SDS Court case

[Star Wars Helmets]

I worked for 3 years in Co. Clare - loved it.

"Pogue mahone" is a kind gesture you say instead of "thank you". I suggest anyone out there who knows someone Irish says it to them the next time they meet them. Especially if its your boss, it'll really go down well

Slan agus beannacht

Jez

 

[Blad]

The Irish "Pogue mahone" is the same as "Baise mon t'chou", traditional Guernsey French greeting.

I thing the only thing so far to come out of the US ruling is that SDS is prepared to ignore it.

Wearing my good law abiding citizen hat I abhor his decision.

Wearing my maker of licensed props hat I abhor his decision.

Wearing my (possible) maker of under-the-counter replicas face-mask I think good for him.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

<div class='quotetop'>(Blad @ Sep 23 2006, 10:12 AM) [snapback]1324985[/snapback]</div>

Wearing my (possible) maker of under-the-counter replicas face-mask I think good for him.
[/b]

Not really. He brings to the fore things that should have remained uderground. IF you are a possible maker of "under-the-counter" replicas, would you turn your nose up at things, such as a C&D, as brazenly as Ainsworth has done in this case? Highly doubtful.

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(Qui-Gonzalez @ Sep 23 2006, 03:25 PM) [snapback]1324993[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Blad @ Sep 23 2006, 10:12 AM) [snapback]1324985[/snapback]

Wearing my (possible) maker of under-the-counter replicas face-mask I think good for him.
[/b]

Not really. He brings to the fore things that should have remained uderground. IF you are a possible maker of "under-the-counter" replicas, would you turn your nose up at things, such as a C&D, as brazenly as Ainsworth has done in this case? Highly doubtful.
[/b][/quote]

Qui-Gonzalez,

There aren't really any producers of helmets, armour and other props that LFL couldn't find out about in a few minutes on Google if they wanted to do so. The keep things underground argument isn't really that valid.

SDS are in the dock for a couple of reasons the first one is LFL have clearly been informed directly of SDS making a run of props outside of any licensing agreement more than likely source of complaint is licensed companies. LFL take in a lot of cash from these licensed companies and they are reassuring these companies who are their customers that their investments are sound.

LFL also know SDS aren't just making props they are claiming they own the rights to them and LFL are making damn sure others know that SDS don't and that they will not tolerate anybody claiming they have the rights to their property.

All that said Andrew Ainsworth clearly doesn't see himself as an under the counter trader he thinks he has the rights to the props he has made. He clearly doesn't see the need to hide anything he is doing or see that they need to be underground. He is not a guy in a basement copying a prop that was bought in an auction he is a business man who worked on a film making props for the film. He obviously thinks he is entitled to making these props and couldn't care less about the C&D.

Here is a direct quote from him when he is talking about another prop he made for Outland its pretty clear he thinks anything he has made is his property - <div class='quotetop'></div>

The word `prop` means property. The items we retained from film productions were our property and it was our business to reinvent them or sell them again for the production of lesser movies or maybe ads. I remember one quite splendid helmet that I created for `Outland`, it not only appeared in another four movies but ended up as the main feature in a British Airways advert. [/b]

Now I know and you know that even though he clearly believes he has all the rights to these things he doesn't LFL does. LFL will have their day and they will take AA to the cleaners when they finally get their hands on him. Whether in the US, UK or any part of the world LFL will get what they want it's never been in question. Whether Star Wars, Star Trek or Jefferson Starship is written on the packaging LFL still own the rights to whats inside and they know it.

Cheers Chris.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

That may be the case, but it is a false sense of entitlement. Where was he when SW was re-released, Special Edition wise? Where was he during any push to craft SW items, be they by Don Post or whoever? This is what makes me think he IS an underground crafter who just saw a chance to swipe some items to recast, put his stamp on them because he MAY have made them in the 70s.

Any of the underground makers have surely been ratted out to LFL by one person or another. So, in my opinion, so I am sure Ainsworth is not the first to receive a C&D from LFL. He seems to be the first to flip LFL the proverbial bird. He probably freaked when he got it, went to some penny ante barrister and they gave him the go ahead to keep rockin' out. Ill advised legal advice for sure as it will turn out in the end.

I find his definition of "props" to be amusing at best, as he bends it to suit his needs. First, he recast his "alledged" props. I think we are well passed the point to even debate this. Too much damning evidence to the contrary. So, he no longer had these items. The props are film property, NOT the artisan's possessions. They can add them to a portfolio, but once commissioned for a job, you don't own the rights to those things. God, this guy has delusions.

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(Qui-Gonzalez @ Sep 23 2006, 04:34 PM) [snapback]1325012[/snapback]</div>

That may be the case, but it is a false sense of entitlement.
[/b]

Agreed.

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

He seems to be the first to flip LFL the proverbial bird. He probably freaked when he got it, went to some penny ante barrister and they gave him the go ahead to keep rockin' out. Ill advised legal advice for sure as it will turn out in the end. [/b]

Agreed on the bird. Definitely agree on legal advice. Apparently though he used one of the UK's top law firms.

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

I find his definition of "props" to be amusing at best, as he bends it to suit his needs. First, he recast his "alledged" props. I think we are well passed the point to even debate this. Too much damning evidence to the contrary. So, he no longer had these items. The props are film property, NOT the artisan's possessions. They can add them to a portfolio, but once commissioned for a job, you don't own the rights to those things.[/b]

Agreed on the statement on props.

I don't agree on everyone being passed the point of debating his prop sources as there wouldn't be huge heated threads if that was the case. He definitely did not recast his helmets because if he did nobody would have noticed the differences between them and the screen used ones if you get what I mean. The other fan made helmets that come from the TE source have the screen used features we all know and love.

Agreed on all the props and rights being LFLs that was pretty much exactly what my last post said. That is something that was never in question.

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

God, this guy has delusions[/b]

Definitely maybe

 

[moffeaton]

If I remember my music trivia well, "Pogue mahone" means "kiss my a$$", yes?

Shane MacGowan - not just a wordsmith, but also an educator.

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(moffeaton @ Sep 23 2006, 05:37 PM) [snapback]1325031[/snapback]</div>

If I remember my music trivia well, "Pogue mahone" means "kiss my a$$", yes?

Shane MacGowan - not just a wordsmith, but also an educator.
[/b]

There must be something lost in translation when Anson responded to somebody cracking jokes in poor taste about almost a million people starving to death in Ireland in the 19th century this can't have been his intended response. Surely a mistake :angel

Shane MacGowan - wordsmith, educator and of course crazy wild rock'n'roll madman. He makes Ozzy Osbourne look like Mother Teresa :lol

Chris.

 

[exoray]

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

and am I correct in saying you have had to pay for these documents.[/b]

Just a little bit, the cost is 11 cents a page plus actuall shipping charges, not much at all overall...

But, as you stated these are only facts in this case, almost everything else is just speculation...

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(exoray @ Sep 23 2006, 05:54 PM) [snapback]1325045[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

and am I correct in saying you have had to pay for these documents.[/b]

Just a little bit, the cost is 11 cents a page plus actuall shipping charges, not much at all overall...

But, as you stated these are only facts in this case, almost everything else is just speculation...
[/b][/quote]

Hi exoray,

You took the time and effort and at your own expense got the facts about the case and freely shared them. From the facts being shown most people as per usual read what they wanted into them and made their own conclusions. People on this forum should be grateful to get the facts and not twist them for their own ends.

The prop side of SDS could be and probably will be debated until the end of time the legal side of things with LFL in the driving seat was never going to be a contest.

Anyway its much appreciated being kept up to date :thumbsup

Cheers Chris.

 

[Darth Domain]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 22 2006, 07:08 PM) [snapback]1324572[/snapback]</div>

Exactly, there's a lot at stake for the license holders and they have every right to go after unlicensed producers.
[/b]

Yeah, god forbid that someone comes along who can make something that's passable, i bet that really p*sses the license holders off, especially when they are only allowed to make crap that only just resembles the item its supposed to be . :unsure

 

[propgangsta]

Ok, now I got the answer to my question in the SDS Trooper thread. Better save my £ for now then.

 

[stonky]

I'd like to know why if AA truly believes that the stormtrooper likeness is his intellectual property, why he hasn't threatened LFL with legal action over the last 29+ years?

 

[Gytheran]

<div class='quotetop'>(stonky @ Sep 25 2006, 07:08 AM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]</div>

I'd like to know why if AA truly believes that the stormtrooper likeness is his intellectual property, why he hasn't threatened LFL with legal action over the last 29+ years?
[/b]

Because he doesn't truly believe it.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

<div class='quotetop'>(Gytheran @ Sep 25 2006, 08:57 AM) [snapback]1325885[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(stonky @ Sep 25 2006, 07:08 AM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

I'd like to know why if AA truly believes that the stormtrooper likeness is his intellectual property, why he hasn't threatened LFL with legal action over the last 29+ years?
[/b]

Because he doesn't truly believe it.
[/b][/quote]
Dingdingdingding.. We have a winnah.

Seriously, not one of us here is fooled by this guy's timing.

 

[SithLord]

Maybe these threads would not keep continuing if people would stop speculating and making false statements and instead let the case play itself out?

>That may be the case, but it is a false sense of entitlement. Where was he when SW was re-released, >Special Edition wise? Where was he during any push to craft SW items, be they by Don Post or whoever? >This is what makes me think he IS an underground crafter who just saw a chance to swipe some items to >recast, put his stamp on them because he MAY have made them in the 70s.

You should look up his fabrication/design company...you know...the one that makes paddles/oars. It was a few people from this board (they are members of other forums as well) who have been named that encouraged him to go into the TK helmet-making business. He was doing quite well before they came along and offered their "advice"....namely....become partners with us or you are making a big mistake.

>Any of the underground makers have surely been ratted out to LFL by one person or another. So, in my >opinion, so I am sure Ainsworth is not the first to receive a C&D from LFL. He seems to be the first to flip >LFL the proverbial bird. He probably freaked when he got it, went to some penny ante barrister and they >gave him the go ahead to keep rockin' out. Ill advised legal advice for sure as it will turn out in the end.

If you read any of the SDS threads, you would know that it was when he was approached by forum members to start a company, long before the LFL complaint, that he received legal counsel about his rights, and went ahead independently on that basis to produce helmets. From what I know, only GF received a C&D. Who else? And what makes you a judge of the legal advice he's received? Maybe you should research his law firm's credentials. It's public knowledge. It is clear that you have no idea what transpired prior to the complaint.

>I find his definition of "props" to be amusing at best, as he bends it to suit his needs. First, he recast his >"alledged" props. I think we are well passed the point to even debate this. Too much damning evidence to >the contrary. So, he no longer had these items. The props are film property, NOT the artisan's possessions. >They can add them to a portfolio, but once commissioned for a job, you don't own the rights to those things. >God, this guy has delusions.

How can someone recast something that they believe they have legal rights to according to UK law? Where is your evidence and how is it that you among anyone can conclude that he no longer has the original molds? He wasn't under contract, therefore the rights belong to him under UK law at the time. But perhaps you forgot that only after it's been stated umpteen times in many large threads. He wasn't officially comissioned.

And you are the one saying that he has delusions? I'll agree that the armor is in question, but not the helmets. All I'm reading here is fluff.....

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

So leaving the hypothesis and supposition to one side, has anyone managed to scan in the new Lucasfilm document?

IÂ’m hearing thereÂ’s a big section in it from LFLÂ’s Trooper Expert witness lol) Matt Gautier on why the SDS helmets arenÂ’t from original moulds.

IÂ’m so glad they got him (Trooper Expert) to do it. Six years of sustained LFL-copyright infringing production of Stormtrooper helmets and Armour, along with a rejected business venture with SDS make him one hell of an impartial subject matter expert :lol Maybe I should have a word with the Judge in case he needs any help summing up.

Cheers

Jez
Edited to clarify "him"

 

[Gytheran]

It's far too late for that. SDS lost...

As for the original molds... we all know why they aren't from them. The molds simply do not exist. If we were to see a picture of his "original molds", we'd be looking at negative casts of an existing helmet.

If AA truly had the real molds, he would have no reason not to show pictures of them. In fact, if he DID show pictures, it would drum up even more business, as it substantiates his claims. But on the flip side... if he showed pictures and they turned out to be different from what he claims, he would lose business and it would tarnish his "good" name.

So, again, why haven't pictures been posted?

Speculation? Sure... but it makes more sense than anything coming from AA.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Sithlord, any law firm who would tell you take on LFL in an international copyright matter is giving ill thought out advice. The fact that he LOST the case bemoans ill thought out legal advice. The fact that he threw in the towel shows it was ill thought out legal advice. What more needs to be said, really? The case HAS played out. All that is left is the dustpan to sweep up this recaster's remnants.

Aside from your own suppositions, do you have any actual knowledge beyond hearsay? I could comment, as vehemently as you have, that your defense of Ainsworth is just as much fluff as any slamming of him that I, or anyone else does. We can agree to disagree though and leave it at that. You have to expect to see zero positive remarks in his regards when you come to a thread like this.

Nothing he has shown has substantiated his claims of having original molds. Not one shred of evidence. There is, however, proof of his character in recasting other's items. That is where my doubt as to his claims come from. Look at the alledged original mold someone had tried to sell on eBay. It was picked apart and proven false here in record time.

Ainsworth will be nothing but a memory soon and he has no one to blame but himself.

 

[SithLord]

>Sithlord, any law firm who would tell you take on LFL in an international copyright matter is giving ill thought >out advice. The fact that he LOST the case bemoans ill thought out legal advice. The fact that he threw in the >towel shows it was ill thought out legal advice. What more needs to be said, really? The case HAS played out. >All that is left is the dustpan to sweep up this recaster's remnants.

It may appear that way to you. We do not know what advice AA would have received from his lawyers. The case is still going on. He didn't lose, it went into default. If you know what a stalemate is in chess...similar thing. Very smart on the part of his lawyers. It forces the settlement to be carried out through the UK courts.
He'll "lose" when he has to pay up . Until then, it's business as usual it seems for him.


>Aside from your own suppositions, do you have any actual knowledge beyond hearsay? I could comment, >as vehemently as you have, that your defense of Ainsworth is just as much fluff as any slamming of him >that I, or anyone else does. We can agree to disagree though and leave it at that. You have to expect to >see zero positive remarks in his regards when you come to a thread like this.

I'm not defending AA, I'm defending common sense and logic here. I would be commenting in the same way if it was anyone here if I thought or knew they were being wrongfully accused. I respect people's point of view and it's understandable given their limited knowledge of law and of this case and of what happened prior to the complaint.

>Nothing he has shown has substantiated his claims of having original molds. Not one shred of evidence. >There is, however, proof of his character in recasting other's items. That is where my doubt as to his claims >come from. Look at the alledged original mold someone had tried to sell on eBay. It was picked apart and >proven false here in record time.

>Ainsworth will be nothing but a memory soon and he has no one to blame but himself.

It is very smart of him not to show the molds. No one can claim they made them or that they have them, nor how they came to be. The proof is in the molds he claims to have. If he recast that armor set belonging to GF or whomever, then keep in mind that he states the armor he's offering is replica. If he produced the original armor, he obviously perceives it not as recasting, but using that armor as reference. According to the accepted guidelines of this forum and of this hobby, that is looked down upon and I agree from a hobbiest point of view on that. But if he has the rights to his creations, then what we say in the hobby doesn't really matter.

I'm pleased that that mold on Ebay was found to be a fraud. That was something I was able to confirm myself but others did a quicker and better job .

Since we are on the topic of ill-advised courses of action, keep in mind the repercussions of an "expert witness" being in potential conflict of interest. I do not think courts either in California or in the UK take something like that very lightly.