LFL v SDS
- Thread starter exoray
- Start date
- Status
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
:lol
I've said this before and was criticised many threads ago. If the bearded fat one wants your blood, then whether you are in the right or in the wrong, money is most powerful. In a war if of attrition, guess who stands the better chance of winning. Good luck to you SDS
It's so great to see that some people side with AA/SDS based solely on the old "Lucas is rich and powerful (oh, and FAT) so he must be evil.." strawman tactic. This despite evidence and logic that clearly points to AA as being the one full of crap all along. :confused
SFPROPS
Sr Member
...which would mean that LFL wouldn't have the right to demand AA give up his original molds (if there are any) or sculpture (assuming the plastic pool maker was also an accomplished sculptor as he claims) barring them producing evidence that he was using these materials to infringe on their copyright (which they most likely could). Being that his "work" was based on underlying IP he does not own (the LFL owned McQuarrie designs), he has no legal right to profit from them unless he gets permission from the owners (LFL). Sorry, but that's the way copyright law works. He, you and a lot of other people are simply not understanding the differences between an artisit's right to their own work and their right to make things based on other people's intellectual property and profit from it without license.
AA never had a leg to stand on, and that's likely why he folded. He may have figured that LFL was bluffing or that his tall tales might have scared them away. It didn't work apparently.
Darkknight0667
Sr Member
Tell that to Jeff Parks who took on LFL and won.
And all those plaintiffs that won big settlements against the tobacco industry, too.
Apparently, they should go back and apologize for the verdicts that were incorrectly entered in their favor.
Deep pockets don't necessarily put the law on your side.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Well, I think Parks won because Lucas doesn't own the right to someone recreating working Graflex camera flashes, so that may well be why Parks won. AA, on the other hand, does not have the right to reproduce Stormtrooper/TIE Pilot items without LFL's consent though.
So, again, as far as AA and "original moulds", has any single one of his pieces looked anything like an original piece - I mean with the same discrepancies and what have you - from ANH?
Like I have said before, it isn't quite over yet until the UK courts agree to a dollar amount. SithLord, AA can keep trucking until then, and probably will. That is why his site is still up for the time being and why he is still trying to sell. Once that final "We agree with LFL to award them XXX amount", it's over. You will probably never hear from Ainsworth again.
LFL's entire case was based on a few things, none of which were jurisdiction, yet you toot that horn like a cabbie waiting on a fare.
So, again, as far as AA and "original moulds", has any single one of his pieces looked anything like an original piece - I mean with the same discrepancies and what have you - from ANH?
Like I have said before, it isn't quite over yet until the UK courts agree to a dollar amount. SithLord, AA can keep trucking until then, and probably will. That is why his site is still up for the time being and why he is still trying to sell. Once that final "We agree with LFL to award them XXX amount", it's over. You will probably never hear from Ainsworth again.
LFL's entire case was based on a few things, none of which were jurisdiction, yet you toot that horn like a cabbie waiting on a fare.
Exactly......
The whole belief from the supposed self proclaimed unbiased camp is one that AA owns the work because he was the original sculpter.
A belief not backed up by any facts.
How convenient that AA defaulted so he can avoid the real facts being presented.
You see.....if the evidence came to light he didn't sculpt it then all the supporters lame arguments for "artists rights under the UK law" hold as much water as a strainer.
Just curious what the argument will be when all is said and done and the hammer is finally fallen on AA......I can see it now...."well he never had his day in court to prove it" :confused
Maybe he shouldn't have defaulted then. :lol
lonepigeon
Master Member
Parks won a long time ago before he was producing anywhere near as accurate products as he is now. He won because his designs weren't exact copies of the film props just the generic concept of a glowing saber (although the designs were very similar). IMO he's been really pushing his luck lately. He's got replica camera flashes with 3 foot glowing blades coming out of them and LED bubble lenses in the clamps. Would a judge really care if the only difference between Parks EL Graflex and a Luke lightsaber is the lack of grips? Could he still win such a case today with his current product lineup? Who knows.
KarlBud420
Sr Member
If the truth is that he wasn't the original sculptor, he'd be looking at more lawsuits from customers who feel they were mislead, in addition to the LFL damages.
Might be a little harder to take the money and run...
Bruce
This is actually extremely incorrect. As I stated in my post before, one risky but occasionally effective strategy is to default on purpose in order to challenge jurisdiction with what is termed "collateral attack." This could be a decent strategy for AA, since his case on the merits is pretty weak.
The strategy is as follows:
1. You don't make an appearance in the jurisdiction where the action is filed (in this case, California)
2. You attack the judgment in your home jurisdiction claiming that the California court never had authority over you in the first place.
3. The judge in AA's home jurisdiction will analyze California's long-arm statute to see if they did have the authority to hail him into court.
CaliforniaÂ’s Long Arm Statute
California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 410.10. Basis
A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.
In layman's terms, the court will see if AA's due process rights were violated by allowing California to exercise jurisdiction. There is a whole line of Supreme Court cases dealing with what violates due process in terms of personal jurisdiction.
4. Collateral attack is waived if AA shows up in California to defend himself. The whole point is that he would be majorly inconvenienced by being required to appear there.
SFPROPS
Sr Member
Jurisdiction is irrelevant and his lawyers likely know it.
Wherever a trial would have been, he was going to have to explain how materials dated before he had any involvement with the production shows the very thing he claims ownership over - the design of the Stormtrooper's armor. If he didn't create the design, then it isn't his intellectual property regardless of whether he at one time rendered LFL's intellectual property into 3 dimensions. The only thing he can argue rights over is the original sculpt and work materials (if he did the sculpt as he apparently claims), which he can't use to profit from without license from the intellectual property rights owner (LFL).
I'm no lawyer, but I've got enough of a layman's understanding of copyright law due to my publishing experience to know that there simply isn't a credible argument that AA could make to convince a court he wasn't infringing on someone else's property. I've YET to see someone point to an actual law which would give AA the right to stuff he wasn't responsible for (the underlying design of a ST) just because he was hired to produce that design in 3 dimensions.
Wherever a trial would have been, he was going to have to explain how materials dated before he had any involvement with the production shows the very thing he claims ownership over - the design of the Stormtrooper's armor. If he didn't create the design, then it isn't his intellectual property regardless of whether he at one time rendered LFL's intellectual property into 3 dimensions. The only thing he can argue rights over is the original sculpt and work materials (if he did the sculpt as he apparently claims), which he can't use to profit from without license from the intellectual property rights owner (LFL).
I'm no lawyer, but I've got enough of a layman's understanding of copyright law due to my publishing experience to know that there simply isn't a credible argument that AA could make to convince a court he wasn't infringing on someone else's property. I've YET to see someone point to an actual law which would give AA the right to stuff he wasn't responsible for (the underlying design of a ST) just because he was hired to produce that design in 3 dimensions.
exoray
Master Member
He answered the complaint in California and started the trial...
And he might very well try this, but I doubt it will go far...
It's US Federal Court not California State Court, so it revolves around US Federal Courts jurisdiction...
And there you have it, AA acknowledged the Courts, hired representation in the US and answered the first summons and motions in the US Courts... You don't have to show up in person, if he hired lawyer (like he did) to show up, and file declarations and motions on your behalf, that is just as good...
AnsonJames
Sr Member
elwood49 Did you read this statement by atacpdx?
Do you think he may know what he's talking about?
Edited for speeling
digs
New Member
Just wondering: :confused
Does this mean US-based SDS helmet owners can sue AA or demand a refund for false advertising once the case is finally resolved and the court rules in favor of LFL?
If helmet owners seek relief under false advertising statutes, will this be the first time that collectors/enthusiasts have filed a case against a known SW retailer? :unsure
Does this mean US-based SDS helmet owners can sue AA or demand a refund for false advertising once the case is finally resolved and the court rules in favor of LFL?
If helmet owners seek relief under false advertising statutes, will this be the first time that collectors/enthusiasts have filed a case against a known SW retailer? :unsure
Cyberman
Sr Member
IMO AA has no more right to create and sell these helmets than the designers and fabricaters of any specific car. Its them who have already been paid for the commission, so to speak, and now AA wishes to claim a right over the design that he never had a stake in in the first place... Ralf MacQuarrie designed the helmet by the way and George Lucas came up with the idea of the character... AA is nothing more then the dogs body that was commisioned to realise the helmet for a production called Star Wars. Thats how i read it.
Sont.
Sont.
AnsonJames
Sr Member
Absolutely TRUE - without Lucas and MacQuarrie the Stormtrooper wouldn't have existed in the first place.
AA was a fabricator pure and simple, even if he sculpted the original he did this as a commision which he was paid for.
If anyone is saying that because AA sculpted the Stormtrooper he owns the rights to the likeness it's surprising that thousands of other propmakers haven't come forward to claim their royalties for the work they were commisioned to do.
A lot of fine artists use other people to realise their concepts - none of them claim to be the owner afterwards because all they're doing is fabricating.
If AA was out of town when Mollo and Lucas were looking for a manufacturer they just would have paid someone else to do it for them.
AA was a fabricator pure and simple, even if he sculpted the original he did this as a commision which he was paid for.
If anyone is saying that because AA sculpted the Stormtrooper he owns the rights to the likeness it's surprising that thousands of other propmakers haven't come forward to claim their royalties for the work they were commisioned to do.
A lot of fine artists use other people to realise their concepts - none of them claim to be the owner afterwards because all they're doing is fabricating.
If AA was out of town when Mollo and Lucas were looking for a manufacturer they just would have paid someone else to do it for them.
Miniaturizer Ray
Well-Known Member
That was one of the whole points of Ainsworth's original claim to copyright. According to his story, Mollo asked a friend of Ainsworth's for help with creating the helmet. This friend asked Ainsworth to create the helmet, without telling him what it was for, which he did. Only afterwards did he find out what it was for. As such, Ainsworth was never contracted to create the helmet, only to supply the pieces.
On the basis of this story, any lawyer would have (correctly) advised Ainsworth that he does hold the copyright to the design. It has nothing to do with ownership of the original moulds, or conjectured radical differences between copyright laws in the UK (or India) and the rest of the world.
However, by Ainsworth's own admission, the friend gave him prints of McQuarrie's production paintings to work from, which, at the very least, means that even if he did sculpt the original helmet pattern, his sculpt was a derivative work.
Furthermore, Ainsworth claims, amusingly, that prior to his involvement, the production team attempted to create the helmets from plaster, at the studio plaster shop.
This is quite telling, for two reasons.
Firstly, why would Ainsworth even be aware of this? It seems likely that Ainsworth would have been told of the difficulties that were being had in the plaster shop at the time that he was asked to create the helmet. As such, knowing what the helmets were for, he would have been subject to a contract, albeit a verbal one.
Secondly, the plaster shop was not, for the most part, that part of the prop department where finished items were made from plaster, but rather where plaster casts of items were taken to facilitate reproduction. As such, and given, as above, that Ainsworth was even aware of the plaster shop, it seems entirely plausible that Ainsworth was given something - the ready-to-vac pattern even, perhaps - from the plaster shop. If this was the case, then quite clearly Ainsworth has no claim whatsoever.
I suspect that Ainsworth's lawyers only became fully aware of the actual circumstances surrounding the creation of the helmets after the lawsuit began.
- Status
Similar threads
