AA/SDS recasting issue...

[lonepigeon]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 21 2006, 04:44 AM
With all due respect....look at a Don Post Deluxe Vader helmet, a Rubies Vader helmet, an Altmanns, an MR stormtrooper helmet, the MR Count Dooku saber, etc.....

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

Thomas

[snapback]1164261[/snapback]​

Things happen in production. You're speculating that LFL is behind a conspiracy to make the products inaccurate. That's just not so.
MR made many decisions on their own to alter the look of the props you've mentioned.
Don Post Deluxe Vader is the only valid example in your list. It's an old one though.
Rubies and Altmanns are just terrible at replicating anything.

 

[lonepigeon]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 21 2006, 05:00 AM
I don't disagree with you Chris, and that's a great way of explaining the complexity of the relationship between your original work and what that work depicts (ie: a character that is copyright) but keep in mind that the UK law differs from the US law with respect to who owns copyright when the work is freelance. The difference in AA's case could be that the stormtroopers he created are sufficiently original in design as to be considered different than McQuarrie's (and therefore LFL's). This is something only a court or someone experienced in such cases could determine.

Thomas

[snapback]1164279[/snapback]​

Wasn't it UK law that you quoted/posted that said copyright for derivative works remains with the owner of the original it was based on?
"Sufficiently original in design" - I think this is the big issue. If AA created the design on his own and he happened to be influenced by something he saw then I can see the argument. Considering he was hired by the copyright holder and specifically given the McQuarrie artwork to follow I believe he did not do the job with any intent to create something original.
Yes it's a court issue, but I don't see how they could possibly side with AA on it considering the circumstances.

 

[exoray]

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

LFL grasping at straws in this case, funny... And again Federal Civil court doesn't work this way, all the steps have to be followed and LFL is following the steps involved... Supporting evidense will be provided on a need be basis when the time is right as per the rules...

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

You know that is the same defense AA used in court, but his smoke and mirrors game didn't fool the judge...

The second element of the purposefull availment test is satisfied where the defendant purposefully targets a known forum resident.  Bancroft & Masters, Inc., 223 F.3d at 1088.  Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants shipped infringing copies of Plaintiff's copyrighted design to nineteen residents of California, sent emails directly to its California customers, and advertised its infringing copies in national publications and on the Internet.  Defendants argue that these actions are directed at all of it's customers and do not purposefully target California.  However, Defendants' sales, advertisments, and emails are clearly aimed at United States cusumers.  Even if Defendants did not intend to target California above any other state, their actions affect California more than any other state due to Plaintiff's presence in California.  Defendants have not offered any evidence that jurisdiction in any other state would be more appropriate, or that their sales, advertisements, and emails to California are less significant then their sales, advertisements, or emails to any other state.  Thus no other state in the United States provides as an alternative forum for jurisdiction.  Accordingly, these factors weigh in favor of finding purposeful targeting of California.

 

[Trallis]

Originally posted by BingoBongo275+Jan 20 2006, 05:29 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BingoBongo275 @ Jan 20 2006, 05:29 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Trallis

@Jan 20 2006, 08:16 PM

As for the whole misleading thing we were talking about earlier:
I am going to have my brother who doesnt know anyhting about stormtrooper helmets or AA or anything look at AA's site, and have him tell me what he thinks AA is selling.  We'll see if he is mislead or not.

[snapback]1163933[/snapback]​

Â…and the same time maybe you should ask him what he thinks about the view that the guy who made the original armour in the first place, would by viewed by some people here as a recaster for copying armour which was original recast from his own armour in the first place (if it is in fact proven that he did recast armour that was recast off his own armour)

:lol :lol :lol

Cheers

Jez

[snapback]1164043[/snapback]​

[/b]

Okay, I will ask him that but his answer will be "I don't care." What I'm trying to establish here is how misleading this info is. I dont see how his other accomplishments matter in that question. We are not trying to rate him as a person. I want to show that he has mislead his customers.
Seriously, thats like someone going to jail for murder and their lawyer saying, "but wait judge, he once saved a little boy from falling through the ice."

Its got nothing to do with it

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by lonepigeon+Jan 21 2006, 12:11 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lonepigeon @ Jan 21 2006, 12:11 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-SithLord

@Jan 21 2006, 05:00 AM
I don't disagree with you Chris, and that's a great way of explaining the complexity of the relationship between your original work and what that work depicts (ie: a character that is copyright) but keep in mind that the UK law differs from the US law with respect to who owns copyright when the work is freelance. The difference in AA's case could be that the stormtroopers he created are sufficiently original in design as to be considered different than McQuarrie's (and therefore LFL's). This is something only a court or someone experienced in such cases could determine.

Thomas

[snapback]1164279[/snapback]​

Wasn't it UK law that you quoted/posted that said copyright for derivative works remains with the owner of the original it was based on?
"Sufficiently original in design" - I think this is the big issue. If AA created the design on his own and he happened to be influenced by something he saw then I can see the argument. Considering he was hired by the copyright holder and specifically given the McQuarrie artwork to follow I believe he did not do the job with any intent to create something original.
Yes it's a court issue, but I don't see how they could possibly side with AA on it considering the circumstances.

[snapback]1164285[/snapback]​

[/b]

Chris, when I knew Steve Altmann years ago I asked him about the very poor Vader he was making under his license (as compared to his excellent Biker Scout, DS Gunner, etc.), because I had two early prototypes of his that were way more accurate (not as good as a DP CA, but WAY better than that...thing...that finally came out). Steve told me that he sent his more accurate ones to Skywalker Ranch for approval, but they kept insisting on changes. The wanted larger lenses so people could see better, they wanted the neck shorter, etc. He went through several revisions under the approved it. The same with the Stormtrooper and all the rest he use to make.

I also met the Midwest Regional Sales Manager for Don Post a few years ago. He worked for them in the last '70s and was one of those who helped me identify some early DP Vader and Stormtrooper salesman models. He said the same thing, LFL always approved the product from the licensee and always insisted on alterations so that it would not be "as good as" what was on screen. I asked him why and he said that he heard it was because they felt if there were too many "good" helmets out there people wouldn't be as interested in the real ones at promotions (remember, we're talking the '70s and '80s).

So actually LFL does approve, and does make alterations, to the replicas from all I have heard.

 

[lonepigeon]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 21 2006, 06:00 AM
So actually LFL does approve, and does make alterations, to the replicas from all I have heard.

[snapback]1164316[/snapback]​

You're also talking about the 80's and early 90's.
It was a different mindset back then. The products weren't prop replicas, but costumes.
I don't see how or why they let Don Post make more accurate stuff than Altmann.
These days LFL does still approve everything and they can make changes. It's not always for the better but their purpose is not to differentiate the replica from the real props. I've spoken to licensees for products today and that has not been the case.
This is a big sidetrack to this particular thread though.
I suggest a new thread if people really want to discuss it.

 

[Durasteel Corporation]

I also met the Midwest Regional Sales Manager for Don Post a few years ago. He worked for them in the last '70s and was one of those who helped me identify some early DP Vader and Stormtrooper salesman models. He said the same thing, LFL always approved the product from the licensee and always insisted on alterations so that it would not be "as good as" what was on screen. I asked him why and he said that he heard it was because they felt if there were too many "good" helmets out there people wouldn't be as interested in the real ones at promotions (remember, we're talking the '70s and '80s).

If I might chime in LA and throw in some added background on DP...

I talked to two ex DP employees nearly four years ago, might even be four at this point. There seemed to be three reasons they modified their full mannequins and deluxe helmets. The first had to do with movie vs. collector quality. They had to sand down a lot of sharp lines or edges, add pitted markes (to Fetts helmet at least) but they also had to make some things more wearable, while others they chose to deny wearability. They squashed the Fett helmet inward (consequently flaring out the front and back and thus distorting the helmets look) in order to give the average person more.....nose room, if you can believe it. There was also a very curious allussion to "Boba Fett in a prequal"...which I gather Jango emulated. That reason alone seemed to be of some weighty importance by the sound of things because these guys knew (although possibly guessed?) about this Fett appearence as early as 96/97 when the deluxe was in early to mid production. By 2001 they had stopped making the helmets and much of the full mannequin lines because, as one guy who still worked there claimed....."nobody wants star wars stuff---did you see Episode I, nobody wants this **** ". So LFL definately excercises some control over the production of collectibles but I think it had as much to do with minimizing the possibility of dulling a suprise with lots of a given piece floating around before the movie version premiers......given that there is a definate window of spiked popularlity. If MR waited ten years from EP 2 and 3 to produce its sabers or clone helmets, I doubt there would be as many sales.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 20 2006, 11:14 PM
Giant jeap? Hardly. If there was this magical contract then it would have appeared in the initial complaint and the case would be irrefutable.

And directly back at you with, if there was a magical copyright owned by AA why hasn't i been mentioned or even touched upon, in the answer to the complaint were it would have been appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? Or again why wasn't it touched upon in AA's reply to the opposition to dismiss in which LFL affirmed again they own the copyright? Not one peep about AA's magical copyright, thus far in the case, certainly it would have been an appropriate issue in regards to jurisdiction as well...

Why would LFL waste an incredible amount of money on legal fees amending complaints, etc., grasping at straws if they had the one thing that would lock down the case?

Almost all corporate insurance policies have IP protection clauses, it's standard practice... I hightly doubt LFL is paying anything out of pocket for this case, and even if they did this is chump change to the finacial backing provided by LFL, and at the end of the day the judgement will certainly pay 10 fold all legal expenses...

And even if they did provide the contract, it wouldn't lock down the case and end it any sooner... I keep asking you to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there is a time and place for every thing in this case, jumping in line won't please the judge and certainly won't conclude the trial any faster...

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 21 2006, 12:35 AM
What I find interesting is that you can label what AA has done so easily while while at the same time acknowledging that both LFL and AA haven't even gotten into the real meat and potatoes of the legal arguments in regard to UK law. LFL is avoiding it, AA's lawyers are trying to redirect the case to where it's juristiction justifiably falls...the UK. What if AA has the rights to his creations? Would he still be shady and duplicitous? Shody workmanship? How many people have shown their helmets on RPF...damn fine helmets. Yet how many have complained about problems? How many helmets were sold? Hundreds. Yet a few people come on here and claim that all the helmets are shoddily made...that the FX is sturdier....who cares? You're actually going to troop with an $850 helmet? Buy a TE helmet for that . I paid $650 for my CRPROPs helmet...and that wasn't even first generation. And you guys complain about the cost of a helmet from the original maker? I can't see the signature through any of my helmets unless I have a bright light right up against the inside. You guys can accuse AA all you like, it won't change that he made the original armor and helmets and that he was nice enough to offer collectors the chance to own examples of his work...of his designs. McQuarrie didn't design the final look or we would have the McQuarrie stormtroopers running around the Death Star with lightsabers in their hands. And if you don't like his work then sell it. If I got the Death Star commander helmet from the original molds how much would it be worth if it was the only one? A lot more than $850.

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

[snapback]1164251[/snapback]​

Again, all I have said has been opinion. Your defense of him is not making MY opinion of him and his products any better at all. Sometimes, and I mean no offense by the following, the things you say in regards to his defense are such leaps as to make me smile and roll my eyes. My OPINION is based on the court documents.

As far as his scultping goes, you have no idea of the extent of work he did on the helmets, just as I do not. You are basing off of his words. I am basing my view off of LFL's lawyers words. They seem to think he does NOT have the original molds. Funny, the original subject of the thread was how do we look on him...as a recaster or what? If he has "borrowed" from TE or GF, then yes, he is a recaster. If the suits do not match the ANH suits, as they clearly do not, then he is recasting something he did not have a hand in sculpting. Are they RotJ suits? If so, he did NOT sculpt those, that is not in dispute here, right?

Again, you have your opinion of his involvement, I have mine. He was NOT integral to us as fans having Stormtroopers in ANH. That is my stance on this. He is trying to make a buck off of his name and possible involvement in ANH. That is my stance on this. He still hasn't addressed the problems some of the RPFers here have with his product. That colors my negative opinion nicely.

I assume you are not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Right now, we are all dilettantes in regards to this case. We have an interest, nothing more. Your mind is made up, my mind is made up. We can say "Innocent until proven guilty" til we are blue in the face, but how many of us TRULY believe that. Ask yourself if you believed it when OJ said he was innocent. Ask yourself if you believed MJ when he said he was innocent. Don't answer here, but look inside yourself and then ask the question. I didn't believe it, for sure.

As far as what "right" I have to profess his guilt, well I guess it is the same right you have to profess his innocence, right? Neither of our opinions have one iota of bearing on this case, so do not talk to me of my "rights" to declare his guilt.

 

[Emeldahay]

600 posts - And there was me thinking this thread was going to go round in circles.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by lonepigeon+Jan 21 2006, 01:23 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lonepigeon @ Jan 21 2006, 01:23 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 21 2006, 06:00 AM
So actually LFL does approve, and does make alterations, to the replicas from all I have heard.

[snapback]1164316[/snapback]​

You're also talking about the 80's and early 90's.
It was a different mindset back then. The products weren't prop replicas, but costumes.
I don't see how or why they let Don Post make more accurate stuff than Altmann.
These days LFL does still approve everything and they can make changes. It's not always for the better but their purpose is not to differentiate the replica from the real props. I've spoken to licensees for products today and that has not been the case.
This is a big sidetrack to this particular thread though.
I suggest a new thread if people really want to discuss it.

[snapback]1164325[/snapback]​

[/b]

True, it is a different mindset now as we've seen from MR and some of the recent products. And yes, for a different thread. Thanks Chris.

 

[TK765]

Again, all I have said has been opinion. Your defense of him is not making MY opinion of him and his products any better at all. Sometimes, and I mean no offense by the following, the things you say in regards to his defense are such leaps as to make me smile and roll my eyes. My OPINION is based on the court documents.

As far as his scultping goes, you have no idea of the extent of work he did on the helmets, just as I do not. You are basing off of his words. I am basing my view off of LFL's lawyers words. They seem to think he does NOT have the original molds. Funny, the original subject of the thread was how do we look on him...as a recaster or what? If he has "borrowed" from TE or GF, then yes, he is a recaster. If the suits do not match the ANH suits, as they clearly do not, then he is recasting something he did not have a hand in sculpting. Are they RotJ suits? If so, he did NOT sculpt those, that is not in dispute here, right?

Again, you have your opinion of his involvement, I have mine. He was NOT integral to us as fans having Stormtroopers in ANH. That is my stance on this. He is trying to make a buck off of his name and possible involvement in ANH. That is my stance on this. He still hasn't addressed the problems some of the RPFers here have with his product. That colors my negative opinion nicely.

I assume you are not a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Right now, we are all dilettantes in regards to this case. We have an interest, nothing more. Your mind is made up, my mind is made up. We can say "Innocent until proven guilty" til we are blue in the face, but how many of us TRULY believe that. Ask yourself if you believed it when OJ said he was innocent. Ask yourself if you believed MJ when he said he was innocent. Don't answer here, but look inside yourself and then ask the question. I didn't believe it, for sure.

As far as what "right" I have to profess his guilt, well I guess it is the same right you have to profess his innocence, right? Neither of our opinions have one iota of bearing on this case, so do not talk to me of my "rights" to declare his guilt.

[snapback]1164422[/snapback]​

[/quote]

Well said.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 20 2006, 10:33 PM
Well I am sorry if you are not able to see the legal reasons why AA cannot state that his products are based on Star Wars.

Heh. I was being sarcastic yesterday. Sorry. It's a hard habit to break.

It's blindingly obvious that his "legal reasons" are a conscious decision to cover his butt because he knows what he's doing is downright shifty so the more he can do to distance himself from LFL and avoid any legal entanglements the better.

My point is that I see that as an indication of intentional deceit. This appears to be a pattern of behaviour that I would think would make people take anything the man says with a grain of salt.


This doesn't really apply to the armour, but just out of curiosity, what is your spin on the reason the letters ANH appear on my TIE Pilot helmet stand as well as in the FAQ on SDS's website?

I suppose it could stand for "Ainsworth's New Helmet" and if I read anything else into it I am "implicating" it to mean A New Hope, the very movie where these items come from.

If you are so mislead because he omits mentioning something as obvious as it's a character from Star Wars then don't buy his armor...

I think that's great advice.

But I never intended to buy his armour until I saw some good pictures and gauged the accuracy. As it turns out, despite all the great free advertising he's getting from this thread, he's not serving what's on his menu so I'm not interested in his armour.

And you're exactly right. It is obvious. Some things are just obviously linked. It's common sense.

Slurpee = 711

Big Mac = McDonalds

Mustang = Ford

Klingon = Star Trek

Stormtrooper = Star Wars

What else would you connect these thing to?

I don't pretend to know the law, so maybe it would be legal for another burger chain to sell a Big Mac as long as they don't use "McDonald's" in their advertising materials...but I doubt it. And I doubt it would be legal even for Ray Kroc. Certainly the ethics of this analogy would be questionable if nothing else.

You seem to be suggesting that because he's not calling it what it is that that's okay.

These figures don't say Star Wars.

http://www.toysrgus.com/images-speci/hungary/hungary.html

But they're still illegal bootlegs. A purposeful omission may be legal, I don't know. But it sure is dodgy.

And what facts are misrepresented?
A replica of armor is just that...a replica.

Here it is again, taken straight from his website:

Our new armour is an accurate replica of the armour we produced in 1976

And an accurate replica is just thatÂ…an accurate replica. Turns out his replica is not accurate, ergo I see that as a misrepresented fact.

You'd be the first person to debunk an accuracy claim made about a Vader helmet to the nth degree...why not apply the same scrutiny here? I think if you did you would see that AA's armour isn't accurate.

If he copied parts from someone who has recast those parts from an original suit, and that original suit as ROTJ is still based on the ANH design which is in turn based on AA's original artistic interpretation...then as the original artist it is up to him.

And if you're open to think that AA's armour is a copy of a copy of a copy off of ROTJ armour then it's highly unlikely that it would be "an accurate replica of the armour we produced in 1976" which would make that a false claim.

I'm not saying he didn't copy GF's suit

Well that's some progress.

although I still want to see the interior of an original Ab plate....

To what end?

And people seem to forget that AA was responsible for creating the original Imperial and rebel armor. I guess that contribution counts for nothing on a replica prop forum....

It counts for something. I'll admit, it's kind of cool that the guy who vacuu-formed the original trooper stuff is making replicas (in fact, it's what sucked me in to buy his stunt helmet and TIE helmet).

But it hardly gives him free licence to play fast and lose with the truth.

Fact is, if AA was completely up front about what he sold and if his marketing jibed with his products these threads would be far fewer and shorter.

Cheers.
TJ

 

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Jan 21 2006, 06:17 AM
My OPINION is based on the court documents.

So, is mine....I don't believe all the allegations that LFL has presented about the original sculpting that created the vac-form buck.
Remember that the court documents are allegations NOT court decided fact as of yet.
Regardless of how they are interpreted.

Point being that of those names you mentioned....they were ALL proven innocent in the eyes of the court. Were they innocent? (don't answer that....it's meant to be rhetorical.)

Likewise a recent high profile case regarding a man killing a woman in NC, him being convicted in court and serving 18 years to have evidence shown now prove he wasn't guilty of the charges made.

The court documents are LFL's opinion of AA......the judge will decide who's argument in more valid. It's far more complicated than that I know, but that's it in a nutshell.

If he has "borrowed" from TE or GF, then yes, he is a recaster.

I agree here.

If the suits do not match the ANH suits, as they clearly do not, then he is recasting something he did not have a hand in sculpting. Are they RotJ suits? If so, he did NOT sculpt those, that is not in dispute here, right?

Wrong, B&N recasted the ANH in 1981 to form the ROTJ. IF AA did sculpt the ANH then the ROTJ was a recast of his creation.....in turn 1st gen recasted (completely okay by the CoC) by TE, in turn copied again by GF. AA in turn recasted (yes, I believe he did) the GF parts after GF modified them (Not okay by the CoC here).
I accept the CoC here and do think it unethical of an artist to sell the copies of works they created for an "above ground" business. In the real world it is bad business practice. I don't think in the underground prop world that AA is the same type of recaster that is being portrayed. This is the quandry....TE nor GF originally sculpted the screen used armor. Only by our CoC did TE have the prop world rights to do so. I believe that this case of recasting is different because I believe AA created the original.....ergo, he cannot recast himself regardless of what modifications are done to it. However, I'm not debating whether that is kosher here or not. It's just my opinion.

Has anyone bothered to ask themselves WHY LFL refurbished the ANH armor at 30x's the original cost to make it instead of having AA do more? Why if LFL had the original bucks in their possession and ownership of those bucks they didn't hire a secondary vac-form fabricator to just pop out additional copies that were less expensive? (saving money on a movie production is always a first priority). Why the recasting of the ANH for the ROTJ instead of taking the original bucks and copying those straight for the changes made. There were a lot of actions by LFL over the years concerning the stormtrooper armor that leave questions as to WHY. Granted all of these question may have a very satisfactory answer from LFL but to date none have come forward.....in face of the number of people here in the prop community digging about for answers. Nor is LFL beholding to have an answer to any of the questions.


However these questions have always been at the back of my mind for years and only have come out now with the lawsuit.

He still hasn't addressed the problems some of the RPFers here have with his product. That colors my negative opinion nicely.

Have the RPFers contacted him regarding this problem? I am not defending AA just asking as I may have missed the part that AA refused to correct the problems.



As Jeezy pointed out the claims made on the site are stretched to say the least.
I have never purchased SDS products because they never "looked" like the screen used helmets to me. I was disappointed from the begining with AA's claims on the website.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 21 2006, 01:38 AM
LFL grasping at straws in this case, funny...  And again Federal Civil court doesn't work this way, all the steps have to be followed and LFL is following the steps involved...  Supporting evidense will be provided on a need be basis when the time is right as per the rules...

Even if Defendants did not intend to target California above any other state, their actions affect California more than any other state due to Plaintiff's presence in California.  Defendants have not offered any evidence that jurisdiction in any other state would be more appropriate, or that their sales, advertisements, and emails to California are less significant then their sales, advertisements, or emails to any other state.  Thus no other state in the United States provides as an alternative forum for jurisdiction.  Accordingly, these factors weigh in favor of finding purposeful targeting of California.

Pretty weak arguments. I could easily state the following:

1. Plaintiff's presence in California does not make the random existence of customers of SDS in California any more significant than if Plaintiff was in Jamaica. California does not become a target of SDS specifically BECAUSE LFL is there. That is inferring intent on the part of the Defendant without just cause.

2. The fact that Defendants have not offered any evidence that jurisdiction in any other state would be more appropriate is that no single state is singly significant in regard to jurisdiction since all states and countries are equally open to the internet website of SDS. If proof of one particular country or state having greater or specific access to the website by SDS' design, then one could argue a specific state or country was a target of a marketing or sales campaign. Since everyone from anywhere could buy a product, no one from anywhere in particular was targeted. The sales and advertisements to California are no less significant than to other states, which is why their sales and advertisements are equal, random, and nonsignificant. That makes California a state with no particularly exceptional distinction over any other state or country that had access to the SDS website.

And you sound like you either know or believe that there will be supporting evidence as to a contract. Just saying that evidence will be provided on a need be basis is the same as saying "we don't have it but we'll make you think we do so you'll back down and settle."

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 21 2006, 02:51 AM
And directly back at you with, if there was a magical copyright owned by AA why hasn't i been mentioned or even touched upon, in the answer to the complaint were it would have been appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?  Or again why wasn't it touched upon in AA's reply to the opposition to dismiss in which LFL affirmed again they own the copyright?  Not one peep about AA's magical copyright, thus far in the case, certainly it would have been an appropriate issue in regards to jurisdiction as well...

AA fabricated and still owns the original molds. He doesn't need a copyright document because by British law the rights belong to him for those molds. LFL requires documentation to demonstrate the contrary...

Almost all corporate insurance policies have IP protection clauses, it's standard practice...  I hightly doubt LFL is paying anything out of pocket for this case, and even if they did this is chump change to the finacial backing provided by LFL, and at the end of the day the judgement will certainly pay 10 fold all legal expenses...
And even if they did provide the contract, it wouldn't lock down the case and end it any sooner... I keep asking you to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there is a time and place for every thing in this case, jumping in line won't please the judge and certainly won't conclude the trial any faster...

I agree that LFL is taking the case because they think they can win, but why then only in CA? Probably because they know they can only win in CA . By the way, how much are Imperial stickers worth?

I'll take your word for it in regard to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Again it's a let's wait and see scenario....that's ok with me...

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Jan 21 2006, 07:17 AM
As far as his scultping goes, you have no idea of the extent of work he did on the helmets, just as I do not. You are basing off of his words. I am basing my view off of LFL's lawyers words.

Fair enough...and that post of mine you referred to...that was a bit more emotional on my part...I admit.

Are they RotJ suits? If so, he did NOT sculpt those, that is not in dispute here, right?

The ROTJ suits are based on ANH designs by AA.

Again, you have your opinion of his involvement, I have mine. He was NOT integral to us as fans having Stormtroopers in ANH. That is my stance on this. He is trying to make a buck off of his name and possible involvement in ANH. That is my stance on this. He still hasn't addressed the problems some of the RPFers here have with his product. That colors my negative opinion nicely.

I fully respect your opinion on that.

Ask yourself if you believed it when OJ said he was innocent. Ask yourself if you believed MJ when he said he was innocent. Don't answer here, but look inside yourself and then ask the question. I didn't believe it, for sure.

I didn't get a chance to talk with OJ or MJ whereas I have spoken with AA a couple of times. Maybe if I spoke with OJ or MJ or if you spoke with OJ or MJ you might have a different opinion of them.

As far as what "right" I have to profess his guilt, well I guess it is the same right you have to profess his innocence, right? Neither of our opinions have one iota of bearing on this case, so do not talk to me of my "rights" to declare his guilt.

I don't recall saying "AA is innocent" or "AA is not guilty" but rather that we cannot jump to conclusions without knowing the whole story. I've tried to provide legal examples as to why we should think before we judge someone even before they have been tried. Yes I have an opinion based on what I would think if I was in AA's shoes...sure he's trying to make some money...so have people on the RPF who sell TK armor...and do we condemn them similarily?

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by jeezycreezy@Jan 21 2006, 11:58 AM
It's blindingly obvious that his "legal reasons" are a conscious decision to cover his butt because he knows what he's doing is downright shifty so the more he can do to distance himself from LFL and avoid any legal entanglements the better.

Well I wouldn't put it quite in those terms but I agree that he had to distance himself from LFL.

This doesn't really apply to the armour, but just out of curiosity, what is your spin on the reason the letters ANH appear on my TIE Pilot helmet stand as well as in the FAQ on SDS's website?
I suppose it could stand for "Ainsworth's New Helmet" and if I read anything else into it I am "implicating" it to mean A New Hope, the very movie where these items come from.

It could mean anything.... :lol how's that for a great legal reply? But I like that...."Ainsworth's New Helmet". Then his hero helmet would be "AANH" or "Another Ainsworth New Helmet".

Stormtrooper = Star Wars

Or for those a little older to remember: Stormtrooper = certain military contingent in a certain country during WWII

I don't pretend to know the law, so maybe it would be legal for another burger chain to sell a Big Mac as long as they don't use "McDonald's" in their advertising materials...but I doubt it.  And I doubt it would be legal even for Ray Kroc.  Certainly the ethics of this analogy would be questionable if nothing else.

Stormtrooper in LFL case is used as a name to identify the character. If AA calls it that then it is a problem. But then again, if LFL is calling what AA designed a stormtrooper, then if AA has the rights to the final design then LFL is calling something that McQuarrie designed as assigning it to something AA designed which doesn't work. However, if if that were the case, I don't think AA could call his design a stormtrooper unless it was in reference to a certain military group from WWII .

Our new armour is an accurate replica of the armour we produced in 1976

Yes, but it doesn't say "produced in 1976 for the motion picture Star Wars: ANH under the explicit employment and supervision and advisory cousel of The Star Wars Corporation headed by George Lucas"

And an accurate replica is just that…an accurate replica.  Turns out his replica is not accurate, ergo I see that as a misrepresented fact.

As a collector and TK expert you're entitled to that assessment and opinion. But that doesn't make it a factual misrepresentation on the part of AA. Accurate doesn't mean identical. It just means "pretty darn close" .

You'd be the first person to debunk an accuracy claim made about a Vader helmet to the nth degree...why not apply the same scrutiny here?  I think if you did you would see that AA's armour isn't accurate.

It's certainly more accurate than the GF armor. BUT, I am not an armor expert. I've argued a lot about the helmets and their accuracy. I've been able to compare the inside of my low numbered SDS helmet with the inside of the Move Along and Stop that ship helmets...at reasonably high resolution and the similarities are encouraging...not definite proof I admit but convincing enough to me. And the inside of TE and GF helmets do not hold up as well against the ANH stunt originals.
So I won't argue about the AA armor since I've not studied it enough, but I stand on my opinion of the helmets...and have applied the same rigor of scrutiny to the AA helmets that I've applied to the Vader helmets I've been quick to denounce here. There's always more to study, however and my opinion of the rear cap of the SDS stunt helmet is on the fence right now...but even if he had to modify, clean up, trim or whatever to the original molds, if he still used them then I'll be happy. If he didn't then I'll send him a screaming telegram .

And if you're open to think that AA's armour is a copy of a copy of a copy off of ROTJ armour then it's highly unlikely that it would be "an accurate replica of the armour we produced in 1976" which would make that a false claim.

Again it's your assessment of the accuracy of the armor. There IS evidence that AA used parts for the armor the source of which no one has had in hand before...

To what end?

Simple...we haven't seen the inside of an ANH Ab plate....I personally think that the inside of the GF vs AA ab plates are different enough...and it's not just a matter of bondo here, a little sanding there...but in that thread I didn't persue it because it's only my opinion and that thread was heated enough .

It counts for something.  I'll admit, it's kind of cool that the guy who vacuu-formed the original trooper stuff is making replicas (in fact, it's what sucked me in to buy his stunt helmet and TIE helmet).
But it hardly gives him free licence to play fast and lose with the truth.

If he recast the GF armor at least in part then I'll admit that he should mention it at least in personal emails, something like "a couple of parts were obtained from fan-made armor parts". But he couldn't say that could he...frankly I think it was stupid of him to do that but as far as making the original molds, etc... I still stand by my opinions about that. Stating it as replica armor doesn't exclude that possibility. But then again, I don't see fan-made helmet/armor makers giving out details on their productions...or maybe I missed those details...yes I know AA was advertising on a publicly accessible medium so there are guidelines as to what constitutes truthful advertising. If omission in advertising is lying then he lied but i don't think it is....that would be a disclaimer like "oh the baby crib will fall apart if you put two infants in it" versus advertising that it is a one infant only baby crib....AA could have put a disclaimer stating that "WARNING: some of these trooper parts may have been recast from RPF members' armor" :lol

Anyway I'll try not to take this all too seriously....remember...I'm a Vader guy not a TK guy

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[lonepigeon]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 21 2006, 06:49 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 21 2006, 06:49 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-exoray

@Jan 21 2006, 02:51 AM
And directly back at you with, if there was a magical copyright owned by AA why hasn't i been mentioned or even touched upon, in the answer to the complaint were it would have been appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?  Or again why wasn't it touched upon in AA's reply to the opposition to dismiss in which LFL affirmed again they own the copyright?  Not one peep about AA's magical copyright, thus far in the case, certainly it would have been an appropriate issue in regards to jurisdiction as well...

AA fabricated and still owns the original molds. He doesn't need a copyright document because by British law the rights belong to him for those molds. LFL requires documentation to demonstrate the contrary...

[snapback]1164618[/snapback]​

[/b]

Not necessarily. That would be a conclusion you've jumped to. IMO, assuming no contract, ownership of the molds goes to AA of course but since the work is derived from Ralph McQuarrie's (owned by LFL) then AA would not retain any right to reproduce the armor.

As far as the molds go I think AA probably has them (for the helmet), but they've been refurbished, duplicated, fettled or whatever to the point that they no longer perfectly duplicate the original. LFL's complaint disputes that AA is not using the original molds to make his products which IMO is at least partly true. They don't say anything about having the original molds themselves and I highly doubt they do.
The armor is a weird situation. If AA is copying a fan derivative of a ROTJ suit then his product is actually further away from original than most fan made suits and less accurate.

SithLord - Where do you think the trial 'should' take place?
There's no world court (I don't think the UN cares).
Since it's LFL bringing the suit I would expect it to be on their turf. The alleged infringement is worldwide so location seems inconsequential. If AA is selling in the US then he is bound by US law, correct? For example a foreign DVD bootlegger couldn't advertise and sell his work to the US with impunity.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by SithLord
Pretty weak arguments. I could easily state the following:

Call the judges conclution weak all you want when they come from the judge that is presiding over the case, it is the final answer in the case, unless appealed...

By the way, how much are Imperial stickers worth?

Well that really depends on how the court decides the logo was used... If they rule that it was used to add credibility to all his products and unfair competition, then he is in for a boat load of damages... Removing the first claim under copyright, and just focusing on the second, third and forth claim for relief that involves trademark and unfair competition, in total LFL estimates $15,000,000 ($5 million each claim) in actual damages and $15,000,000 in punitive and exemplary... That's only $30 million for using that sticker...

In the unlikely case they decide it was only a trademark violation and wasn't adding any credibility to his products, nor unfair competition (VERY unlikely), then under claim three only, LFL estimates this to be $5,000,000 million in itself...

So to answer your question on how much an Imperial sticker is worth, the answer would be "many millions of dollars"

Mind you this is void of any copyright issues and all his trooper armor, this is just for the use of the imperial cog on his products and site.

AA fabricated and still owns the original molds.

To clarify that is your belief, there is no supporting evidence...

He doesn't need a copyright document because by British law the rights belong to him for those molds. LFL requires documentation to demonstrate the contrary...

And they have provided it with a valid registered 1975 copyright, AA has shown nothing... When and if you get the 1956 code with the amendments as of 1976 please scroll down to the section that covers three and two dimension copies... Yes, it's in the new code but I don't have a copy of the exact text that was there in 1976... In short making a 3D object from a 2D drawing is still a copy and violation of copyright... No one knows what drawing revisions and tweaks were made to the trooper prior to AA's involvment, remember if one of LFL employees sketched of sculped up some tweaks on a napkin or with play-doh in the UK, LFL automatically gained more copyright ownership under UK law... Just because the claimed design of AA it doesn't look exactly like the one in the drawing does not automatically grant it new copyright ownership since it was clearly a derivative work of the copyrighted drawing(s)...