AA/SDS recasting issue...

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 23 2006, 06:20 PM

But dang, can such any analytical mind state with absolute certainty that AA knew that the REPLICA PROP MARKET existed to sell his wares in, especially outside the influence of that very market to begin with?

You need to drop the Replica Prop Market spin, AA's claim to having rights to produce these items is because they are his design a design he claims rights to owning... If he truely has rights to the design, he is owed huge sums of money in regards to the whole Star Wars franchise of movies toys and licensing agreements, anything to do with any of the characters he is pretending to own rights to... The whole replica prop market is but a minute amount of money if he truely owns the rights to the items he claims...

His whole claim and tall-tell story about being able to produce them because the molds were original got tossed right out the window with his battle spec helmet, Tie helmet, his new armor and IMO the fact that even his first helmet doesn't appear to come from any original molds...

But exoray.....I never said that AA was the REAL WORLD legal owner of the stormtrooper image. Go back and read my posts again......all the way back.
I've stated the same that you have just ranted on about in your second paragraph.
All the way to stating I did not buy the any AA products because I did not believe it came from the original molds.

Is your opinion an "all or nothing" type of blanket explanation? I don't believe that it was "all or nothing". Just AA's belief that he could get a piece of the prop world pie...nothing more or less. Then greed took over or stupidity or insanity or whatever that convinced AA he had the rights to continue making these items in face of the C&D.

The prop world "spin" is not a spin.....just an answer to why he started making and selling his stuff now. The way in which he is selling his wares to prop fans....directed at prop fans. Not producing anything beyond what he claimed to have made, except for that Imperial logo. He didn't start making stickers and buttons and coloring books, or action figures or any other image related item.....Just those helmets/armor he claimed to have made and specifically selling just that.
Do you honestly believe for one minute that if AA really thinks he owns that image outside of the UK he would not have jumped straight to the lawsuit instead of trying to use this UK loophole (whatever it is) to sell his replicas?

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 23 2006, 08:35 PM

Now thats funny coming from the guy that makes statements about the Prop Ed Crew or belonging to a forum with questionable members.

Easy. I was a member of both and I know what goes on there. When I have peeked in from time to time I see the same thing...sophmoric name calling, insults against members and families, arrogance and righteousness of a fanatical level. Is everyone at T4 that way? No, and I've told those who aren't that I am only pointing to a few. But Prop-Ed? Well, all one has to do is go over there and see the Reform School mentality.

I agree 100% with your assessment of what goes on at Prop Ed.

 

[vaderdarth]

Originally posted by gavidoc+Jan 24 2006, 09:26 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gavidoc @ Jan 24 2006, 09:26 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 23 2006, 08:35 PM

Now thats funny coming from the guy that makes statements about the Prop Ed Crew or belonging to a forum with questionable members.

Easy. I was a member of both and I know what goes on there. When I have peeked in from time to time I see the same thing...sophmoric name calling, insults against members and families, arrogance and righteousness of a fanatical level. Is everyone at T4 that way? No, and I've told those who aren't that I am only pointing to a few. But Prop-Ed? Well, all one has to do is go over there and see the Reform School mentality.

I agree 100% with your assessment of what goes on at Prop Ed.

[snapback]1166664[/snapback]​

[/b]

I'll second that assessment...

Dave

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Originally posted by vaderdarth+Jan 24 2006, 09:30 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vaderdarth @ Jan 24 2006, 09:30 AM)</div>

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 24 2006, 09:26 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 23 2006, 08:35 PM

Now thats funny coming from the guy that makes statements about the Prop Ed Crew or belonging to a forum with questionable members.

Easy. I was a member of both and I know what goes on there. When I have peeked in from time to time I see the same thing...sophmoric name calling, insults against members and families, arrogance and righteousness of a fanatical level. Is everyone at T4 that way? No, and I've told those who aren't that I am only pointing to a few. But Prop-Ed? Well, all one has to do is go over there and see the Reform School mentality.

I agree 100% with your assessment of what goes on at Prop Ed.

[snapback]1166664[/snapback]​

I'll second that assessment...

Dave

[snapback]1166668[/snapback]​

[/b]

You know why I love this damn forum? Even though some of us disagree heartily, I have yet to see the above mentioned kind of behavior tolerated for very long. when it does rear it's fugly head, it is usually put down like Old Yeller. This thread is a prime example. Many of us are at odds over this whole ordeal, but haven't lost sight of the fact that we all love the hobby.

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by gavidoc+Jan 24 2006, 07:26 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gavidoc @ Jan 24 2006, 07:26 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 23 2006, 08:35 PM

Now thats funny coming from the guy that makes statements about the Prop Ed Crew or belonging to a forum with questionable members.

Easy. I was a member of both and I know what goes on there. When I have peeked in from time to time I see the same thing...sophmoric name calling, insults against members and families, arrogance and righteousness of a fanatical level. Is everyone at T4 that way? No, and I've told those who aren't that I am only pointing to a few. But Prop-Ed? Well, all one has to do is go over there and see the Reform School mentality.

I agree 100% with your assessment of what goes on at Prop Ed.

[snapback]1166664[/snapback]​

[/b]

However it stll doesn't mean because a guy posts at Prop Ed that he doesn't have anything of value to add to this thread.

 

[vaderdarth]

Also Agreed Darby.....there are a few and I mean a few exceptions.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

Originally posted by Qui-Gonzalez+Jan 24 2006, 09:22 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Qui-Gonzalez @ Jan 24 2006, 09:22 AM)</div>

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 24 2006, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 24 2006, 09:26 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lord Abaddon

@Jan 23 2006, 08:35 PM

Now thats funny coming from the guy that makes statements about the Prop Ed Crew or belonging to a forum with questionable members.

Easy. I was a member of both and I know what goes on there. When I have peeked in from time to time I see the same thing...sophmoric name calling, insults against members and families, arrogance and righteousness of a fanatical level. Is everyone at T4 that way? No, and I've told those who aren't that I am only pointing to a few. But Prop-Ed? Well, all one has to do is go over there and see the Reform School mentality.

I agree 100% with your assessment of what goes on at Prop Ed.

[snapback]1166664[/snapback]​

I'll second that assessment...

Dave

[snapback]1166668[/snapback]​

You know why I love this damn forum? Even though some of us disagree heartily, I have yet to see the above mentioned kind of behavior tolerated for very long. when it does rear it's fugly head, it is usually put down like Old Yeller. This thread is a prime example. Many of us are at odds over this whole ordeal, but haven't lost sight of the fact that we all love the hobby.

[snapback]1166695[/snapback]​

[/b]

Beautifully stated.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

I'm glad we all feel we can have a civilised discussion here.

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 23 2006, 11:20 PM
As I have pointed out the laws of the UK don't require anything in writing, and  you are assuming there is a valid copyright as AA claims...  Unless I missed something the validity of AA's claims of copyright are still in the air...

Or simply show it's a derivative work of their copyright...  As it's clear under UK law that derivative works are not original (original is a necessary qualification for copyright in the UK) and can't be copyrighted, and that creating a 3D object from 2D drawings IS copying and copyright infringment...

If you can honestly say without any doubt that the storm trooper we see in ANH is not a derivative work of the copyrighted designs by LFL, I will say you are only fooling yourself because of your allegiance..

Flynn - I am trying to approach this with an open mind and hope that you are too.

I'm actually wondering if the "derivative" issue is actually not relevant (at least here in the UK) and I'll go on to explain why I think this.

I’ve done some digging around on the 1956 English Copyright act and although cant find a copy of the act itself, I have found a website and article by Henry Lydiate, a well known English barrister specialising in the law relating to the visual arts. It was written in 1989, just before the change in the UK copyright law. (Note: to keep Mr Lydiate happy let me just say that everything in italics is © Harry Lydiate 1985, 1989), anyway, it explains….

‘Artistic works' are protected against reproduction. This includes paintings, sculpture, drawings, prints and photographs -  so long as the work is original (in expression - not necessarily in thought).

He later goes on to say:

Remember, it is originality of expression, not thought, which is required.

Perhaps this explains why AA has not backed down since it seems to suggest that he does have copyright in the UK and also makes the US “derivative” argument irrelevant. I can only assume that his UK Lawyers thinking is that in turning a 2d line drawing into a 3d object there must be some "originality in expression".

Henry Lydiates site also saysÂ…

The owner may give up his/her copyright, in part or in full, by leaving it to someone in his/her will, selling it or giving it away. If all the copyright is to be given up, it must be done in writing and be signed by the owner; if only part is to be given up, it need not be done in writing

This would suggest to me that for LFL to have copyright AA's 3D likeness they would need to have obtained a document stating this, as a verbal conversation wont do.

So to amend the comments I made yesterday;

IMO it looks like LFL will need to show/prove one of the following:

1) A physical contract/agreement - signed by AA assigning copyright to LFL, or

2) Proof that AA didnt sculpt it - and the mould was cast of a LFL-made sculpt.

I realise that this is the law relating to the UK (and the action is currently in the US) but IMO this is interesting and potentially relevant information. Since I dont wish to be accused of telling only "half a story" there's more information on the English Copyright Law 1956 on Henry Lydiates' site at: http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyrightbefore89/

Cheers

Jez

 

[SithLord]

I agree...great sentiment. Well it's a credit to the CoC and the mods keeping this place _half_ sane .

Let me throw out a hypothetical question just for fun....let's say I had original production molds of lightsabers, would I then have full rights according to the RPF to make and sell as many copies of screen accurate sabers as I wanted? Could I then claim my sabers are more accurate than any others? Based on the arguments brought forward for TE's production, namely that he has full say to make and sell copies because he bought an original TK helmet, then would I have that same "privaledge", would I not? I won't call them rights per se even though I did before because we have to be careful how we word things here. If as a forum we are saying that owning an original piece gives you rights then that would need to be clarified. Obviously there are no real rights here only insofar as personal agreements between private parties, or?

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[CWR]

It seems there is far too much focus on UK law in this thread. If the case were in the UK I think all of this would be relevent but that is not the case. The lawsuit is being tried in the U.S.

I would agree that AA's legal council could put up a reasonable doubt argument in the UK but I don't see where he has a case in the U.S. Perhaps someone could explain how AA could win the case against him in the U.S. courts because I am just not seeing it.

One more thing, if AA has original moulds, why has he not gone to any lengths to prove it and why has he not dug up pictures of the sculpts? It seems to me that it might help him gain some credibility and would only help him with the lawsuit.

 

[vaderdarth]

Originally posted by CWR@Jan 24 2006, 12:55 PM
It seems there is far too much focus on UK law in this thread.  If the case were in the UK I think all of this would be relevent but that is not the case.  The lawsuit is being tried in the U.S. 

I would agree that AA's legal council could put up a reasonable doubt argument in the UK but I don't see where he has a case in the U.S.  Perhaps someone could explain how AA could win the case against him in the U.S. courts because I am just not seeing it.

One more thing, if AA has original moulds, why has he not gone to any lengths to prove it and why has he not dug up pictures of the sculpts?  It seems to me that it might help him gain some credibility and would only help him with the lawsuit.

[snapback]1166785[/snapback]​

I beg to differ CWR, UK law is quite relevant considering AA resides and works and creates his goods in the UK. Just because he doesn't have a chance in a US court, doesn't mean diddly in the Grand Scheme of things. The original work was also created in the UK. So yes, the UK Law is quite important for the discussion. Ainsworth can simply ignore the US Court proceedings and then the whole issue defaults back to the UK courts. The difference is, if AA wins in the UK and decides to countersue LFL in the UK, LFL does have business properties in the UK and WOULD have to answer to UK courts. Especially if the original agreement between GL and AA took place on UK soil.

Still this is all quite hypothetical until it's decided by the court system. No matter what "legal experts" say about this or that.............it's considered "opinion" until the court says it agrees or disagrees with those statements.

Why don't we just approach the whole thing this way???

As for how we approach the "recasting" issue on the RPF, Sithlord has made a very valid point and it needs to be addressed because it's quite pertinent to this issue. Does anyone have autonomous right to a screen derived item or will it always fall in the gray zone????

If it's screen derived...............no matter what capacity(whether in whole or in part).............. should we cry "recaster"??? Or ignore it if the origin of any of the contested parts is screen used???

That's not even getting into the issue of whether AA has a right to cry recasting and recoup his losses for those who claimed to have "sculpted missing pieces" of his work and sold the resulting parts as their own.

I'm not saying that is my opinion of these people, I'm saying it's gray in both directions. It can be argued til the end of time to be honest. What's the real point in doing so?

Dave

 

[Darth Bill]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 24 2006, 06:15 PM

Just because he doesn't have a chance in a US court,  doesn't mean diddly in the Grand Scheme of things. 

I can't believe I just read that.... :confused




Russ

 

[skyit]

Originally posted by vaderdarth@Jan 24 2006, 07:15 PM
I beg to differ CWR,  UK law is quite relevant considering AA resides and works and creates his goods in the UK.  Just because he doesn't have a chance in a US court,  doesn't mean diddly in the Grand Scheme of things.  The original work was also created in the UK.  So yes, the UK Law is quite important for the discussion.  Ainsworth can simply ignore the US Court proceedings and then the whole issue defaults back to the UK courts.    The difference is,  if AA wins in the UK and decides to countersue LFL in the UK,  LFL does have business properties in the UK and WOULD have to answer to UK courts.  Especially if the original agreement between  GL and AA took place on UK soil. 

Still this is all quite hypothetical until it's decided by the court system.  No matter what "legal experts" say about this or that.............it's considered "opinion" until the court says it agrees or disagrees with those statements. 

Why don't we just approach the whole thing this way???

because the US Court has already denied the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by AA attorney. In this case the Uk law is not relevant since it's under a US court. US law is relevant.

 

[vaderdarth]

Originally posted by skyit+Jan 24 2006, 02:36 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skyit @ Jan 24 2006, 02:36 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-vaderdarth

@Jan 24 2006, 07:15 PM
I beg to differ CWR,  UK law is quite relevant considering AA resides and works and creates his goods in the UK.  Just because he doesn't have a chance in a US court,  doesn't mean diddly in the Grand Scheme of things.  The original work was also created in the UK.  So yes, the UK Law is quite important for the discussion.  Ainsworth can simply ignore the US Court proceedings and then the whole issue defaults back to the UK courts.    The difference is,  if AA wins in the UK and decides to countersue LFL in the UK,  LFL does have business properties in the UK and WOULD have to answer to UK courts.  Especially if the original agreement between  GL and AA took place on UK soil. 

Still this is all quite hypothetical until it's decided by the court system.  No matter what "legal experts" say about this or that.............it's considered "opinion" until the court says it agrees or disagrees with those statements. 

Why don't we just approach the whole thing this way???

because the US Court has already denied the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by AA attorney. In this case the Uk law is not relevant since it's under a US court. US law is relevant.

[snapback]1166874[/snapback]​

[/b]

He only has to submit "no contest" in the US court.....and it goes right back to the UK.

 

[skyit]

Originally posted by vaderdarth+Jan 24 2006, 07:48 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vaderdarth @ Jan 24 2006, 07:48 PM)</div>

Originally posted by skyit@Jan 24 2006, 02:36 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-vaderdarth

@Jan 24 2006, 07:15 PM
I beg to differ CWR,  UK law is quite relevant considering AA resides and works and creates his goods in the UK.  Just because he doesn't have a chance in a US court,  doesn't mean diddly in the Grand Scheme of things.  The original work was also created in the UK.  So yes, the UK Law is quite important for the discussion.  Ainsworth can simply ignore the US Court proceedings and then the whole issue defaults back to the UK courts.    The difference is,  if AA wins in the UK and decides to countersue LFL in the UK,  LFL does have business properties in the UK and WOULD have to answer to UK courts.  Especially if the original agreement between  GL and AA took place on UK soil. 

Still this is all quite hypothetical until it's decided by the court system.  No matter what "legal experts" say about this or that.............it's considered "opinion" until the court says it agrees or disagrees with those statements. 

Why don't we just approach the whole thing this way???

because the US Court has already denied the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by AA attorney. In this case the Uk law is not relevant since it's under a US court. US law is relevant.

[snapback]1166874[/snapback]​

He only has to submit "no contest" in the US court.....and it goes right back to the UK.

[snapback]1166884[/snapback]​

[/b]

yes..then they will condamn him for sure and will suit an extradion act.

 

[vaderdarth]

Not likely.

 

[TKBIG]

Originally posted by CWR@Jan 24 2006, 11:55 AM
One more thing, if AA has original moulds, why has he not gone to any lengths to prove it and why has he not dug up pictures of the sculpts?  It seems to me that it might help him gain some credibility and would only help him with the lawsuit.

[snapback]1166785[/snapback]​

Those are excellent questions. Perhaps he didn't think it important to do any documentation of the original sculpts back in 1976. In addition not much was documented in the way of the prop making from the original production by LFL.

That mold issue is the thing. I have noticed that most folks, even here, do not openly show pictures of their molds. The final products, the sculpts but not often the molds are displayed. Reasons for this are many but mainly there are very distinct features that would be found on the original mold that some would not want openly known for fear of forgeries being made with those "tells" and sold on the private collector market as authentic.

 

[Darth Bill]

Originally posted by Starkids1990@Jan 24 2006, 07:58 PM

In addition not much was documented in the way of the prop making from the original production by LFL.

What do you mean by "documented"...??

If you mean "written about in the various 'Making-of' books", well, that's kinda right....

If you mean "photographed and documented for archival purposes"...??

Wrong.

Really, really wrong.




Russ

 

[vaderdarth]

Originally posted by Darth Bill+Jan 24 2006, 04:09 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Bill @ Jan 24 2006, 04:09 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Starkids1990

@Jan 24 2006, 07:58 PM

In addition not much was documented in the way of the prop making from the original production by LFL.

What do you mean by "documented"...??

If you mean "written about in the various 'Making-of' books", well, that's kinda right....

If you mean "photographed and documented for archival purposes"...??

Wrong.

Really, really wrong.




Russ

[snapback]1166956[/snapback]​

[/b]

That's a hefty claim........where is the documentation of the production process of the Stormtroopers Russ??? Where are the photographs of the original moulds??? That is the critical documentation in this case.

Dave

 

[TK765]

Originally posted by vaderdarth+Jan 24 2006, 08:30 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vaderdarth @ Jan 24 2006, 08:30 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Darth Bill@Jan 24 2006, 04:09 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Starkids1990

@Jan 24 2006, 07:58 PM

In addition not much was documented in the way of the prop making from the original production by LFL.

What do you mean by "documented"...??

If you mean "written about in the various 'Making-of' books", well, that's kinda right....

If you mean "photographed and documented for archival purposes"...??

Wrong.

Really, really wrong.




Russ

[snapback]1166956[/snapback]​

That's a hefty claim........where is the documentation of the production process of the Stormtroopers Russ??? Where are the photographs of the original moulds??? That is the critical documentation in this case.

Dave

[snapback]1166990[/snapback]​

[/b]

David West Reynolds told me LFL has TONS of photographs of stormtrooper stuff that people haven't seen before.

Not to mention all the original ANH suits and helmets...

Thats a good question though....where are all the photographs of the production process of the stormtroopers??? Since you believe AA did everything then have him post them, since he took lots of pics it seems this shouldn't be too hard. Lets see the pics of him sculpting it :lol

Still waiting......