AA/SDS recasting issue...

[Trallis]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 19 2006, 09:47 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 19 2006, 09:47 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-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

[snapback]1162817[/snapback]​

[/b]

I do not know he doesn't have the original molds, I will correct that statement. I do know he hasnt used them in the production of these items. If he has them he doesn't use them. Therefore I doubt he has them.

And btw if AA didnt do it.. we would still have stormtroopers. I think we know that making a mold and vac-forming isnt something that only AA was able to do in 77

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 19 2006, 10:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 19 2006, 10:50 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-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

[snapback]1162818[/snapback]​

[/b]

Thomas,

I am an Industrial Designer so yes, I do know the difference between artwork and design. What do you think major companies do when they come up with a new design and they obtain a design/utility patent or a copyright? Submit a 3d model of the design? No. They submit schematics and "artwork" of the actual design.

So yes, LFL could submit a drawing of a stormtrooper and get a copyright on the design based on that drawing. Any works that would then be a result of that initial drawing would still be the legal ownership of LFL.


If you came up with a crazy invention, did a search of current patents, and saw nothing was submitted, you could submit a horrible sketch of the invention and be awarded a patent. I've done searches such as this for design ideas I've had and you'd be amazed at the horrible drawings people have submitted and obtained patents for.

 

[Durasteel Corporation]

Originally posted by Trallis+Jan 19 2006, 10:34 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Trallis @ Jan 19 2006, 10:34 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-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.










Okay, Machiavelian Realistic Economic approach:

IF AA hadnt done it ("it" translating into figuring out a way to mass produce armor in an area where there is some 'slight' protection) somebody else would have. He made lots of money doing something he probably enjoys. Dont you wish you could retire early on that pipe dream eh?






AAs money making is like that fortune cookie you always see:



"webboard bickering opportunity for distant man with big vac table you dont have"

 

[Trallis]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 19 2006, 02:05 PM
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.

[snapback]1163020[/snapback]​

no. they would have looked exactly the same.

AA=liar
AA has constantly beat around the bush by calling himseld the original "maker" and not "sculpter". He says "fabricated" instead of "sculpted". He only mentions sculpting them once on his site, and even here, he writes it in 3rd person as if someone else said it. LFL also claims that AA is not the original sculpter, but just a mold maker.. seems fairly consistent with the stuff AA is saying, even if he is trying to word it so you think he did more than that. AA WAS A MIDDLE MAN AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING THE IMAGE OF THE STORMTROOPER.

"PLaintiff is further informed and believes, an upon legal basis alleges, that defendant Ainsworth may have been involved in 1976 in the fabrication of molds that were based on models and sculptures prepared by Plaintiff's personnel from Plaintiff's artwork and drawings, and which mols were used to form three dimensional plastic..." blah blah you got the pont

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 19 2006, 01:52 PM
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.

[snapback]1163013[/snapback]​

Yes the RPF opinion is important as long as people understand that very few actual facts have been presented, just opinion and assumptions. Too many people, including yourself, have been presenting otherwise.

One question I asked you never answered was if it is found that AA actually is in the right and/or has the original molds would you ever admit you were wrong?

As for mentioning the other forum, it's simple. The majority of the "absolutists" are from there. They are the ones that are saying, without doubt, AA is guilty, is a liar, etc. They are the ones presenting their opinions as facts. Not all, but most. So, as an example, if someone from the Republican party (say you ) walks into an extensive discussion (this thread) about if Pres. Bush lied about WMDs (AA) I don't think anyone would say that such a member of the Republican party is going to say "Oh Bush lied, he lied big time, let's fry him."

And it's funny you find my having answered the questions, and you're not seeing the answers, as some how defensive and related to the other forum. There is no relation at all, especially since I'm not a member. Actually it's more like your goading is also being supported by other members which is why you have repetitively asked the same thing again and again and again even when the answers are blatantly in front of you. But until I actually say *exactly* what you (and likely others) want to hear (which I never will...as I've already answered it) you'll just keep it up.

I guess it would take a 2x4 upside the head to make it any clearer what my opinion is...but I like you too much Ben to do that to you. :lol

 

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by Trallis+Jan 19 2006, 02:24 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Trallis @ Jan 19 2006, 02:24 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Jan 19 2006, 02:05 PM
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.

[snapback]1163020[/snapback]​

no. they would have looked exactly the same.

AA=liar
AA has constantly beat around the bush by calling himseld the original "maker" and not "sculpter". He says "fabricated" instead of "sculpted". He only mentions sculpting them once on his site, and even here, he writes it in 3rd person as if someone else said it. LFL also claims that AA is not the original sculpter, but just a mold maker.. seems fairly consistent with the stuff AA is saying, even if he is trying to word it so you think he did more than that. AA WAS A MIDDLE MAN AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING THE IMAGE OF THE STORMTROOPER.

"PLaintiff is further informed and believes, an upon legal basis alleges, that defendant Ainsworth may have been involved in 1976 in the fabrication of molds that were based on models and sculptures prepared by Plaintiff's personnel from Plaintiff's artwork and drawings, and which mols were used to form three dimensional plastic..." blah blah you got the pont

[snapback]1163034[/snapback]​

[/b]

Trallis...I completely disagree. If anyone else had used the concept work that LFL has presented the stormtrooper image would have been different (similar but different) NOT EXACT.

You deal too much in stating absolutes that you can't back up.

Prove to all of us right now that "AA was a middle man and had nothing to do with creating the image of the stormtrooper."

Otherwise be more cautious with stating your absolutes that are simply opinion not fact.

My opinions are stated that way. What I believe may or may not be right but I do not state it as X+Y=Z.

You rush very quickly to flame people expressing their opinion of disdain for these ongoing SDS threads. While I can agree with the fact they do get bogged down with bickering I can respect someones right as a member to state whatever they may wish to in the thread, regardless if I feel it adds something to the discussion or not.

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 19 2006, 03:37 PM
I asked you never answered was if it is found that AA actually is in the right and/or has the original molds would you ever admit you were wrong?

While not directed at me, I will answer...Yes.

I've admitted when I was wrong in the past and have no issues doing it now.

That still doesn't address the fact that 2 different questions were presented to you Mike and you have chosen to not answer them with pathetic reasons such as "I've already answered them."

Honestly, you can't answer something when it wasn't asked before a certain point.

I've answered your question, now how about answering mine?

Again (in case you forgot).

You say I was involved in some sort of PK/D thing. How about telling me what you are referring to as I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Trallis]

Originally posted by Starkids1990+Jan 19 2006, 02:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Starkids1990 @ Jan 19 2006, 02:50 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Trallis@Jan 19 2006, 02:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Darbycrash

@Jan 19 2006, 02:05 PM
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.

[snapback]1163020[/snapback]​

no. they would have looked exactly the same.

AA=liar
AA has constantly beat around the bush by calling himseld the original "maker" and not "sculpter". He says "fabricated" instead of "sculpted". He only mentions sculpting them once on his site, and even here, he writes it in 3rd person as if someone else said it. LFL also claims that AA is not the original sculpter, but just a mold maker.. seems fairly consistent with the stuff AA is saying, even if he is trying to word it so you think he did more than that. AA WAS A MIDDLE MAN AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING THE IMAGE OF THE STORMTROOPER.

"PLaintiff is further informed and believes, an upon legal basis alleges, that defendant Ainsworth may have been involved in 1976 in the fabrication of molds that were based on models and sculptures prepared by Plaintiff's personnel from Plaintiff's artwork and drawings, and which mols were used to form three dimensional plastic..." blah blah you got the pont

[snapback]1163034[/snapback]​

Trallis...I completely disagree. If anyone else had used the concept work that LFL has presented the stormtrooper image would have been different (similar but different) NOT EXACT.

You deal too much in stating absolutes that you can't back up.

Prove to all of us right now that "AA was a middle man and had nothing to do with creating the image of the stormtrooper."

Otherwise be more cautious with stating your absolutes that are simply opinion not fact.

My opinions are stated that way. What I believe may or may not be right but I do not state it as X+Y=Z.

You rush very quickly to flame people expressing their opinion of disdain for these ongoing SDS threads. While I can agree with the fact they do get bogged down with bickering I can respect someones right as a member to state whatever they may wish to in the thread, regardless if I feel it adds something to the discussion or not.

[snapback]1163051[/snapback]​

[/b]

I'm not flaiming anyone. If I say anything, assume it is my opinion. I thought everyone knew that. If it was a fact, everyone would agree. Everything I say is with respect and I am not trying to be a jerk. I just state it flat out without trying to make anyone look bad or making snide comments.

The only reason I got mad at that other guy was because he quoted me in his post directly before saying to stop spouting out crap or someting to that effect. I'm here to discuss this issue with other people who care about it. I obviously assume that anyone else who cares this much about it would probably get along well with me, regardless of their opposing opinion

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by gavidoc+Jan 19 2006, 03:48 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gavidoc @ Jan 19 2006, 03:48 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 19 2006, 03:37 PM
I asked you never answered was if it is found that AA actually is in the right and/or has the original molds would you ever admit you were wrong?

While not directed at me, I will answer...Yes.

I've admitted when I was wrong in the past and have no issues doing it now.

That still doesn't address the fact that 2 different questions were presented to you Mike and you have chosen to not answer them with pathetic reasons such as "I've already answered them."

Honestly, you can't answer something when it wasn't asked before a certain point.

I've answered your question, now how about answering mine?

Again (in case you forgot).

You say I was involved in some sort of PK/D thing. How about telling me what you are referring to as I have absolutely no idea.

[snapback]1163080[/snapback]​

[/b]

Because it's not for this thread and you can ask anyone from the RPF or T4 about it and they can answer it as well as I can (though probably with different opinions).

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Trallis@Jan 19 2006, 03:24 PM

AA=liar
AA has constantly beat around the bush by calling himseld the original "maker" and not "sculpter".  He says "fabricated" instead of "sculpted".  He only mentions sculpting them once on his site, and even here, he writes it in 3rd person as if someone else said it.  LFL also claims that AA is not the original sculpter, but just a mold maker.. seems fairly consistent with the stuff AA is saying, even if he is trying to word it so you think he did more than that.  AA WAS A MIDDLE MAN AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING THE IMAGE OF THE STORMTROOPER.

To say AA has lied means you have evidence he is not telling the truth. That is hardly an opinion.

Fabrication of molds is a technical term used by people in the industry. It normally doesn't imply artistic intent but when you are fabricating molds for boats it's not important, whereas if you fabricate molds for something that requires artistic talent to create then sculpt is more appropriate. It is academic unless you know what went into making the molds...

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 19 2006, 11:00 AM
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...

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?

[snapback]1162828[/snapback]​

The Copyright Act, 1957
Chapter IV
OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT AND THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER

  17. First owner of copyright.-- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
      Provided that --
        a. in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;
        b. subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;
        c. in the case of a work made in the course of the author's employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or clause (b ) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright work therein.
            cc. in the case of any address or speech delivered in public, the person who has delivered such address or speech or if such person has delivered such address or speech on behalf of any other person, such other person shall be the first owner of the copyright therein notwithstanding that the person who delivers such address or speech, or, as the case may be, the person on whose behalf such address or speech is delivered, is employed by any other person who arranges such address or speech or on whose behalf or premises such address or speech is delivered;]

Thus, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary regarding assignment of copyright, the author would have to be in a contract of service since he was not an apprentice of LFL at the time.
Remember that employee has a specific meaning....ie: benefits, taxes, etc. If AA was not a bona fide employee of LFL at the time, then the contractual obligation of an employee would not apply.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[TKBIG]

Trallis,
This is a written form of communication and seeing your non verbal ques can be difficult. How you phrase your responses can and will lead to confusion regarding your intent. The passions on the opposing sides here are quite evident. How well you express those feelings, opinions and beliefs is my point of contention not the content. I can respect your opinion but will ask for the proof to back it up.
I believe AA had more to do with the final 3D design of the stormtrooper armor seen based on my own years of research that lead me to this opinion. The same research has lead me to think that the original bucks are not being used in the production of his current helmets/armor. I respect your opinion. But the phrasing leaves much to be desired. You can expect me to be call out those statements unless you provide the explanations and evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by Trallis@Jan 19 2006, 04:02 PM
I'm not flaiming anyone.  If I say anything, assume it is my opinion.  I thought everyone knew that.  If it was a fact, everyone would agree.  Everything I say is with respect and I am not trying to be a jerk.  I just state it flat out without trying to make anyone look bad or making snide comments.

The only reason I got mad at that other guy was because he quoted me in his post directly before saying to stop spouting out crap or someting to that effect.  I'm here to discuss this issue with other people who care about it. I obviously assume that anyone else who cares this much about it would probably get along well with me, regardless of their opposing opinion

[snapback]1163098[/snapback]​

 

[Gytheran]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 19 2006, 04:15 PM
Thus, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary regarding assignment of copyright, the author would have to be in a contract of service since he was not an apprentice of LFL at the time.

[snapback]1163187[/snapback]​

What?.

It specifically says AA did NOT need to be under contract for LFL to maintin the copyright.

The ONLY way AA would have any right over the Stormtrooper would be if it were an original creation(which it is not), and just HAPPENED to be filmed. This is not the case, though...

We know AA was hired to make the ST costumes... By your own admission, in the absense of a contract to the contrary (meaning something to give AA the copyright... i.e. no chance in hell on the part of GL.), the EMPLOYER(LFL) would maintain the copyright to said items...

How in the world do you interpret that differently?

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Gytheran+Jan 19 2006, 06:37 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gytheran @ Jan 19 2006, 06:37 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-SithLord

@Jan 19 2006, 04:15 PM
Thus, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary regarding assignment of copyright, the author would have to be in a contract of service since he was not an apprentice of LFL at the time.

[snapback]1163187[/snapback]​

What?.

It specifically says AA did NOT need to be under contract for LFL to maintin the copyright.

The ONLY way AA would have any right over the Stormtrooper would be if it were an original creation(which it is not), and just HAPPENED to be filmed. This is not the case, though...

We know AA was hired to make the ST costumes... By your own admission, in the absense of a contract to the contrary (meaning something to give AA the copyright... i.e. no chance in hell on the part of GL.), the EMPLOYER(LFL) would maintain the copyright to said items...

How in the world do you interpret that differently?

[snapback]1163207[/snapback]​

[/b]

If (big "if") there was no contractual obligation on the part of AA as an employee, then there was no employer/employee relationship. I still have to get the complete version of the act since this is the version from India, which should be similar :/.

The later law puts the rights with the artist as an employee in lieu of a contract. The question is, was AA a bona fide employee? I don't believe so unless there was a contract showing that.

Also keep in mind that if any of the labor laws were broken by LFL at the time, then any rights would be moot...remember how strict the motion picture union was? Do you think they would be happy to find out LFL hired people outside the union for cheap labor?

I'm not admitting anything, just reporting it as I see it and trying to understand myself how AA could have rights.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[Gytheran]

The question is, was AA a bona fide employee? I don't believe so unless there was a contract showing that.

Was he paid for his work for Star Wars? Apparently he was paid what they had agreed to. Otherwise AA would have sued. AA's own actions(or lack thereof) dictate their agreement was fulfilled.

An agreement is also known as a VERBAL contract.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 19 2006, 05:15 PM
The Copyright Act, 1957
Chapter IV
OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT AND THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER

  17. First owner of copyright.-- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:
      Provided that --
         a. in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;
         b. subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;
        c. in the case of a work made in the course of the author's employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or clause (b ) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright work therein.
            cc. in the case of any address or speech delivered in public, the person who has delivered such address or speech or if such person has delivered such address or speech on behalf of any other person, such other person shall be the first owner of the copyright therein notwithstanding that the person who delivers such address or speech, or, as the case may be, the person on whose behalf such address or speech is delivered, is employed by any other person who arranges such address or speech or on whose behalf or premises such address or speech is delivered;]

:lol :lol :lol :lol
What relevance does the Indian Coypright Act of 1957 (Bare Act) have in this topic??? Was AA in India when he claims to have sculpted the trooper??? I'm really lost as to why you are you now quoting Indian laws to support your argument??? Please do try and answer...
:confused :confused :confused :confused :confused

To say AA has lied means you have evidence he is not telling the truth. That is hardly an opinion.

Yep and I will state it as a fact AA has lied, even when under oath, in regards to this situation involving his corporation SDS and it's actions...

And most importantly lets get somewhat back on topic here, or at least back to the UK from our visit to India...

What constitues a contract in the UK

Under the laws of England & Wales (Scottish law is slightly different), for a contract to be legally binding - ie for it to exist - it requires:

*offer
*acceptance of that offer
*communication of that acceptance to the other party
*consideration - each party has to put something into the deal
*certainty and 'consensus ad idem' - meeting of the minds - agreement as to the terms
*intent to create legal relations

Until ALL of those things are present, there can't be a contract. Each one is critical. But once they are all present, then you have a contract, which will be legally binding provided it does not offend against any particular rule which makes it unlawful (eg a contract to commit a crime).

Apart from a few special cases (such as sale of land), a contract does not require writing, and indeed we all make and perform oral contracts daily in the course of life, without a second thought. The expression 'an oral contract is worth no more than the paper it's written on' is not a correct statement of the law, but focuses more on the difficulties you can sometimes get in proving whether or not an oral contract exists, and if so, what it's terms are. And that's the problem we have here, because exactly the same rules apply to a variation to an existing contract as to its formation in the first place.

So in the absense of any written contract, you can claim no contract all you want, AA can claim no contract all he wants but it's going to boil down to who tells a better story about the oral contract to the courts, and what it contained... It's pretty clear the there was some sort of arangment and exchange of money for product between LFL and AA, the only point IMO that could possibly be argued with any success is "*intent to create legal relations"

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 19 2006, 06:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 19 2006, 06:14 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Trallis

@Jan 19 2006, 03:24 PM

AA=liar
AA has constantly beat around the bush by calling himseld the original "maker" and not "sculpter".  He says "fabricated" instead of "sculpted".  He only mentions sculpting them once on his site, and even here, he writes it in 3rd person as if someone else said it.  LFL also claims that AA is not the original sculpter, but just a mold maker.. seems fairly consistent with the stuff AA is saying, even if he is trying to word it so you think he did more than that.  AA WAS A MIDDLE MAN AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING THE IMAGE OF THE STORMTROOPER.

To say AA has lied means you have evidence he is not telling the truth. That is hardly an opinion.

[snapback]1163186[/snapback]​

[/b]

I think the lying first starts when AA says SDS (as a corporate entity, whatever) were the original sculptors/creators/whatever he cooks up of the Stormtrooper armor. Being that SDS was not even a formal corporation until 2004 (Which LFL is pointing out in their case) does this not constitute a lie on AA's part?

 

[Gytheran]

Yup, I missed that... :confused

Why are you posting INDIAN law?.?.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 19 2006, 08:19 PM

Yep and I will state it as a fact AA has lied, even when under oath, in regards to this situation involving his corporation SDS and it's actions...

And most importantly lets get somewhat back on topic here, or at least back to the UK from our visit to India...

So in the absense of any written contract, you can claim no contract all you want, AA can claim no contract all he wants but it's going to boil down to who tells a better story about the oral contract to the courts, and what it contained...  It's prety clear the there was some sort of arangment and exchange of money for product between LFL and AA, the only point IMO that could possibly be argued with any success is "*intent to create legal relations"

[snapback]1163273[/snapback]​

The Indian act is stated as being based on the UK act. Whether that's true I'll find out soon. But given India was a British Colony UNDER BRITISH RULE, it makes sense. But there's no mention of "freelancing" which probably wasn't defined back then (in the 50s).

I'll agree with you that there should have been some arrangement for a money exchange...but the question is...who paid AA? Remember the motion picture union? AA wasn't a part of it if he was a boat builder....and an oral contract won't hold up in court. What complicates things is that I have no idea what kind of amendments could have been made to the act between 1956 and 1989, and what the labor laws were like before 1980 (furthest back I could go).

Please state where AA lied under oath....

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

A business doesn't have to be incorporated to be legitimate...

:cheers,

Thomas