AA/SDS recasting issue...

[exoray]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 21 2006, 01:49 PM
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 .

You believe this case should be tried in the UK because you believe AA has a valid UK copyright... So if AA was to sue LFL he would do it in UK courts right, where the laws favor his rights?

On the flip side

LFL believes the case should be in the US because they have a valid US copyright... So it's logical that LFL sues in the US courts where the laws favor their rights?

Funny how that plays out isn't it...

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by lonepigeon@Jan 21 2006, 03:53 PM
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.

Yeah Chris,

Sithlord and others are choosing to IGNORE the comments by people who are experienced with this sort of thing. You, myself, and I'm sure a few others who have experience doing this sort of thing. Won't get you far in regards to pointing out that little tidbit.

As for those saying.....RECASTED....Not a word. Never has been, isn't now, and never will be.

Jimbo recast my work. That work was recast. AA recast someone's work.

Not

Jimbo recasted my work. That work was recasted. AA recasted someone's work.

As for innocent until proven guilty. Doesn't apply to a civil case. Burden of proof in on the one suing. If LFL does a better job presenting proof then AA's lawyers, then they win. Same the other way.

There is no innocence, and no guilt.

Kind of hard to compare a criminal cases to civil cases. OJ was found innocent in criminal court but ended up owing a ton of money in the civil case. Why? THat pesky thing called, "without reasonable doubt" doesn't apply.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

The "recasted" thing makes me want to hurt people. Hell, in the US we only HAVE to know ONE language.

 

[TKBIG]

Yeah Chris,

Sithlord and others are choosing to IGNORE the comments by people who are experienced with this sort of thing. You, myself, and I'm sure a few others who have experience doing this sort of thing. Won't get you far in regards to pointing out that little tidbit.

Gav didn't realize that only you have a right to an opinion on this thread.
Sorry, that's as polite as I can say it. Your experience and others, gives good insight/opinion but it is not the "end all be all" of how the case will play out.
It's like watching any armchair quarterback.......those lawyers/legal advisors not directly involved in the case providing expert commentary might have a very convincing argument for their opinion but how the case actually ends is a totally different story.


If you'll go back and read you'll see I stated as much regarding civil vs criminal cases but the point is still the same. Whoever has the better argument wins. There is no right or wrong, just who has the more convincing argument.

As for those saying.....RECASTED....Not a word. Never has been, isn't now, and never will be.

Jimbo recast my work. That work was recast. AA recast someone's work.

Not

Jimbo recasted my work. That work was recasted. AA recasted someone's work.

Why spend more posting space concentrating on the use of two letters added to recast ( "ed" a simple spelling error) and totally ignore the questions I presented?

Respectfully, have a stab at them with that intellect of yours and see what you can come up with instead of deflecting them with that recasted rant. (pun intended)


I'm open to your arguments and for the most part agree with you on the case. Once the judge decided for US (specifically California) jurisdicition....AA lost.

 

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez@Jan 21 2006, 05:15 PM
The "recasted" thing makes me want to hurt people. Hell, in the US we only HAVE to know ONE language.

[snapback]1164735[/snapback]​

Not necessarily.

 

[Gytheran]

Originally posted by Starkids1990
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.

This is probably one of the easiest questions to answer...

No one expected Star Wars to take off like it did. As we know, MANY prop items turned up missing, lost, or destroyed. It could have easily been assumed these molds were lost or destroyed during the filming of ANH.

OR

It is possible that GL did contacted the original makers. Did you think that perhaps the original maker wanted to charge 35x what GL had originally paid? It is, afterall, not unlike AA to be after money 1st and foremost...

And, BTW, there is no such word as recastED

 

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by Gytheran@Jan 21 2006, 06:59 PM
This is probably one of the easiest questions to answer...

No one expected Star Wars to take off like it did.  As we know, MANY prop items turned up missing, lost, or destroyed.  It could have easily been assumed these molds were lost or destroyed during the filming of ANH.

OR

It is possible that GL did contacted the original makers.  Did you think that perhaps the original maker wanted to charge 35x what GL had originally paid?  It is, afterall, not unlike AA to be after money 1st and foremost...

And, BTW, there is no such word as recastED

[snapback]1164802[/snapback]​

OR
no contract was written, the molds were not destroyed and LFL was trying cover their butts by avoiding going back to AA due to not having any contract and not wanting to attempt to obtain one after Star Wars went big to avoid having to sign over any rights to AA or $$.

So now we have three scenarios that could possibly be valid.

Not quite open and shut is it?

Indeed, recasted is not a word. But neither is "that GL did contacted the original makers." forms a correct sentence structure either.

 

[OldKen]

guys...

its not recastED.

its recastEDED

your leaving out 2 EDs...

if its plural, you have to use 2... :booty

 

[Jedirick]

Originally posted by oldken@Jan 21 2006, 07:35 PM
guys...

its not recastED.

its recastEDED

your leaving out 2 EDs...

if its plural, you have to use 2...    :booty

[snapback]1164833[/snapback]​

Oh. I understand now. it's a generation thing. Ed jr and Ed III

 

[Darth Bill]

Originally posted by Starkids1990@Jan 22 2006, 12:33 AM

Indeed, recasted is not a word. But neither is "that GL did contacted the original makers." forms a correct sentence structure either.

Making a huge grammatical error while trying to chastise someone else for one...

Unintentional irony is the friggin' best.. :lol :lol




Russ

 

[Gytheran]

So... if AA's armor is a 4th&5th generation recast(which it is, right?) you could say AA armor falls between Recasteded and Recastededed.

 

[Darth Bill]

Just say "recastrated" from now on...

It's just as nonsensical but so much funnier. :lol :lol




Russ

 

[Gytheran]

Originally posted by Darth Bill@Jan 21 2006, 06:55 PM
Just say "recastrated" from now on...

It's just as nonsensical but so much funnier.  :lol  :lol




Russ

[snapback]1164852[/snapback]​

Nah... that's what we'll be using to describe AA once LFL is done with him.

 

[exoray]

no contract was written, the molds were not destroyed and LFL was trying cover their butts by avoiding going back to AA due to not having any contract

Under UK law a contract does not need to be written, signed or anything of the sort very unlike US law were the dotted line signature is very important...

I will state with certaintly there was a contract (be it bare minimum verbal) in regards to the working relationship between LFL and AA... It's not like AA just made the trooper pulls and was paid money without a word or bare minimum agreement being exchanged...

I would equate the scenerio more to most work for hire (contract) scenerios to create a 3D object from 2D drawings (this happens every day in regards to machine shops, and construction) where AA has rights and physical ownership to the tooling (in this case molds) used to create the final product, but has no rights to the final design, product created, nor any rights to continue production of said product after the specified run...

 

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by Gytheran+Jan 21 2006, 07:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gytheran @ Jan 21 2006, 07:59 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Darth Bill

@Jan 21 2006, 06:55 PM
Just say "recastrated" from now on...

It's just as nonsensical but so much funnier.  :lol  :lol




Russ

[snapback]1164852[/snapback]​

Nah... that's what we'll be using to describe AA once LFL is done with him.

[snapback]1164854[/snapback]​

[/b]

Now I'm in perfect agreement there.


Exoray, that makes sense. I agree that some type of "agreement" was there. Whatever form of that "agreement" will play a small part in the court proceeding but the final outcome will more than likely be the same.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 21 2006, 09:24 PM
I will state with certaintly there was a contract (be it bare minimum verbal) in regards to the working relationship between LFL and AA...  It's not like AA just made the trooper pulls and was paid money without a word or bare minimum agreement being exchanged...

A statement like that, Exoray, does not come out of thin air. I would have to assume that someone has told you something about LFL's position and you are saying it here? Do you know the name of the person who delt with AA? It seems you have quite an insight into the specifics of the case, or again you are making an assumption based on personal opinion and stating it as if it was fact.

The law is clear about contractual obligation for employees. The question about whether or not the work is derivative or required original creative execution is something that I assume AA's lawyers have already decided upon...the lawyers...not myself....decided this.... otherwise the case would not have gotten this far along. Whether those lawyers are correct or not will be up to a judge to decide.

I think at this point we should all let the case play itself out. The sales of helmets and armor by AA are clearly predicated on his own perceived rights to the stormtrooper design. Arguing about the where the case should play itself out is secondary to the question of original rights to the design. Because the work was completed in the UK, it should be tried in the UK irregardless of whether AA sold pieces in the USA...that is secondary to establishing rights of design when the work was executed in the UK under UK law which LFL was subject to when they decided to make a motion picture using UK laborers and artisans and actors......

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by SithLord+Jan 21 2006, 10:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 21 2006, 10:19 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-exoray

@Jan 21 2006, 09:24 PM
I will state with certaintly there was a contract (be it bare minimum verbal) in regards to the working relationship between LFL and AA...  It's not like AA just made the trooper pulls and was paid money without a word or bare minimum agreement being exchanged...

A statement like that, Exoray, does not come out of thin air. I would have to assume that someone has told you something about LFL's position and you are saying it here? Do you know the name of the person who delt with AA? It seems you have quite an insight into the specifics of the case, or again you are making an assumption based on personal opinion and stating it as if it was fact.
[/b]

It's the logical factual conclusion, AA admits to being paid for his services, and there was a product made... Do you believe for one second there was no agreement on payment and services? Do you honestly believe AA made helmets, went on to order ABS and make another 50 helmets and all the armor on a whim without any spoken or written word inregards to an arrangement for payment or anything?

Please if you honestly believe that there was no talk and or agreement between AA and LFL in regards to his services please do tell us what you believe happened...

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by exoray+Jan 21 2006, 10:28 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(exoray @ Jan 21 2006, 10:28 PM)</div>

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 21 2006, 10:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-exoray

@Jan 21 2006, 09:24 PM
I will state with certaintly there was a contract (be it bare minimum verbal) in regards to the working relationship between LFL and AA...  It's not like AA just made the trooper pulls and was paid money without a word or bare minimum agreement being exchanged...

A statement like that, Exoray, does not come out of thin air. I would have to assume that someone has told you something about LFL's position and you are saying it here? Do you know the name of the person who delt with AA? It seems you have quite an insight into the specifics of the case, or again you are making an assumption based on personal opinion and stating it as if it was fact.

It's the logical factual conclusion, AA admits to being paid for his services, and there was a product made... Do you believe for one second there was no agreement on payment and services? Do you honestly believe AA made helmets, went on to order ABS and make another 50 helmets and all the armor on a whim without any spoken or written word inregards to an arrangement for payment or anything?

Please if you honestly believe that there was no talk and or agreement between AA and LFL in regards to his services please do tell us what you believe happened...

[snapback]1164912[/snapback]​

[/b]

LFL goes to contractor and says "I need these pictures turned into helmets and armor."

Contractor goes to AA and says "I have these things I want made, here's a picture I have." AA says "Well, I can do something like that." And does so.

No reference as to LFL. AA does the work for the contractor without any direct assocation nor contract with LFL.

Contractor goes back to LFL with the items. "I got them cheap GL." Big smiles.

Years later, LFL finds they don't have any contract nor anything to support that AA actually did the work for them. Not even a verbal agreement is known. So...LFL goes for copyright infringement in the USA, bypasses the UK because they can't back themselves up, and here we are.

All supposition of course.

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 22 2006, 12:36 AM


Years later, LFL finds they don't have any contract nor anything to support that AA actually did the work for them.  Not even a verbal agreement is known.  So...LFL goes for copyright infringement in the USA, bypasses the UK because they can't back themselves up, and here we are.

All supposition of course.

Flip the coin though.

Years later, LFL finds they don't have any contract nor anything to support that AA actually did the work for them. All AA has is his word that he created the parts for the movie Star Wars.

LFL goes to court and says, "Why would we have a boat (or pond) maker make parts for us when he has no experience in the field of movie making? It is obvious that his armor suits are not exact copies of the suits we had commisioned for the use in ANH and thus, he has no right to the suits in question as he has no concrete proof that he was the actual maker of our originals. His name doesn't appear in the credits of the movie, we have no contract on file, and we have no paystubs to show he was actually paid for the work he claims he did."

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Starkids1990@Jan 21 2006, 06:27 PM

Gav didn't realize that only you have a right to an opinion on this thread.
Sorry, that's as polite as I can say it. Your experience and others, gives good insight/opinion but it is not the "end all be all" of how the case will play out.
It's like watching any armchair quarterback.......those lawyers/legal advisors not directly involved in the case providing expert commentary might have a very convincing argument for their opinion but how the case actually ends is a totally different story.


If you'll go back and read you'll see I stated as much regarding civil vs criminal cases but the point is still the same. Whoever has the better argument wins. There is no right or wrong, just who has the more convincing argument.



I'm open to your arguments and for the most part agree with you on the case. Once the judge decided for US (specifically California) jurisdicition....AA lost.

[snapback]1164744[/snapback]​

Starkids,

My statements as well as others is based on the fact that the case is to be tried in the US using US law. My experience as a contractor and as a person seeking contract work has always taken place in the US. My experience is with my rights as both the person seeking the vendor and as the contractor.

I will admit that I am not even remotely familiar with how it work in the UK and can't say how it would more then likely be resolved in the UK, but this isn't happening in the UK. It's happening in the US where cases like these are resolved daily.

I agree that once it was decided to be handled in the US, AA lost. No way he can get around it in the US. He was hired as a contractor to work on a film for LFL. He has the rights to the molds (if he has them still) but not the rights to the parts those molds make.

Any vendor for any major company is the same. Our vendors have the rights to the tools they made for our production factories, but they can only sell the parts to us. The price of those tools was more then likely rolled into the price we pay per part, but they own the tools. We can't go to our vendor and ask for the tools so we can take them somewhere else.

As for your comment about civil vs. criminal. Wasn't directed at you. Was more of a refresher for those who think that AA is innocent until proven guilty.