SDS Court Case: The Common Sense Thread

[Boba Debt]

It seems that there are very smart people on both sides of this issue, and it is obvious that each group has specific agendas designed to cloud the truth of this matter

One sites how the laws reads and the other counters and it has become and endless debate.


I am actually sadden that the original creator of the Storm Trooper Helmet is hated by so many people.

No matter which side of the fence you fall on you have to admit that AA is the guy that created the look that we all love.

Before the stormtrooper there was countless bad guys and you don't see legions of them marching down the streets at Dragon Con.

Do I think AA is totally legit, no. Do I care, no. If I had the opportunity, I would buy one of his helmets just to say I have one built by the guy that built them for ANH.

Personally I think the people that dislike him, dislike him for the wrong reasons and I don't believe their motivation is honest.

Further, Matt's actions are reprehensible.

He wasn't shoved in a small room and interrogated for hours until he finally submitted to the will of LFL and gave them testimony in exchange for his families freedom.

It is apparent the he actively participated in this witch hunt and that makes him one of the most hypocritical artisans I have every known from this hobby.

Then you have LFL, not only do they look the other way for certain people for years, ahem - Trooper Expert, but they also attack some of the most loved people of the hobby such as GF and I believe AA would have been equally loved if it hadn't been for the huge smear campaign.






Now I just want to get some straight forward info.


From what I have read, some people say the UK courts MUST abide by the decision of the CA court, others say that they don't have to.



Here are some excerpts from a web site that was posted about the "ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS" on an international level


There is no bilateral treaty or multilateral international convention in force between the United States and any other country on reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments.

That statement by its self tells me that no country MUST abide by the decision of any US court



But then there is this

The general principle of international law applicable in such cases is that a foreign state claims and exercises the right to examine judgments for four causes:

(1) to determine if the court had jurisdiction
(2) to determine whether the defendant was properly served
(3) to determine if the proceedings were vitiated by fraud
(4) to establish that the judgment is not contrary to the public policy of the foreign country

If UK law says AA is the owner of the right and if USA law says LFL is the owner of the rights it would seem that #4 would pretty much cover AA


And then I read this

Under U.S. law, an individual seeking to enforce a foreign judgment, decree or order in this country must file suit before a competent court. The court will determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment.

Our own laws require that a foreign person must file a suit in the US and that court will determine "whether to give effect to the foreign judgment"
Surly the UK has similar requirements.


So this is what I think as a regular joe smoe


AA got the idea to produce Stormtrooper Helmets (I think from Trooper Expert). AA talked to a very prestigious law firm in the UK and they confirmed that he retained the rights to the helmet under UK law. So he openly produced the helmets.

Then LFL felt went after him with the help of Trooper Expert.

I'm sure the UK law firm advised AA to IGNORE any legal action from the US to confirm that he was the rightfully owner. I.E. - If he obeyed the C&D order it would conveyed that he believed LFL owned the rights. If he showed up in CA court, he would have confirmed that he believed the CA court had jurisdiction.

So, he just ignored the CA court system.

So now you have a default judgment against AA from a CA court.

Are we so arrogant that we think the UK court system MUST enforce this judgment without looking at the case?

 

[exoray]

So lets get some things straight...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

I am actually sadden that the original creator of the Storm Trooper Helmet is hated by so many people.

No matter which side of the fence you fall on you have to admit that AA is the guy that created the look that we all love.[/b]

You might believe that and others might as well, I have my doubts as LFL clearly states the opposite.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

I'm sure the UK law firm advised AA to IGNORE any legal action from the US to confirm that he was the rightfully owner. I.E. - If he obeyed the C&D order it would conveyed that he believed LFL owned the rights. If he showed up in CA court, he would have confirmed that he believed the CA court had jurisdiction.

So, he just ignored the CA court system.[/b]

That would be find and dandy if that was the way it went down... But, it didn't... If that WAS the way it went down then AA would have a more legit challenge to jurisdiction in the UK...

BUT, and it's a big BUT he DID answer the US courts confirming they had power over him, and as soon as he did that he submitted to the jurisdiction of the US legal system... When he didn't get his way on the jurisdiction matter is when he skipped town...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Then you have LFL, not only do they look the other way for certain people for years, ahem - Trooper Expert,[/b]

Oh please. So you want LFL to go after everyone that violates his IP? It appears you are an all or nothing man, or...

Or is it more along the lines of pick and choose based on your opinions, since you don't agree with who they decided to go after it's bad...

It has become clear if you look at LFL history in regards to troopers and many other props, keep it low key or at least "fan" level and you will probably get a blind eye...

Advertise in Starlog magazine, as well as do interviews for several other magazines, pull ads on the front page of serveral major "prop" sites and claim to be the owner of the rights, yeah that might rub LFL a little more... AA has no one to blame except himself, he's a big boy and he is old enough to make his own decisions... But, I guess it's always easier to point the finger of blame for your actions then owe up to them...

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Are we so arrogant that we think the UK court system MUST enforce this judgment without looking at the case?[/b]

Nope, but we do know that based on history it will be presented to the UK courts as a matter of "collection of debt" and the merits of the case the brought the debt would not be challenged... This isn't the first IP case to spread across the US boarder, and with the UK being part of the EU the IP rights powers are now much stronger...

 

[atacpdx]

Look, I'll post this here and hopefully all will see it to get some clarity on the legal specifics once and for all.

1st the "look" and "ownership" of the trooper is most likely established legally by the McQuarrie paintings and not AA's work as the UK does recognize the concept of "Derivative Work" and therefore it seems likely the UK will view that AA's work was "derived" from the McQuarrie concepts which LFL clearly owned. In the UK, Derivative work does not impart any special rights to AA.

Next, with regards to UK/US cases and enforcement, here are excerpts from the UK's primer on Trademark law (Note the line I bolded as it nicely sums up the UK's stance on jurisdiction)....

"The general position is that a US court judgement, or thejudgement of any other nation's courts, is enforceable in the Englishcourts. The judgement is treated as an enforceable debt and the party who sued you, the 'judgement debtor', has to register the debt with a UK court in order to get it enforced over here.

The UK court is not allowed to go into the merits of the case: it will not be possible to say to the UK judge the US court made the wrong decision. Despite the default position being that the foreign judgement is enforceable there are some qualifications to this general positionthat can be very useful in preventing an American judgement taking effect to the point that often a US judgement can be entirely ignored by a UK citizen. The conditions for enforcement of a foreign judgement are:

4.4.1 the judgement must befor money

If the judgement is an order, for example, to remove items from sale or undertake certain acts such editing a web page or to deliver goods it can't be enforced; only money damages can be enforced.

4.4.2 the judgement must befinal

A foreign interim injunction will not be enforceable in the UK, only a final decision by the court. If the US company seeks a temporary injunction (also known as a cease and desist order in the US) they will not be able to enforce it here.

4.4.3 enforcing the judgement cannot be contrary to UK public policy

For example if to do so would breached human rights or if in the foreign case multiple or punitive damages were awarded.

4.4.4 the judgement cannot have been obtained by fraud

Thus if the plaintiff bribed a judge or lied to get the judgement then a UK court will re-hear the allegation of fraud to decide if it occurred. This will happen even if a foreign judge has already heard the allegation of fraud and decided on it.

4.4.5. the defendant must have had a chance to answer the case against him

The judgement must have been obtained in accordance with natural justice which means, for example, he must have been informed of the case against him and been given a chance to reply.

4.4.6 the court must have acted within its jurisdiction

For a UK court to enforce a judgement it must be the case that at the time it was made the judgement debtor needs to have been within the jurisdiction of the court and to have submitted to its authority.Obviously travelling to America to appear at a hearing will be an act of submission as will instructing American lawyers (or any others for that matter) to deal with the case. Equally arguing the case from the UK by making written submissions to the court will also be submission. Writing to the court and denying it has the right to hear the case or asking it not to, or asking the court to transfer it to the UK will not be a submission but an argument about its jurisdiction. Signing contracts which have a jurisdiction clause saying that the contract is subject to the American courts will be a submission to the jurisdiction of American courts.

UK companies will be regarded as being within the jurisdiction of the US if they carry on business within the US.

4.4.7 The judgement cannot be, in effect, a taxation or criminal judgement

The UK courts only respect UK law in relation to taxation or criminal matters. If the foreign judgement is a disguised way of imposing a criminal fine it wont be enforceable. Thus suppose American Corp makes a criminal allegation of trademark infringement in California and gets a compensation order against UKCompany Ltd. If a civil action is subsequently taken in California to enforce the judgement that action cannot be enforced in the UK because the basic action relates indirectly to a criminal case.

 

[Howard]

Merge.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 30 2006, 06:11 PM) [snapback]1329535[/snapback]</div>

You might believe that and others might as well, I have my doubts as LFL clearly states the opposite.

LFL claims the opposite.

<div class='quotetop'>

So, he just ignored the CA court system.[/b]

That would be find and dandy if that was the way it went down... But, it didn't... If that WAS the way it went down then AA would have a more legit challenge to jurisdiction in the UK...

AA challenged jurisdiction, and in doing so could not address the complaint itself, so it defaulted. It defaulted based on jurisdiction. The UK courts will look at that.

BUT, and it's a big BUT he DID answer the US courts confirming they had power over him, and as soon as he did that he submitted to the jurisdiction of the US legal system... When he didn't get his way on the jurisdiction matter is when he skipped town...

No, he addressed jurisdiciton, that's it. How can arguing jurisdiction be an acknowledgement of it?
[/b][/quote]



<div class='quotetop'>(atacpdx @ Sep 30 2006, 06:19 PM) [snapback]1329538[/snapback]</div>

1st the "look" and "ownership" of the trooper is most likely established legally by the McQuarrie paintings and not AA's work as the UK does recognize the concept of "Derivative Work" and therefore it seems likely the UK will view that AA's work was "derived" from the McQuarrie concepts which LFL clearly owned. In the UK, Derivative work does not impart any special rights to AA.

The final TK design is about as similar to McQuarrie's helmet as the prototype star destroyer is to the final ship. It might be derivative, but it is still a separate design. Think of gas masks...if the respirator is on the right or left, that's a specific design.

The UK court is not allowed to go into the merits of the case: it will not be possible to say to the UK judge the US court made the wrong decision.

They don't need to go into the merits, they will simply look at jurisdiction.

4.4.6 the court must have acted within its jurisdiction

For a UK court to enforce a judgement it must be the case that at the time it was made the judgement debtor needs to have been within the jurisdiction of the court and to have submitted to its authority.

UK companies will be regarded as being within the jurisdiction of the US if they carry on business within the US.
[/b]

The grounds for jurisdiction are flimsy at best. AA never set foot in the US and his company is based in the UK with sales worldwide so CA was not targeted specifically as would be required for unfair competition.

Merging this with the other thread would be a good idea...

 

[tripoli]

A common sense view:
LFL paid him to produce the helmet for them, its LFL's intellectual property period. If they say no that IS the final word.
LFL has been pretty easy going on trooper out-fitters considering how many trooper suits are out there. They did go after GF but relented with legal help ( which was darn nice from both legal sides ). They have not prosecuted and given the amount of costumes out there used for good public relations for LFL, that has worked out well for both sides.
But as soon as LFL granted a license for the costume components, you have to respect that license. You cannot scream you want good quality licensed products and at the same time support the exact same unlicense bootlegger production on the side.
Simple common sense.
So I would understand LFL protecting their rights at that point.

The larger problem with studios is whether to not to crack down on bootlegged items being produced. If they do not, then the ability to license later becomes harder as the market has already been somewhat fullfilled. To crack down on bootleggers is costly and can alienate the franchise fan base.

LFL has walked this line quite well in my opinion. They allowed the bootleggers to exist as long as they did not make too much money on the sale taking advantage of the market. Only when they licensed the piece did they then say no more bootlegging. It helped to drum up support in the fanbase for the SW franchise from the beginning. And after listening to the fanbase, finally decided to give them a high quality end product they had been looking for. You cannot blame them for then wanting to protect the licensee who is selling head to head with the bootleggers.

You have both pieces of the pie, the fan base has to be justas supportive as LFL has been in allowing the fan base to do what it has up to this point.
I look at this and give Kudos to LFL. Paramount killed the fan base with Star Trek by suddenly allowing no unlicensed items to get past and destroying anything they could find unlicensed period. Watched that happen at the cons in person, it was not a pretty sight.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(tripoli @ Sep 30 2006, 08:36 PM) [snapback]1329583[/snapback]</div>

A common sense view:
LFL paid him to produce the helmet for them, its LFL's intellectual property period. If they say no that IS the final word.
[/b]

Perhaps it will be. :unsure

But he was not paid under contract. Prior to 1988, the laws are clear that without one, the rights go to the artisan. AA was not a bona fide member of the production crew, not a bona fide employee of the studio. Mollo had to outsource for the technology required to do the vacuforming. It wasn't just a matter of finding someone who could make plastic helmets . AA was the only one in England at the time who could develop and apply that technology to costume pieces. Otherwise they would have been left with more traditional materials, such as fiberglass or plaster.

<div class='quotetop'>(tripoli @ Sep 30 2006, 08:36 PM) [snapback]1329583[/snapback]</div>

You have both pieces of the pie, the fan base has to be justas supportive as LFL has been in allowing the fan base to do what it has up to this point.
I look at this and give Kudos to LFL. Paramount killed the fan base with Star Trek by suddenly allowing no unlicensed items to get past and destroying anything they could find unlicensed period. Watched that happen at the cons in person, it was not a pretty sight.
[/b]

I agree.....there's a balance and it is an interesting point that LFL's success is due in part to the previous extensive fan base involvement in replica prop making.....

 

[tripoli]

But AA was not the Artistan, he was the manufacturer. The designs were not made by him, he was paid to produce an LFL design. Otherwise anyone outside any company producing any manufactured item could suddenly have the right to produce such items on their own.

 

[DarkLordSalvo]

I think it would be cool to have a helmet that was PULLED AND ASSEMBLED by the original guy.

Now, made by the creator? No one knows who officially sculpted it yet but John Mollo's would be a hard signiture to get now. :rolleyes

 

[Boba Debt]

How do you know what AA actually did?

I'm not trying to be jerk but is there some proof that he didn't create the final 3-D representation of the Trooper Helmet from RM's conceptual art?





<div class='quotetop'>(tripoli @ Oct 1 2006, 01:29 AM) [snapback]1329608[/snapback]</div>

But AA was not the Artistan, he was the manufacturer. The designs were not made by him, he was paid to produce an LFL design. Otherwise anyone outside any company producing any manufactured item could suddenly have the right to produce such items on their own.
[/b]

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(tripoli @ Sep 30 2006, 09:29 PM) [snapback]1329608[/snapback]</div>

But AA was not the Artistan, he was the manufacturer. The designs were not made by him, he was paid to produce an LFL design. Otherwise anyone outside any company producing any manufactured item could suddenly have the right to produce such items on their own.
[/b]

There was no design for the imperial gunner, TIE helmet face, etc. AA got a sketch based on the McQuarrie paintings. A sketch is not a final design....it would have been very different if he received a sculpture...but it was up to him to create a template for the molds. AA trained at Ealing Art School in London and prior to that studied engineering for three years. It is really taken for granted today what he accomplished from a design standpoint. He had to design and create the tools to make the various parts of the helmet/armor so that they could be used as molds and survive the heat/pressure. That's not something that any old person can do. It takes both an art and engineering background and he had extensive experience with materials testing for his sportscar composite body development work. He had extensive experience designing and producing kayaks, furniture and garden fishponds & cascades. He was an artisan. He was asked to design the helmets/armor so they could be lightweight, wearable by the actors, and inexpensive. His work saved LFL incalculable costs in developing the technology to do that. Yet he was paid just for the final product.









<div class='quotetop'>(DarkLordSalvo @ Sep 30 2006, 10:05 PM) [snapback]1329617[/snapback]</div>

I think it would be cool to have a helmet that was PULLED AND ASSEMBLED by the original guy.

Now, made by the creator? No one knows who officially sculpted it yet but John Mollo's would be a hard signiture to get now. :rolleyes
[/b]

"Creator" is a subjective term. But if you ask someone who works on a production....who interprets a 2D drawing and translates it into something that even the original artist interprets as not being what they drew, any artist would like to think that they put some creative effort into it. Maybe creator isn't the best term because it could imply he conceptualized it as well, which he didn't. Conceptual artist (Ralph McQuarrie)....sculptor (AA?)....prop maker....AA. It is known at least who did not sculpt it.....since Mollo's team nor the art department "created" the helmets.

 

[DarkLordSalvo]

Ah, but his current work CLEARLY is not what he says it is. Different almost 60%.

Legally AA may have the right to produce the helmet in his own country, but he is still a brazen, bold-faced liar. And THAT is what most should judge him on.

TE's rep is another matter because he wasn't trying to pull a fast one with his former product. I think.
If he was being an jerk just to try and get in bed with LFL, then that's another matter and has nothing to do with AA's legal standing.
.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(DarkLordSalvo @ Sep 30 2006, 10:23 PM) [snapback]1329623[/snapback]</div>

Ah, but his current work CLEARLY is not what he says it is. Different almost 60%.

Legally AA may have the right to produce the helmet in his own country, but he is still a brazen, bold-faced liar. And THAT is what most should judge him on.

TE's rep is another matter because he wasn't trying to pull a fast one with his former product. I think.
If he was being an jerk just to try and get in bed with LFL, then that's another matter and has nothing to do with AA's legal standing.
[/b]

If he has the rights, it doesn't matter how close the helmets are now to his originals he made in 1976. One can argue that because his helmets from today differ in minor ways from the originals, that he is not the original maker. Indeed, that's really been the main argument in all the SDS threads here from day one. Maybe I'm betting wrong, but he's really the only candidate for having done the work.

Agreed about TE...that's an entirely separate matter.

 

[tripoli]

Internationally, its recognized that if any "new" artwork or production work is doen similar to the studio's pre-concieveed artwork, they are pulling form the original studio material and are in violation of the studio's creative artwork.

That is why you see games with similar artwork from studio franchises puulled or toys that are different but similar enough to be considered duplication of the original studio artwork. Given Lucas has the previous artwork from the story boards and its in no doubt they approach AA to do the helments based on their concepts, its seems to be a pretty good common sense shut the door case.

Again, if you aregue otherwise with the manufacturer, any business coudl suddenly see their own work copied with no legal issues, cars, clothes, ect. But common sense dictates that not how the real business world runs.

 

[Trallis]

<div class='quotetop'>(DarkLordSalvo @ Sep 30 2006, 10:05 PM) [snapback]1329617[/snapback]</div>

I think it would be cool to have a helmet that was PULLED AND ASSEMBLED by the original guy.
[/b]

So would I. If he bought helmet parts off of TE or anyone who made replicas cast off of originals, and assembled them and sold them, i would buy it. If he bought rights from TE or anyone else to have legit copies of his molds, i would buy his stuff. Instead he pretends to have original molds. I would love to have something made by him, but I refuse to buy from him because he lied. He lied to a huge amount of star wars fans who dropped 800 only because it was from the original molds. He continues to do this. its an insult to anyone who respects the idea of ethics in the replica world. And yes, it is beyond clear that the people who made replica ST helmets cast offof original pieces are considered ethical in their actions as this is not recasting by the negative meaning of the term

 

[Boba Debt]

<div class='quotetop'>(Trallis @ Oct 1 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]1329752[/snapback]</div>

And yes, it is beyond clear that the people who made replica ST helmets cast off of original pieces are considered ethical in their actions as this is not recasting by the negative meaning of the term[/b]

I believe that this is the most backward way of thinking EVERY posted at this forum.

Just because we have a standing rule that makes it okay to recast a screen used piece doesn't make it right. It's recasting no matter how you look at it.

But some people are willing to accept it as ethical because "no one is getting hurt".

If you are ok with a person recasting a screen used piece let me ask you a hypothetical question:

Lets say you created an Gun for a movie and since you know it might actually be popular you decide to keep the rights to sell replicas at a later date.

The movies a hit, you start production and just as you come here to announce it's release you see a thread promoting replicas of your gun "cast from a screen used stunt"

Are you going to look the other way?



To say that replica helmet makers that re-cast AA's original work have more right to do it then AA is absurd.

 

[Trallis]

if i decided to keep the rights to sell the prop, it would be unethical for them to do that. i agree on that. if SDS had his original molds and had illegally been selling them without the rights, this still would have been ok with me. but thats not what happened

 

[TK765]

<div class='quotetop'>(Boba Debt @ Oct 1 2006, 02:07 AM) [snapback]1329619[/snapback]</div>

How do you know what AA actually did?

I'm not trying to be jerk but is there some proof that he didn't create the final 3-D representation of the Trooper Helmet from RM's conceptual art?





<div class='quotetop'>(tripoli @ Oct 1 2006, 01:29 AM) [snapback]1329608[/snapback]

But AA was not the Artistan, he was the manufacturer. The designs were not made by him, he was paid to produce an LFL design. Otherwise anyone outside any company producing any manufactured item could suddenly have the right to produce such items on their own.
[/b]

[/b][/quote]

Theres also NO proof he was the sculpter of anything involving SW.

 

[DrStranglove]

<div class='quotetop'>(TK765 @ Oct 1 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]1329932[/snapback]</div>

Theres also NO proof he was the sculpter of anything involving SW.
[/b]

And this is where I always had a problem. I have seen neither photo nor pay stub, contract nor commitment, that proved AA was anywhere near the SW camp in the mid 70's.

As far as I have been able to tell from all these threads, he is a guy that has thus far only SAID he worked on the troopers. And since the molds did not match up pretty much at all....

 

[Jedirick]

I think these SDS/AA posts are in desperate need of some props.

How about one of these? :lol