Sds e-11

[exoray]

In the SDS email I got it states -


Scope – a direct cast from the original prop
Scope power unit with spec details – a direct cast from the original prop
Grip – a direct cast from the original E11 prop

SDS fibbing or lying, say it ain't so... :rolleyes

I have always wondered how LFL / MR / Palitoy / Kenner etc got away with making props / toys that are clearly all found parts. If anybody can explain to me how these companies can claim any rights to these items I would love to know.

Creation of a new work (even if it uses other works) creates a new ownership of copyright as long a it's reaches an invisible threshold of originality and creativity decided upon if challenged in court...

When you look at an E11 although it is largely dependent on the Sterling it does show a level of creativity and originality that sets it distinctly apart from the Sterling thus granting it a new right of ownership as a whole...

Now when a company like MR make a E11 replica to sell and does not use the original art/parts but instead recreations this is where the slope gets slippery... If MR was to say use a real Sterling, scope and counter to make licensed E11 replicas there is no issues, but when they do what they did and replicate parts there can be underlying ownership rights that could be enforced by Sterling and M.H.R. But in this case I doubt Sterling or M.H.R. care or would even bother, but maybe a still in production item like the Hengstler counter might...

Think of it this way, EVERYTHING is made from something else... Adobe doesn't own a digital image because thier software was used to create it, same as paint company X doesn't own a painting because you used thier paints or canvas, and Levis doesn't own your picture because the model was wearing Levis Jeans... The list could go on and on...

 

[lonepigeon]

I just wish people would put their opinions of SDS aside for a minute. The ST armor is a different story altogether and I had nothing to do with that.

It's still SDS ripping off Lucasfilm even after he lost the lawsuit.
Is he trying to get sued again? I guess he doesn't care since they don't seem to be enforcing the ruling in the UK.

It's not a bad blaster, but it's being advertised as the most accurate ever which it is definitely not. The copy is misleading too - inferring that an original prop was cast, when it was only a few original found parts.

 

[Sumatra]

What the hell is with that front scope? How can he claim this is accurate?

 

[exoray]

I just wish people would put their opinions of SDS aside for a minute. The ST armor is a different story altogether and I had nothing to do with that.

Why? He has and continues to see the world through his delusional colored glasses... He continues to flat out tell lies and exaggerate his products beyond the scope of reality... These are the same issues that have garnished him resentment and hate from day one of his reappearance and he continues to compound them with every new step he takes... What part of this would want anyone to even consider putting any of their opinions aside for even a moment when he continues to reinforce them continuously?

Cue in the start the SDS back peddle now, the original email has already been disputed and posted in this thread, lets get ready for the multiple revisions of the website and new emails to come now that the circle has come full circle once again...

What the hell is with that front scope?

He probabbly fetted the tumblehomes because he felt it should have always been that way

 

[Clutch]

I'm tempted to get the dvd's that show him making the stuff. lol

 

[defstartrooper]

Correct me if i'm wrong Exoray you know more on this stuff than i do but is it not so that industrial design copyrights are fairly shortlived like 25 or 30 years or something ?
Surely that would explain how these companies are able to use parts such as the scope and L2A3 as part of their design ?
I'm still curious though how this doesn't fall under the replica firearms laws in the UK it's not like it's a brightly coloured supersoaker or something it is for all intents and purposes a replica of a 9mm smg.

 

[exoray]

Correct me if i'm wrong Exoray you know more on this stuff than i do but is it not so that industrial design copyrights are fairly shortlived like 25 or 30 years or something ?

I honestly have no idea how that works in the UK, but I do feel that the UK ruling that the armor fell into this category was an wrongful ruling...

Surely that would explain how these companies are able to use parts such as the scope and L2A3 as part of their design ?

I believe this mostly revolves around patents and for these parts they have expired, but to the best of my knowledge the Sterling designs are still being licensed in certain parts of the world so they obviously have some rights still or maybe not...

I'm still curious though how this doesn't fall under the replica firearms laws in the UK it's not like it's a brightly coloured supersoaker or something it is for all intents and purposes a replica of a 9mm smg.

Yep, I agree dumb move on his part unless he has everything in order, but I doubt that...

 

[sskunky]

Hi Mark,

You are earning something from SDS a blaster.

In the SDS email I got it states -


Scope – a direct cast from the original prop
Scope power unit with spec details – a direct cast from the original prop
Grip – a direct cast from the original E11 prop


Clearly by your post these statements are untrue.

I know you want people to view this with an open mind but these are some big claims by SDS about being direct casts from the original prop.

Good luck

Chris

Look I am a hobbyist and yes I am getting a blaster as this was cast from my stuff but that's it!
I didn't write the stuff on the site and I will say something about those statements but give me a break!
I just wanted to have a fairly accurate blaster as I said before that could be bought off the shelf.
Those saying that the scope is inaccurate need to get glasses, the scope I have is the same as posted on the POSW , so to say it is inaccurate is a little shortsighted don't you think?

If you don't like it don't buy it.
Until you have one in hand and look at it properly don't slag it off.

This is no more ripping anyone off as someone else making a blaster wether it be cast or copied.

All LFL did was stick bits and pieces together to create a blaster, they didn't have the copyright for the original parts in the first place.

This blaster was cast from all original parts not original props , so yes these statements are misleading and I have addressed this with AA.

The front sight is a little off and I will see if we can rectify this.

As I said I am open to constructive criticism and if you see anything "NOT RIGHT" let me know and I will see what I can do. This helps, slagging me or AA off isn't helping anyone.

I was just trying to give something back to the community in the way of an accurate, light yet strong blaster. This is my first time at doing this and probably won't bother again with the attitude I seem to be receiving.

 

[Jedi-72]

I know the issues with AA, but reading the description of the gun on his site...I don't see what the big deal is. He says it's cast in part from the Sterling SMG used for the original props. I don't read that as being cast from a screen used piece, but cast from the same type of gun used for the screen used weapons. He basically says the same thing with regard to the scope, grip and "powerpack"...cast from original. I can see how that sentence could be possibly be misunderstood to mean screen used originals. But, I just read it as cast from original (meaning real) parts. Original with regard to real world pieces doesn't mean screen used. So, in that regard it is accurate. Where's the problem?

It's an add for a prop. All companies play fast and loose with words like "definitive", and "accurate", and yet you'd be hard pressed to find anything either definitive or 100% accurate from any of them. I know the guy has a well-earned bad reputation, but I don't see why this add is getting people riled, apart from it being an AA product.

For the price he's asking, it isn't a bad piece. But the $400 I paid for it, I'll stick with my real Sterling, converted with all original pieces, which is super accurate.

 

[sskunky]

I know the issues with AA, but reading the description of the gun on his site...I don't see what the big deal is. He says it's cast in part from the Sterling SMG used for the original props. I don't read that as being cast from a screen used piece, but cast from the same type of gun used for the screen used weapons. He basically says the same thing with regard to the scope, grip and "powerpack"...cast from original. I can see how that sentence could be possibly be misunderstood to mean screen used originals. But, I just read it as cast from original (meaning real) parts. Original with regard to real world pieces doesn't mean screen used. So, in that regard it is accurate. Where's the problem?

It's an add for a prop. All companies play fast and loose with words like "definitive", and "accurate", and yet you'd be hard pressed to find anything either definitive or 100% accurate from any of them. I know the guy has a well-earned bad reputation, but I don't see why this add is getting people riled, apart from it being an AA product.

For the price he's asking, it isn't a bad piece. But the $400 I paid for it, I'll stick with my real Sterling, converted with all original pieces, which is super accurate.

Thanks, finally we have a sensible person willing to add something of merit to this discussion.
That's how I read the advert but I can see why these statements sound a little misleading and why people read it wrong.
We are never going have uber accuracy unless it is made from original parts but this is as close as you are going to get unless you pay hundreds of pounds or vintage parts.
I know the pics are not completely accurate yet but they were posted to get some interest and will be amended when poss and the final piece is finished.

 

[judgedredd]

Price and Kit Looks good to me although i would do some work on the front scope if possible.
I have never dealt with SDS so i cannot comment however to me it seems they are turning out a great prop?

 

[lonepigeon]

Those saying that the scope is inaccurate need to get glasses, the scope I have is the same as posted on the POSW , so to say it is inaccurate is a little shortsighted don't you think?

That type of scope was on ONE blaster prop, maybe (I actually think the real prop was an a2 design).
MR made the same "mistake". It's not that it's wrong, it's just that the scope is different than 95% of the original props.
In case you don't realize - that's a 1943 style scope, most of the blasters used the 1942 style which has a different front foot.

All LFL did was stick bits and pieces together to create a blaster, they didn't have the copyright for the original parts in the first place.

LFL stills owns the copyright to the blaster design. AA doesn't.

This blaster was cast from all original parts not original props , so yes these statements are misleading and I have addressed this with AA.

The website is not bad (could be misread, but technically reads correct).
The email was more unclear.

The front sight is a little off and I will see if we can rectify this.

The front site is filled in solid, but the bigger problem is that the receiver diameter is too small under the sight. It should not step down after the grips end.

I was just trying to give something back to the community in the way of an accurate, light yet strong blaster. This is my first time at doing this and probably won't bother again with the attitude I seem to be receiving.

It's not you, it's AA - not too many people around here like him. He's known as a liar and brings unwanted attention to the hobby.

We are never going have uber accuracy unless it is made from original parts but this is as close as you are going to get unless you pay hundreds of pounds or vintage parts.

It doesn't have to be uber accurate, but there are some inaccuracies that have nothing to do with cost. It's obviously a lightweight trooping blaster and for that purpose it's very nice, but no more accurate than current offerings like the hyperfirm E-11 or some resin blasters.

Other constructive cristicism:
- scope rail is too wide unless you're going for an ESB look (but then the add-on parts are wrong) or else it's just that way for looks
- scope rail ends are wrong (placement)
- cylinders, not bad, but not super accurate either. Better than most, except for the 2 runs here.
- front sight filled in
- diameter of receiver under front sight

 

[sskunky]

thanks for you words, I will take everything on board and try and get all these points rectified.

 

[Trap Joe]

the price and what you get for seem to be okay. I definitely want the DVD set.

 

[sskunky]

Hi chris,
You say the receiver diameter is to small yet this was cast from an original Sterling?

I may stand corrected as I know you are a pro when it comes to these things.
I never realized that the scopes were different from year to year! You learn something new every day.
The DvDS are quite interesting although a few will be offended from things AA says and claims but we all know this anyway.
Some interesting techniques and different ways to approach things are nice to see.

Thanks.

 

[lonepigeon]

Hi chris,
You say the receiver diameter is to small yet this was cast from an original Sterling?

Judging by the weird seam lines in that area it appears the SDS is a second generation from a modified casting of a real Sterling. You can also tell this by the multi-piece stock (rear pieces are separate bent strips screwed down). I have no idea why the section under the sight was modified.

Here's a pic of a real Sterling where you can see the receiver is the same diameter the entire length until it steps down in front of the sight.
http://www.armeetpassion.com/TARM/cotegauchesterlingmk4.jpg

Compare to the SDS version:
http://www.sdsprops.com/blaster/blaster_011_crop_full.jpg

I hope he doesn't include the bogus video he showed in court of how he "sculpted the original Stormtrooper helmet" with power tools on his DVDs.

 

[sskunky]

Arhh, I think you are referring to the difference in barrel size to receiver?
We didn't cast the main tube we used a plastic tube which was a fraction larger than the original so there is a slight step.
All other parts are 1st generation castings as I supplied the parts.
Chris both the links show the same picture?
And yes I think the DVDs do show some wonderful sculpting skills! :lol

Also can I just add that this is supposed to be a Trooping Blaster and not a super accurate display piece.

If you want super accuracy I suggest making your own.

I have spoken to AA about the things pointed out here and on the FISD and have made the relivent suggestions for improvement.

All I can do is point him in the right direction and hope he takes all these points on board but it is ultimately his descision, his product and his site. I am just trying to help.

 

[voice in the crowd]

I didn't write the stuff on the site and I will say something about those statements but give me a break!

Those saying that the scope is inaccurate need to get glasses, the scope I have is the same as posted on the POSW , so to say it is inaccurate is a little shortsighted don't you think?

If you don't like it don't buy it.
Until you have one in hand and look at it properly don't slag it off.

The description on the website doesn't make bold claims it is the email SDS have sent out to people on his mailing list.

As for the scope I am sure it would be easy enough to get a correct one - I have just sold two accurate ones to a board member so unfortunately I can't help you out but may be able to point you in the right direction.

I have bought a few SDS props in the past spending hundreds of pounds and have never had any issues with the service or quality of product.

You are being a bit defensive at any critisism but don't take it personally SDS threads will attract more attention than others. If you a have any input to this prop then just try to get it as accurate as you can then if you get it right then it will get good sales.

Good luck

Chris

 

[defstartrooper]

I applaud that you wanted collectors to be able to buy a close to accurate affordable blaster, i think your choice of getting AA to produce them was your mistake.
I won't be buying one sorry, i kept an open mind about AA throughout the whole LFL fiasco until the solid facts came to light.
Anyone that attempts to pass off another artists sculpt as theirs is a lowlife in my eyes,even worse when that artist is deceased and not around to dispute the claims.
All prop sellers garnish the truth a little and talkup the product with marketing BS but that's in a different league. :thumbsdown

Nothing personal to you i just don't like your choice of business partner, i'm sure plenty will sell without my custom.

 

[exoray]

We didn't cast the main tube we used a plastic tube which was a fraction larger than the original so there is a slight step.

So basically it's a PVC blaster blaster build up with cast parts and greebies? And IMO the diameter difference isn't "slight" it looks quite different from the photos a very noticeable step, several mm different easily...