SDS Court case

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 30 2006, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1329496[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

Here's mine compared to your "expert" reference photo :lol

[/b]

skills constructing top notch trooper helmets.

I don't really think there's any call for sarcastic remarks like this in relation to Keiths reference images.
I think he made the point he wanted to make.
Lets not forget about Keiths ability to construct perfect looking trooper helmets.

Most of us respect his observations in these matters.

Edited - spelling + content
[/b][/quote]


My apologies. But there are fairly decent photos of SDS helmets out there....so I wondered about that one. There's a difference between this...

and this...

 

[Keith]

This helmet does not have ear caps either, but this is not the tubes natural shape:

The cap has made the tube like that.

I'm glad you posted that last pic. It makes a change to see your helmet put back together.
It looks almost as bad to me though. The bottom of the face that hangs out has been trimmed off a bit more and the dark helps make it look even less, as you can't see the neck trim. Its looking up at the helmet again though.

IF you are going to post any more pics of your SDS helmet, can you please show more of it built and show some different angles, like from the left side and from the rear (from high low and straight on).

I just can't believe you think it looks even close to accurate to any original helmet.
Oh well, if you can't see the differences we've pointed out, you can't see them.

Keith.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(Keith @ Sep 30 2006, 08:46 PM) [snapback]1329589[/snapback]</div>

I just can't believe you think it looks even close to accurate to any original helmet.
Oh well, if you can't see the differences we've pointed out, you can't see them.

Keith.
[/b]

I've noticed the differences all along...but it's a glass half empty half full sort of thing....I accept the differences...but also appreciate the similarities...and who knows what has happened to the molds after 30 years? I'd prefer more of a swoop in the rear...yes...and the ears trimmed differently...and more of an undercut, but I'm willing to overlook these. Maybe if it was the other way around and we were talking about ANH Vader helmets I'd be similarly up in arms....but hey....that's for another thread. I still think it's cool that these come from the same little shop and from the same maker as in 1975-76. Sad to see things come to this...

<div class='quotetop'>(Keith @ Sep 30 2006, 08:46 PM) [snapback]1329589[/snapback]</div>

I'm glad you posted that last pic. It makes a change to see your helmet put back together.
It looks almost as bad to me though. The bottom of the face that hangs out has been trimmed off a bit more and the dark helps make it look even less, as you can't see the neck trim. Its looking up at the helmet again though.
[/b]

Let me know if you'd like to see other angles. I don't mind you critiquing it....I much prefer talking about that then about the legal stuff.



<div class='quotetop'>(Keith @ Sep 30 2006, 08:46 PM) [snapback]1329589[/snapback]</div>

This helmet does not have ear caps either, but this is not the tubes natural shape:
[/b]

But the photo of helmets in front of SDS in 1976 show many before they had ear caps put on.... ?

 

[DarkLordSalvo]

<div class='quotetop'>(-... . .- --.. @ Sep 30 2006, 08:28 PM) [snapback]1329499[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(DarkLordSalvo @ Sep 30 2006, 03:51 PM) [snapback]1329485[/snapback]

I believe you incorrectly used the term "recast" in your last statement. Yes, TE copied an original helmet, but didn't he own it or was being loaned to him for that purpose? And he never once (I believe) said his weren't a copy from a real helmet, not a "brother from the same molds" of the originals like AA does.

Big difference between casting an original yourself and recasting someone else's copy. We should know this by now. Especially the BIG DOGS in this hobby should anyway.
[/b]

Actually, any copy of an original casting is re-cast, by definition.

We can talk about the number of generations from the original casting, but "recast" is in fact an appropriate description of any derivative reproduction.
[/b][/quote]




If we're going by this reasoning, then any of us who have a copy made from an actual screen-used prop is guilty of supporting a recaster. If you argue this then you only are doing so because it benefitted you and your collection. A lot of people here have first-gen replicas of real props obtained from personal collections, yes? And this is allowed as long as it is an authentic first-gen replica, right?

If not, REWRITE the rules.

Again, you fail to see the actual moral conflict of the entire LFL/AA/TE case:
The way I see it, and you all should, is that in 1976 AA manufactured, BUT DID NOT CREATE, a piece that TE years later made a copy of and offered the prop community AS MANY OTHER PROPS HAVE BEEN but didn't try to pass off as a REAL deal, al the while telling LFL "up yours" and that he himself owns the work.

This is plain as day.

If AA would have played by the rules and cast one that he still had, he could be another vendor offering a different piece of accurate armor. It would also have the benefit of being from Shepperton and he probably would be allowed to do so like TE. As long as he didn't go all in-your-face about it like he and GF did.

But he didn't do this because he has no original piece. Instead he stole one that someone has, by our apparently now fickle rules, the only right to make a copy.

 

[-... . .- --..]

<div class='quotetop'>(DarkLordSalvo @ Sep 30 2006, 09:54 PM) [snapback]1329613[/snapback]</div>

If we're going by this reasoning, then any of us who have a copy made from an actual screen-used prop is guilty of supporting a recaster.[/b]

That's true. A casting taken from a screen-used prop is a recast, by definition. But that's not reasoning or rationalization, it's just a simple fact. Now, whether or not any individual who enjoys this hobby should feel "guilty of supporting a recaster" is a personal value judgement, made on a case by case basis. No one has asked you, me or anyone else to police and pass judgement on the collectors who enjoy this hobby.

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

If not, REWRITE the rules.[/b]

I honestly have no idea what "rules" you're talking about.

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

Again, you fail to see the actual moral conflict of the entire LFL/AA/TE case:[/b]

:rolleyes

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

But he didn't do this because he has no original piece. Instead he stole one that someone has, by our apparently now fickle rules, the only right to make a copy.
[/b]

Mmmmmmmmmkay...

 

[DarkLordSalvo]

"That's true. A casting taken from a screen-used prop is a recast, by definition. But that's not reasoning or rationalization, it's just a simple fact. Now, whether or not any individual who enjoys this hobby should feel "guilty of supporting a recaster" is a personal value judgement, made on a case by case basis. No one has asked you, me or anyone else to police and pass judgement on the collectors who enjoy this hobby."

C,mon, I'm not passing judgment, merely stating that why is it no one cried "recaster." if someone cast one of their original privately-owned props and made them available? Because RPF rules doesn't state that techically as recasting "by definition".

"I honestly have no idea what "rules" you're talking about."

This clear one:
"7. Selling/trading of recast items:
Deliberately recasting another member's creation without permission is something this community does not support. A member found selling/trading items recast from another member without permission will face possible disciplinary action."

Not an ORIGINAL prop you own that has not already been made by someone.

"Again, you fail to see the actual moral conflict of the entire LFL/AA/TE case: :rolleyes "

His lying about his current product's direct origin. Regardless if he's allowed by UK law to sell helmets as his own.

"But he didn't do this because he has no original piece. Instead he stole one that someone has, by our apparently now fickle rules, the only right to make a copy.
Mmmmmmmmmkay..."

It's obvious by looking at the SDS product but let me clear up the part about "...the only right to make a copy":
Say I owned an actual studio gun prop for instance, and wanted to cast it for others to get one, I'd get the typical "I'm interested." responses and requests for prices. Why is this not immediately stopped and me labled a recaster? Because I'm molding a prop from my own collection, not making a copy of someone else's copy of it. This does happen here, doesn't it?

EDIT: I am not trying to make an enemy so I hope no one sees it that way. It's just an interesting debate.

 

[Trallis]

right on salvo. it is agreed, and was a long time ago, that recasting is not wrong when it is of a screen used prop that you acquired legitimitely. We do not choose our morals based on what is allowed by the movie company because that would just suck. wed have no close to screen acurate props. instead we base our morals here on respect for other prop replica makers, as buying a screen used prop and recasting it can be quite an expensive task and require alot of skill

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(GINO @ Sep 30 2006, 11:41 PM) [snapback]1329561[/snapback]</div>

Actually, that's not one of mine. That certificate is a joke that crprops put with helmets he put together for $hits and giggles. It is meaningless.

I absolutely can't believe that you still think the SDS helmet's parts are correct.
You are probably the last person on the rpf to think so.
[/b]

So your partner sent fraudulent certificates out - thats nothing to be proud of.

I think most people would say the comparison pics SithLord posted looked pretty darn accurate. Certainly the teeth on my CRProps/Gino are not as defined as the SDS so maybe what you lose in one area you win in another?

Cheers

Jez

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(oldken @ Sep 30 2006, 09:57 PM) [snapback]1329530[/snapback]</div>

oh and i dont mean any offense to jez or sithlord... i know you guys are very knowledgable in the ways of the SW props... but i think everyone here is arguing in circles.

i understand why you are comming to AAs defense... but ill never understand why/how you think that an SDS bucket is more accurate that what Gino has done...

i dont get it and never will...

no warbly lines or photoshop is going to change my mind... or anyone elses with like minded thoughts on the subject.
[/b]

No offence taken mate

tbh I've tried to steer away from the "x is better than y accuracy debate" as its way too subjective. My post above is just to try and point out how imo all helmets have their strengths and weaknesses. Like others I can see the areas of concern in the SDS helmets, but then I think others overlook the positive points - and characteristics many of which the other "competing" helmets do not have.

My issues are;

1) Did AA sculpt the original stormtrooper helmet used for ANH in 1976? Ive spent a HUGE amount of time trying to investigate this (including talking to those who worked on ANH) and he's the only person who keeps coming out that could have done it. Despite their claims, I just donÂ’t believe LFL had a previous sculpt

2) Does AA still have the original helmet moulds? Like I've said before I see what everyone else sees (and reference my new post with the originals "surrounding" the SDS http://www.therpf.com/index.php?showtopic=117658). I'll continue that topic there.

If either of these points is proved negative then I will be absolutely stunned, and incredibly betrayed. I genuinely donÂ’t believe either to be true but this is the key reason why I want to see the case argued in an English high court as I believe itÂ’s the only way weÂ’ll ever get to the real truth

Cheers

Jez

 

[Clutch]

but isn't this one that he took apart and reshaped to make it look more like the original?


<div class='quotetop'>(BingoBongo275 @ Oct 1 2006, 05:44 AM) [snapback]1329775[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(GINO @ Sep 30 2006, 11:41 PM) [snapback]1329561[/snapback]

Actually, that's not one of mine. That certificate is a joke that crprops put with helmets he put together for $hits and giggles. It is meaningless.

I absolutely can't believe that you still think the SDS helmet's parts are correct.
You are probably the last person on the rpf to think so.
[/b]

So your partner sent fraudulent certificates out - thats nothing to be proud of.

I think most people would say the comparison pics SithLord posted looked pretty darn accurate. Certainly the teeth on my CRProps/Gino are not as defined as the SDS so maybe what you lose in one area you win in another?

Cheers

Jez
[/b][/quote]

 

[Keith]

Just keep posting the same old pics with the faults out of camera view and the awful ears removed then.

Obviously those are the pics that are intended to be the last pics we are going to see before this thread will come to an end. A kind of last word thing.

Maybe all SDS owners will remove the ears tape the helmet together, only ever look at it from the front and have the hanging down bits at the bottom of the face in a shadow.

Most of the SDS teeth are nice and defined, but there is no sign of the 5th tooth on the SDS.
I know the "stop that ship" face is a bit soft and doesnt show the 5th teeth, but its nice to have them on replicas IMO.

Keith.

 

[-... . .- --..]

<div class='quotetop'>(DarkLordSalvo @ Oct 1 2006, 01:30 AM) [snapback]1329697[/snapback]</div>

Because RPF rules doesn't state that techically as recasting "by definition".[/b]

As far as I know, current RPF rules have nothing to say say about such distinctions.

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

This clear one:
"7. Selling/trading of recast items:
Deliberately recasting another member's creation without permission is something this community does not support. A member found selling/trading items recast from another member without permission will face possible disciplinary action."

Not an ORIGINAL prop you own that has not already been made by someone.
[/b]

I'm sorry, but I believe you're reading much more into that rule than is intended. This is essentially the "honor among thieves" rule. It makes no specific distinctions about what constitutes recasting and what doesn't.

And as for the argument that we as a community long ago agreed that recasts of screen-used originals automatically pass muster while all other recasts are automatically forbidden fruit, I believe this is an urban legend of sorts. I've been around this community for a long time, even spent several years as a moderator and administrator of this forum. I'm aware of no such community "standard," and I wince when I see the notion repeated by folks who haven't been around long enough to know better.

 

[TK765]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Oct 1 2006, 12:24 AM) [snapback]1329578[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 30 2006, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1329496[/snapback]

<div class='quotetop'>

Here's mine compared to your "expert" reference photo :lol

[/b]

skills constructing top notch trooper helmets.

I don't really think there's any call for sarcastic remarks like this in relation to Keiths reference images.
I think he made the point he wanted to make.
Lets not forget about Keiths ability to construct perfect looking trooper helmets.

Most of us respect his observations in these matters.

Edited - spelling + content
[/b][/quote]


My apologies. But there are fairly decent photos of SDS helmets out there....so I wondered about that one. There's a difference between this...

and this...

[/b][/quote]

Yeah but they both still have the "WAY TOO LONG" resculpted ear piece to compensate for the horribly resculpted rear cap. :lol

 

[DarkLordSalvo]

I admit that I'm relatively new to this board but I see that as a contradiction on your, and other staff who police such matters, part. There's just no other way to view it.

If it's such an "urban legend", WHY then, is it that if someone makes a copies of their privately-owned real prop, no one complains? Because it's gracious of the props owner, if he has the means and the willingness to duplicate it, and eveyone likes to have direct casts of screen-used replicas.

And in all the posts I've read while here where someone has done this, no one has cried foul. It just doesn't happen. And it shouldn't AS LONG AS THEY DON'T SHAKE IT IN THE FACE OF THE STUDIOS.

I'm sorry to keep repeating the same points over and over, but they are true.

 

[-... . .- --..]

<div class='quotetop'>(DarkLordSalvo @ Oct 1 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]1329907[/snapback]</div>

If it's such an "urban legend", WHY then, is it that if someone makes a copies of their privately-owned real prop, no one complains? Because it's gracious of the props owner, if he has the means and the willingness to duplicate it, and eveyone likes to have direct casts of screen-used replicas.[/b]

No one complains because nearly every serious collector wants access to one-off recasts of screen-used pieces. They're still recasts. Nobody has an inherent "right" to recast someone else's creative work unless given explicit permission to do so.

Look, this is kind of silly actually, and it gets lots of otherwise fun and interesting people into trouble time after time: please stop trying to impose black and white "morals" and "ethics" on a community that operates entirely in an illegal gray zone, at least where non-licensed replicas are concerned. It's all contraband. The more folks thump their chests and claim the morally pure high ground necessary to be the self-appointed prop-police, the more ridiculous they become. It's like holy-rollers preaching temperance in a speak-easy, all the while guzzling straight from the tap.

This is a live-and-let-live kind of hobby. Folks who get so wound up about this stuff need to consider whether or not the negative energy investment is worth it.

And the bottom line here is, when Jez points out that TE "recast" AA's work when he took one of the helmets that AA originally cast, trimmed and constructed, he's entirely correct, by any known definition of the word "recast." That's not a value judgment; it's like saying 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(Keith @ Oct 1 2006, 04:46 PM) [snapback]1329881[/snapback]</div>

Most of the SDS teeth are nice and defined, but there is no sign of the 5th tooth on the SDS.
I know the "stop that ship" face is a bit soft and doesnt show the 5th teeth, but its nice to have them on replicas IMO.

Keith.
[/b]

Keith,

Sorry for going off topic from the court case thread but I thought the 5th tooth on the TE helmets and screen helmets was purely because the teeth had been cut out I had never thought it was on the original pulls. Isn't the 5th tooth mark where the frown ends and the plastic is drawn into a point? The reason I say is the TIE helmets which are also reused for ATAT helmets don't have the teeth cut out and don't appear to have a 5th tooth either side.

PM sent.

Chris.

 

[GINO]

Hi Chris,

That is because the TIE helmet (and AT-AT) utilized a hero style facemask. Hero style facemasks only have 3 teeth formed on either side of the frown. There are other distinguising characteristics between hero and stunt faceplates but that is the most prominent one.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(Keith @ Oct 1 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]1329881[/snapback]</div>

Just keep posting the same old pics with the faults out of camera view and the awful ears removed then.

Obviously those are the pics that are intended to be the last pics we are going to see before this thread will come to an end. A kind of last word thing.

Maybe all SDS owners will remove the ears tape the helmet together, only ever look at it from the front and have the hanging down bits at the bottom of the face in a shadow.

Most of the SDS teeth are nice and defined, but there is no sign of the 5th tooth on the SDS.
I know the "stop that ship" face is a bit soft and doesnt show the 5th teeth, but its nice to have them on replicas IMO.

Keith.
[/b]

Keith - maybe some of us are trying to find some middle ground here. Just taking it one step at a time.

Sithlord posted an image that proves that the SDS faceplate is extremely accurate. I personally would like to see someone also match up a Gino/Crprops and TE faceplates on the same comparison. Thats all I'm asking.

Regarding the 5th tooth - which way do you want it? One minute you're saying its missing then the next agreeing that not all helmets had it anyway. :rolleyes

Cheers

Jez

 

[Keith]

<div class='quotetop'>(BingoBongo275 @ Oct 1 2006, 06:45 PM) [snapback]1329995[/snapback]</div>

Regarding the 5th tooth - which way do you want it? One minute you're saying its missing then the next agreeing that not all helmets had it anyway. :rolleyes

Cheers

Jez
[/b]

The answer is already there in my post to your question about the 5th tooth. Its nice to have them on replicas IMO.
Its doesnt have to be there as i said, but it was there on the original stunt molds and most of the real helmets. I would have thought that if the SDS face came off the original molds, then some of the SDS faces would have the 5th tooth.
No big deal or anything, i was just saying what i prefer in replicas thats all.

Keith.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Keith - no problem

Also regarding the original moulds, remember that after the Stunt they were used for the Hero and TIE faces which only had 3 teeth (the others blocked up either by accident or design)

So when AA came to make the Stunt he would have had to open the blocked 4th holes

Cheers

Jez