this question is relevant to this discussion. And I emphasize the word discussion. If you can't take the time to do that it really shows how black and white you are about these issues.

 

[Emeldahay]

500 replies.

Kwooool.

 

[Trallis]

Originally posted by Durasteel Corporation@Jan 19 2006, 12:02 AM

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

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??

.

[snapback]1162618[/snapback]​

I hope you werent talking about my post when you said "hashing crap out". What does that even mean? Why did you bother to type that rediculous blue message?
Why won't you people who are not interested in AA just not look at this thread? It's not hard, we are not interfering with you. You are interfering with us. Notice that the only person who even paid any attention to your post was me. Maybe everyone else will respond next time if you insult them too. But I should let you know i don't come here to bicker. We are trying to have a level headed conversation. Feel free to join any time

 

[TK765]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 19 2006, 12:39 AM
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.

[snapback]1162450[/snapback]​

Interesting how you keep using this cliche as a fact.

Answer is "always in the middle"???

Thats quite a stretch.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Darbycrash+Jan 19 2006, 03:21 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darbycrash @ Jan 19 2006, 03:21 AM)</div>

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 18 2006, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 18 2006, 08:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Gytheran

@Jan 18 2006, 07:02 PM
Are you going to answer the question, Mike?

[snapback]1162432[/snapback]​

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.

Mike,

Please direct me to the Post # in this thread where either Darbycrash's or my questions were answered by you directly and I'll stop being the newsreporter to your Harry Truman during the strikes of 1946.

[snapback]1162473[/snapback]​

Mike getting your answer to this question is relevant to this discussion. And I emphasize the word discussion. If you can't take the time to do that it really shows how black and white you are about these issues.

[snapback]1162703[/snapback]​

[/b]

Actually Ben, that post along with all your others and your allies just goes to show how 100% black and white you are. I'm not black and white about the issues at all. I haven't said for a 100% fact that AA is in the right or wrong unlike you and the rest, if you have bothered to actually read anything I and others have written you'd have long ago realized that (read...not gloss over because it doesn't agree with your opinion).

Hell I even said that if he was found to not have the original molds and/or not have any rights at all (as you all have claimed) I would be disappointed and admit I was wrong. But you and some others are so arrogantly sure you're 100% right and know everything that even if he wins in some way, you'll never admit you were wrong nor ever admit there is even a chance you could be wrong. Your arrogant "since there is silence" summation just proves that to the hilt how solidly mindset you are about it even to the point where if the discussion doesn't continue how YOU want it to, then clearly you've won some sort of imagined victory.

You're the one being b&w and not admitting that law, court cases, contracts, etc. can have huge grey areas to them.

As I've said repeatedly, to the point of beating my head against a brick wall or being on a merry-go-round, you nor I nor anyone know a thing about what is actually going on. However, the AA smear campaign where you and others are presenting your *opinions* to the RPF as facts is just total b&w b*lls**t. They aren't facts. They never will be facts. They are your opinions, period.

So, once again, everything that could be said has been said, and this is all a waste of time.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 19 2006, 02:12 AM
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?

Perhaps you would suspect that but no I believe you that the documents exist although it would be nice to see them.

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...

Where did I state that LFL claims rights to derivative works?

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?

Do I have to quote it again?

From UK copyright law prior to 1989 (© Henry Lydiate)...

Copyright does not give you a legal right to copy your work: it gives you the right to stop someone else copying it without your permission. This protection is given by the Copyright Act 1956 and applies to 'artistic works' (not ideas) which means paintings, sculptures (includes any cast or mound made for the purposes of sculpture), drawings, engravings (includes any etching, lithograph, wood-cut, print or similar work not being a photograph) and photographs (means any product of photography, but not cinematograph film): and works of 'artistic craftsmanship' - what works of craft are to be regarded as 'artistic' depends on the author's aim when creating the work, rather than on any objective test, (a dress or cake may well not be 'artistic' for these purposes).

If your work is an 'artistic work', copyright protection will only be given if it is 'original' - the product of your own skill and labour and not substantially derived from an existing work so that it 'comes so near to the original as to suggest that original to the mind of every person seeing if, Keating's copies of existing Palmer's are not 'originals', despite the considerable skill and labour involved in their execution, (but they do not infringe copyright because Palmer's copyright has expired); and the painting based on the film-star's photograph (see issue 2) is probably not an 'original' (and may well infringe someone's copyright). There are also special rules about 'qualified persons' and 'published works' which ensure that an alien, resident in a country not having copyright laws similar to ours, who first publishes work in that country, does not gain copyright protection in the United Kingdom.

Who owns the copyright?
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. The copyright in commissioned photographs, portrait paintings, portrait drawings and engravings is owned by the commissioner - the person offering the author something of economic value to make the work. The first owner is free to enter into any contract with any person in order to vary the above rules.

And here's the recent UK law...NO difference.

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).

international copyright law at the time

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...]

I corrected myself to state that the UCC applied. Did you read the UCC??

UNIVERSAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTION 1952

Article II. 1. Published works of nationals of any Contracting State and
works first published in that State shall enjoy in each other Contracting
State the same protection as that other State accords to works of its
nationals first published in its own territory, as well as the protection
specially granted by this Convention.

2. Unpublished works of nationals of each Contracting State shall enjoy in
each other Contracting State the same protection as that other State
accords to unpublished works of its own nationals, as well as the
protection specially granted by this Convention.

So simply put, unless there was a contract between LFL and AA, the UK law holds and by the UCC, the USA would have to abide by that UK law because the molds were created in the UK.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by CWR@Jan 19 2006, 12:26 AM
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.

[snapback]1162596[/snapback]​

Star Wars was copyright in 1977. AA detractors should remember that without AA there would have been no stormtroopers in Star Wars.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[darthgoat]

Nonsense. They would have found another person to do it.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Trallis@Jan 19 2006, 12:34 AM
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

[snapback]1162598[/snapback]​

It's not ok that TE or GF used and sold armor without permission from the copyright holder. It is illegal. It is also not permissible to modify that armor. IF AA is the original owner of the copyright, he IS entitled by law to modify it as he pleases but then may have to copyright the modified pieces if they are different from the originals.

Since you know that he does not have the original molds perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you know that?

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 19 2006, 12:17 AM
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.

Too bad that LFL lost the rights to AA's designs if there was no contract with AA. In fact I suspect there was no contract because LFL was not working within the legal framework of UK labor laws at the time. A painting is not a design. It's an artwork. There's a legal difference between a work of art and a design.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 19 2006, 02:17 AM

And this has to take it for the most twisted logic...

The molds don't look like stormtroopers???

[snapback]1162663[/snapback]​

Does a horseshoe look like a horse?

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by darthgoat@Jan 19 2006, 10:43 AM
Nonsense.  They would have found another person to do it.

[snapback]1162812[/snapback]​

There was no one else with that "technology" at the time. If there was then please enlighten us.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[exoray]

Thomas, I asked for the 1956 UK copyright code not a summary of opinion of the code... To go on and state time after time that it's the same as the 1988 Act, is false... The commisioned work clause in the 1956 code is an exception to the contract clause, if you would have posted the code this would be clear...

If your work is an 'artistic work', copyright protection will only be given if it is 'original' - the product of your own skill and labour and not substantially derived from an existing work

And assumming AA was involved in sculpting the ST, AA didn't derive this from LFL work??? Again without reading the actual code, the interpretation is missing...

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.

This is also interesting, what constitutes a contract of employment or appreticeship under the old code? Since AA was a boat and pond builder, couldn't it be easily suggestied that he was an appretice prop maker?

 

[AnsonJames]

[/quote]
Star Wars was copyright in 1977. AA detractors should remember that without AA there would have been no stormtroopers in Star Wars.
[/quote]

Don't you mean without Geoge Lucas and Ralph McQuarrie. there would have been no stormtroopers in Star Wars?
Are you just trolling?

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 19 2006, 08:25 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 19 2006, 08:25 AM)</div>

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 19 2006, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 18 2006, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 18 2006, 08:39 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Gytheran

@Jan 18 2006, 07:02 PM
Are you going to answer the question, Mike?

[snapback]1162432[/snapback]​

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.

Mike,

Please direct me to the Post # in this thread where either Darbycrash's or my questions were answered by you directly and I'll stop being the newsreporter to your Harry Truman during the strikes of 1946.

[snapback]1162473[/snapback]​

Mike getting your answer to this question is relevant to this discussion. And I emphasize the word discussion. If you can't take the time to do that it really shows how black and white you are about these issues.

[snapback]1162703[/snapback]​

Actually Ben, that post along with all your others and your allies just goes to show how 100% black and white you are. I'm not black and white about the issues at all. I haven't said for a 100% fact that AA is in the right or wrong unlike you and the rest, if you have bothered to actually read anything I and others have written you'd have long ago realized that (read...not gloss over because it doesn't agree with your opinion).

Hell I even said that if he was found to not have the original molds and/or not have any rights at all (as you all have claimed) I would be disappointed and admit I was wrong. But you and some others are so arrogantly sure you're 100% right and know everything that even if he wins in some way, you'll never admit you were wrong nor ever admit there is even a chance you could be wrong. Your arrogant "since there is silence" summation just proves that to the hilt how solidly mindset you are about it even to the point where if the discussion doesn't continue how YOU want it to, then clearly you've won some sort of imagined victory.

You're the one being b&w and not admitting that law, court cases, contracts, etc. can have huge grey areas to them.

As I've said repeatedly, to the point of beating my head against a brick wall or being on a merry-go-round, you nor I nor anyone know a thing about what is actually going on. However, the AA smear campaign where you and others are presenting your *opinions* to the RPF as facts is just total b&w b*lls**t. They aren't facts. They never will be facts. They are your opinions, period.

So, once again, everything that could be said has been said, and this is all a waste of time.

[snapback]1162796[/snapback]​

[/b]

Mike I have taken the time to answer your questions when you pose them. However you have not given me the same courtesy. Your answer will definitely tell us what you believe is ethical or unethical business practices.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 19 2006, 11:50 AM
Mike I have taken the time to answer your questions when you pose them. However you have not given me the same courtesy. Your answer will definitely tell us what you believe is ethical or unethical business practices.

Actually, no you haven't. You skipped a few questions posed to you before. But of course I haven't kept nagging because frankly your opinion doesn't hold any water in the discussion to the point where I have to keep reposting to hear an OPINION that will not make nor break anything being said. What I believe (and what I said if you and John would read back) is ethical or unethical is my opinion and not any statement of fact nor does it have even the smallest, tiniest bit of bearing on anything being discussed.

However your, and other's, tactic is to try to make opinion into some basis of fact when it isn't. You currently are a member of a forum with a few who are completely and utterly unethical in both legal and moral ways. However should the fact of your membership be then the basis of my opinion of their ethical standards? Of course not. But that is what you are trying to do here. The fact of AA having made a product for a contractor does not automatically lead to the fact he has no rights to the products made.

It is opinion he does not.
It is opinion that he is unethical in trying to do so.
It is opinion that he will lose the case.
It is opinion that the molds are not original.
It is opinion that he copied GF's work (and whether he had the right to or not).
It is ALL opinion.

There are a million different things back there in this case we know nothing about. For all we know LFL took advantage of the contractors and sub-contractors. Hell, we've heard enough times from the stars of SW how they felt screwed by how LFL handled the licensing. How LFL played dirty, and was called on, by the UK workers union for their law of tea breaks and such. How at the time of SW LFL did everything possible on the cheap, and frankly took advantage of what they could when they could. So who is to say that AA didn't very well get screwed over (you've all said he was paid squat for his work) and is in a position to reverse what happened?

Let's remember too, playing off the "stick it to the big guy accusations", if AA was a money-grubbing thief and liar as his accusers are throwing out there all the time, then why not just sue LFL in UK court straight off? He's clearly got the legal team, he's got the paperwork in his belief for proof, why not just hit them outright or even counter sue? It could be, as I'm sure you're thinking Ben, that he doesn't have a leg to stand on and hoped to do all this without confronting LFL. So then if he's in such a horrific losing position why keep going and why would two reputable teams keep going? Or it could be he hoped to make some money quietly, didn't want to go into a mega fight with LFL, and just wanted to be left alone. Or it could be...more endless speculation, assumption, opinion, etc.

So you want more than that? Okay, here you go, more for you.

If LFL didn't properly handle the contracting, paperwork, and ownership of the product that AA designed and made then their actions at this time are unethical and they are trying to cover their asses. In other words if LFL didn't follow the law, they are the ones now being unethical.

If AA did have proper contractual obligations and didn't make the molds, designs, etc. for all the items he is claiming then his actions are unethical. In other words if AA did break the law then he is being unethical.

Once AGAIN it's all opinions. And once again it's meaningless because in the end we don't know a damn thing about what is actually going on and it's all assumption.

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 19 2006, 09:41 AM
Star Wars was copyright in 1977. AA detractors should remember that without AA there would have been no stormtroopers in Star Wars.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1162808[/snapback]​

Thomas that has to be the most ridiculous statement I have read on this Forum let alone thread. :lol

Puff, Puff, Pass.

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon+Jan 19 2006, 11:30 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lord Abaddon @ Jan 19 2006, 11:30 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Jan 19 2006, 11:50 AM
Mike I have taken the time to answer your questions when you pose them. However you have not given me the same courtesy. Your answer will definitely tell us what you believe is ethical or unethical business practices.

Actually, no you haven't. You skipped a few questions posed to you before. But of course I haven't kept nagging because frankly your opinion doesn't hold any water in the discussion to the point where I have to keep reposting to hear an OPINION that will not make nor break anything being said. What I believe (and what I said if you and John would read back) is ethical or unethical is my opinion and not any statement of fact nor does it have even the smallest, tiniest bit of bearing on anything being discussed.

However your, and other's, tactic is to try to make opinion into some basis of fact when it isn't. You currently are a member of a forum with a few who are completely and utterly unethical in both legal and moral ways. However should the fact of your membership be then the basis of my opinion of their ethical standards? Of course not. But that is what you are trying to do here. The fact of AA having made a product for a contractor does not automatically lead to the fact he has no rights to the products made.

It is opinion he does not.
It is opinion that he is unethical in trying to do so.
It is opinion that he will lose the case.
It is opinion that the molds are not original.
It is opinion that he copied GF's work (and whether he had the right to or not).
It is ALL opinion.

There are a million different things back there in this case we know nothing about. For all we know LFL took advantage of the contractors and sub-contractors. Hell, we've heard enough times from the stars of SW how they felt screwed by how LFL handled the licensing. How LFL played dirty, and was called on, by the UK workers union for their law of tea breaks and such. How at the time of SW LFL did everything possible on the cheap, and frankly took advantage of what they could when they could. So who is to say that AA didn't very well get screwed over (you've all said he was paid squat for his work) and is in a position to reverse what happened?

Let's remember too, playing off the "stick it to the big guy accusations", if AA was a money-grubbing thief and liar as his accusers are throwing out there all the time, then why not just sue LFL in UK court straight off? He's clearly got the legal team, he's got the paperwork in his belief for proof, why not just hit them outright or even counter sue? It could be, as I'm sure you're thinking Ben, that he doesn't have a leg to stand on and hoped to do all this without confronting LFL. So then if he's in such a horrific losing position why keep going and why would two reputable teams keep going? Or it could be he hoped to make some money quietly, didn't want to go into a mega fight with LFL, and just wanted to be left alone. Or it could be...more endless speculation, assumption, opinion, etc.

So you want more than that? Okay, here you go, more for you.

If LFL didn't properly handle the contracting, paperwork, and ownership of the product that AA designed and made then their actions at this time are unethical and they are trying to cover their asses. In other words if LFL didn't follow the law, they are the ones now being unethical.

If AA did have proper contractual obligations and didn't make the molds, designs, etc. for all the items he is claiming then his actions are unethical. In other words if AA did break the law then he is being unethical.

Once AGAIN it's all opinions. And once again it's meaningless because in the end we don't know a damn thing about what is actually going on and it's all assumption.

[snapback]1162943[/snapback]​

[/b]

Mike you seem to forget the point of this is the RPF opinion here so yeah your answer to my question makes a difference. And if you want shoot me the other questions you say I didn't answer I would be more then happy to take the time to respond. Mike I also don't even know why you bring up my forum memberships even in an example. However for some reason the thought of answering that question really seems to make you very defensive. And granted you threw out some answers but not to the question I asked you.

 

[SithLord]

Star Wars was copyright in 1977. AA detractors should remember that without AA there would have been no stormtroopers in Star Wars.
[/quote]

Don't you mean without Geoge Lucas and Ralph McQuarrie. there would have been no stormtroopers in Star Wars?
Are you just trolling?

[snapback]1162839[/snapback]​

[/quote]

I meant without AA we would not have the stormtroopers the way they look in SW...they would look different.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[Darbycrash]

Star Wars was copyright in 1977. AA detractors should remember that without AA there would have been no stormtroopers in Star Wars.

Don't you mean without Geoge Lucas and Ralph McQuarrie. there would have been no stormtroopers in Star Wars?
Are you just trolling?

[snapback]1162839[/snapback]​

[/quote]

I meant without AA we would not have the stormtroopers the way they look in SW...they would look different.

:cheers,

Thomas

[snapback]1163017[/snapback]​

[/quote]

Thomas if someone else had done them we would still like them anyways. And I would say based on the paintings they would have still looked similar. I don't really understand your point your trying to make.