I'm not siding with anyone but to say "Lucas admitted defeat and withdrew the claim" Says alot..... I would still like to see evidence that Liz did sculpt the helmet... There is no photographic evidence of such and no documentation.... It's all hearsay as far as I can gather? I'm not saying she didn't and if she did then by all right she should get all the recognition that she deserves...... But it seems to be ones word against another and in a court of law that just won't stand up......I think we all know that AA didn't sculpt it but that's not to say Nick didn't.....again hearsay..... It would be really nice to see some solid proof and get this thing buried for good and the true sculpter get the credit due.....
LFL withdrew the claim, but that doesn't mean AA won the point. The best the judge could say was it was probably Pemberton's work, which is good enough for civil purposes. The testimony on the colour of clay was unfortunate for LFL's case certainly, but it did not make the point unassailable if the will to fight it was there.
They could have brought in expert testimony from those learned in sculpture to establish whether the same hand that sculpted work undoubtedly by Liz Moore created the Stormtrooper's helmet, much the same as they do for old masters whose authenticity is in doubt.
Admittedly without the original sculpture it would be hard to prove beyond doubt: but the level of proof required here is "the balance of probabilities" which in laymans terms merely means they have to show it was more likely to be the work of one artist rather than another.
They could attack the validity of the photo, not as to subject matter but as to whether the colour balance gives a true impression; much as Brian Muir has done here.
I think the discussion here (which is in far more depth than it ever would have been at the trial) does enough to rebut the"red clay" testimony and show it more likely that Liz Moore was in fact the maker of the sculpture.
The fact of it is who actually sculpted the "red clay" bust was of minor import anyway. The bulk of the copyright argument was on the fact that any rights vested in AA were the equitable (and therefore legal by operation of law) property of LFL: a point on which they won unreservedly. To go to any greater lengths to prove such a minor point would be unwarranted, and would require further time to prepare, which would not please the court.
There is not much hearsay, and by sifting it there is still plenty of good hard testimony to look at. Most of the facts that we are discussing come from Mr Muir, who was there and directly involved. That is direct testimony, and admissible in court. He would probably have made a good expert witness on identifying the progenitor of the sculpt. If you are reading this Mr Muir, does the sculpt look to be consistent with the work of Liz Moore in your judgment as a sculptor?
In any case it is dangerous to use terms you don't fully understand in arguments, as it makes rebuttal from those who do that much easier. Don't take this as a personal rebuke; we all do it, and you are far from alone in doing so in this thread. I myself am guilty of it elsewhere, and feel suitably foolish when called on it.
The most telling thing in this is that AA tries to make such a big deal out of so small a victory.
Finally one witnesses word can be taken over another's, and be decisive in court. It comes down to the credibility of the witness. In this case Brian Muir's evidence was regarded in the most positive of terms at trial. The same can not be said of AA's. Take of that what you will.
Personally if I were LFL I'd publish a big article in their various publications celebrating Liz Moore's contributions; including the Stormtrooper and see if AA is bold enough to sue. In any case the broader fan base who have little interest in this will read it and the truth (at least as I see it) will be out there.
