Sds e-11

[Dpp1978]

I wouldn't bank on that he's a sneaky SOB the fact he's stil in business producing stormtrooper and other helmets and armour despite not winning the case LFL bought proves that.
I'd bet he has found some kind of loophole here i'd just like to know what it is.

He didn't win the case but he didn't lose it either.

The judge held the original stormtrooper helmet was not on proper construction of English copyright law capable of attracting copyright. This was because to do this a 3 dimensional object has to either be "sculpture" or a "work of artistic craftsmanship." The judge held they were neither. If there is no copyright there can be no infringment of it.

I won't go into detail about the reasoning as they issues are complex and drawn out, but I would be shocked if Lucasfilm doesn't appeal on the basis the judge got his interpretation wrong.

Objects which are not copyrightable such as this can rely on what are known as industrial design rights to protect them. This protection is limited to a maximum of 25 years, and only then if registered. If unregistered they expire after 15. Any protection offered here would have lapsed long before SDS began manufacturing its replicas.

The helmets cannot be patented or trademarked either.

What this decision in fact means is until a higher court rules against this decision, pretty much any prop made more than 25 years ago is fair game at least as far as English law is concerned. There is no enforcable intellectual property right as the law deems them to be objects of industrial design and only offers protection for a limited time.

If there is a loophole, this is where it is.

As AA refused to accept the jurisdiction of the US courts and he does not have sufficient presence in the US to compel him to accept it, the English courts cannot enforce the US judgment. He ruled however that in certain circumstances an English court can rule on foreign copyright law providing there are no issues of substance to be decided.

This may well be the case here, but it is unlikely that US modes of damages would be used. In English law you can only claim for the damages suffered directly because of the wrongdoing, and those reasonably forseeably arising from it. I also doubt it will cover any damages suffered outside of the US. The most I can see him having to pay is the amount obtained from the US sales. I may well be wrong on this point though.

It seems at least for now AA and any other would be prop maker in the UK is free to make stormtrooper armour without fear of reprisals within the UK. This position may change on appeal.

I hope this isn't too full an answer to your question.

 

[rollerboi]

He didn't win the case but he didn't lose it either.

Let us not forget, however, that he lied about the "original" sources/molds, and attempted to take credit for creating something that was sculpted by a woman whom he knew to be dead. That's low, man. Really low.

Even if he "wins" the case on appeal (unlikely), he will always be a recaster, a liar, and a thief. No amount of litigation can restore the most valuable of possessions - his good name.

 

[Dpp1978]

Let us not forget, however, that he lied about the "original" sources/molds, and attempted to take credit for creating something that was sculpted by a woman whom he knew to be dead. That's low, man. Really low.

Even if he "wins" the case on appeal (unlikely), he will always be a recaster, a liar, and a thief. No amount of litigation can restore the most valuable of possessions - his good name.

Absolutely. Nothing he did was in any way honourable. The judge was quite scathing in his opinion of his evidence and its credibility. If you read between the lines he all but called him a delusional narcissist. But what he did wasn't unlawful either, at least as the judge saw it.

An appeal might go Lucasfilms way, it might not. Until it does he is free to go on his merry way making whatever outlandish claim he likes. Yes he can be called up on it and rightly so, but until he crosses the line between self aggrandising puff and actual defamation of someone elses character, there isn't much anyone can do about it above what you good people are already doing.

 

[defstartrooper]

He didn't win the case but he didn't lose it either.

The judge held the original stormtrooper helmet was not on proper construction of English copyright law capable of attracting copyright. This was because to do this a 3 dimensional object has to either be "sculpture" or a "work of artistic craftsmanship." The judge held they were neither. If there is no copyright there can be no infringment of it.

I won't go into detail about the reasoning as they issues are complex and drawn out, but I would be shocked if Lucasfilm doesn't appeal on the basis the judge got his interpretation wrong.

Objects which are not copyrightable such as this can rely on what are known as industrial design rights to protect them. This protection is limited to a maximum of 25 years, and only then if registered. If unregistered they expire after 15. Any protection offered here would have lapsed long before SDS began manufacturing its replicas.

The helmets cannot be patented or trademarked either.

What this decision in fact means is until a higher court rules against this decision, pretty much any prop made more than 25 years ago is fair game at least as far as English law is concerned. There is no enforcable intellectual property right as the law deems them to be objects of industrial design and only offers protection for a limited time.

If there is a loophole, this is where it is.

As AA refused to accept the jurisdiction of the US courts and he does not have sufficient presence in the US to compel him to accept it, the English courts cannot enforce the US judgment. He ruled however that in certain circumstances an English court can rule on foreign copyright law providing there are no issues of substance to be decided.

This may well be the case here, but it is unlikely that US modes of damages would be used. In English law you can only claim for the damages suffered directly because of the wrongdoing, and those reasonably forseeably arising from it. I also doubt it will cover any damages suffered outside of the US. The most I can see him having to pay is the amount obtained from the US sales. I may well be wrong on this point though.

It seems at least for now AA and any other would be prop maker in the UK is free to make stormtrooper armour without fear of reprisals within the UK. This position may change on appeal.

I hope this isn't too full an answer to your question.

Yeah well aware of that, that,s why i say he's a sneaky SOB and still in business despite not winning.
A liar yes, a lowlife yes,, stupid no.
Despite the fact the court ruled that LFL had no case he still continues to claim he was the original sculpter and even makes profit selling those lies in the form of DVD's, the bloke has no shame or honour at all.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

WOW... how self-destructive can you be... and then get all defensive when people call you on it? How in the world you can be okay with working with a liar and credit stealer is just beyond me.

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

Let us not forget, however, that he lied about the "original" sources/molds, and attempted to take credit for creating something that was sculpted by a woman whom he knew to be dead. That's low, man. Really low.

Even if he "wins" the case on appeal (unlikely), he will always be a recaster, a liar, and a thief. No amount of litigation can restore the most valuable of possessions - his good name.

I've tried to stay away from this thread but there have been a couple of hysterical posts like this, almost demonising Ainsworth.

I'm certainly not trying to defend the guy, since I definitely got my fingers burnt dealing with him - the sad thing from my perspective is that he lied to me on numerous occasions when he maintainted that he personally had sculpted the Stormtrooper helmet.

However I dont think for a minute that he had ANY knowledge of Liz Moore's involvement, or her subsequent death. Not only was his knowledge of SW incredibly weak, but at the time (around 2004/05) I had also checked with John Mollo and Brian Muir and both either didnt know or were actually confident it wasn't Liz's work. Thats not to criticise either John or Brian but just to try and describe the lack of knowledge anyone had before the court case.

I also think it worth noting that irrespective of who we believe sculpted the TK lid, the UK Court judged that balance of evidence suggested it was Nick Pemberton's work, not Loiz Moore's. I personally disagree with the Court's decision based on my understanding of events - but the decision is what it is unless someone can overturn it.

Regarding the E11. Given AA had Zero involvement in it I think he's mad to start producing that, but thought the same of the Shadow Clone too.

"Recaster, Liar, Thief" ??? - If these are true of AA then by the same rules they can also be levelled at other replia prop makers out there - that many on this board applaud. Again not defending the guy but just looking for a level playing field.

Cheers

Jez

 

[sskunky]

I've tried to stay away from this thread but there have been a couple of hysterical posts like this, almost demonising Ainsworth.

I'm certainly not trying to defend the guy, since I definitely got my fingers burnt dealing with him - the sad thing from my perspective is that he lied to me on numerous occasions when he maintainted that he personally had sculpted the Stormtrooper helmet.

However I dont think for a minute that he had ANY knowledge of Liz Moore's involvement, or her subsequent death. Not only was his knowledge of SW incredibly weak, but at the time (around 2004/05) I had also checked with John Mollo and Brian Muir and both either didnt know or were actually confident it wasn't Liz's work. Thats not to criticise either John or Brian but just to try and describe the lack of knowledge anyone had before the court case.

I also think it worth noting that irrespective of who we believe sculpted the TK lid, the UK Court judged that balance of evidence suggested it was Nick Pemberton's work, not Loiz Moore's. I personally disagree with the Court's decision based on my understanding of events - but the decision is what it is unless someone can overturn it.

Regarding the E11. Given AA had Zero involvement in it I think he's mad to start producing that, but thought the same of the Shadow Clone too.

"Recaster, Liar, Thief" ??? - If these are true of AA then by the same rules they can also be levelled at other replia prop makers out there - that many on this board applaud. Again not defending the guy but just looking for a level playing field.

Cheers

Jez

Thanks Jez.

The only reason he is doing a blaster is for troopers to have a light, strong blaster for trooping and to go with the ST armor he sells( and to make money of course). I don't think he is making any claims that he had anything to do with the originals and nor do I.
I also think his claims on ST armor and the like are outlandish and I have never defended him from those claims, but I think he may have had some input in the sculpt so that it could be Vac formed easily and efficiently as LFL had approached him for his expertise in this field.

All you guys saying I am sinking to the lowest of the low for working with someone I know that happened to make some false claims about something he did actually make for Star Wars, You don't personally know me. So please don't character assassinate me.
I am a father and husband who is very interested in SW props and I just happen to know and help a guy that everyone seems do demonize.
He has done nothing to hurt me personally and I have no reason to dislike him. I always have a view that until someone does something that personally
offends or upsets me then I don't have a problem with them.
It seems that on this board that it is OK for someone that has access to or owns one of the ST suits that AA actually vac formed to rip it off but not OK for the guy that made them in the first place? Apart from his claims I don't think he is doing nothing different is he? A court of law says he hasn't so I don't know why people here seem to think they know better? Ripping off LFL but defending him at the same time?

I think alot of people forget that to most of us this is a HOBBY and good fun to boot.

If you don't like me being defensive don't antagonize me.

 

[rollerboi]

I've tried to stay away from this thread but there have been a couple of hysterical posts like this, almost demonising Ainsworth.
...
However I dont think for a minute that he had ANY knowledge of Liz Moore's involvement, or her subsequent death. Not only was his knowledge of SW incredibly weak, but at the time (around 2004/05) I had also checked with John Mollo and Brian Muir and both either didnt know or were actually confident it wasn't Liz's work. Thats not to criticise either John or Brian but just to try and describe the lack of knowledge anyone had before the court case.
...
Again not defending the guy but just looking for a level playing field.

Hysterical? My words are sharp, not hysterical. How easily we forget, otherwise. I mean, look - someone loaned the guy a sterling to cast, even after all of this went down. And now that person's feeling the backlash, unfortunately, of associating with someone like this. How quickly we forget, or word hasn't gotten far enough.

I will grant you this - maybe he didn't know Liz had a high probability of doing it. But he did know that HE didn't do it, himself. And he took credit anyways, hoping that the shifting sands of time would obscure any possible rebuttal/response.

I don't think there are many people out there who are establishing websites claiming to be the original propmaker, selling things represented as having come from original molds and original props. Call the playing field what you want, I just call it how I see it.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

It seems that on this board that it is OK for someone that has access to or owns one of the ST suits that AA actually vac formed to rip it off but not OK for the guy that made them in the first place?

Some don't think so, but generally YES.

LFL had the rights, not a contractor. AA is no different than a moldmaker and caster, except he works in plastic sheets, where they work with resin and fiberglass. So the original moldmaker that made the fiberglass helmets in the movie should be okay to go out and recast other vendors' items and sell them as "from original molds" just because they are the original guys who made the originals? Is that really how you see it?

I don't know you, yes, but with this I certainly don't ever plan to either. I've had enough of liars and the people who support them and try to tell me how sweet and innocent they really are. Got enough of all that a long time ago.

 

[Dpp1978]

The court's interpretation of the events were not that important to the final decision. It was important in deciding who held any property rights which could exist, especially given AA's counterclaim that they vested with him. In any case the court stated that AA was not the creator, and even if he was the rights would have transferred to Lucasfilm as it commissioned the work. This made the whole issue a moot point. This is unlikely to be appealed unless substantial new evidence is found, (which is in itself unlikely), as the appeal court is very reticent in overturning findings of fact.

In the end the decision was on a point of law, the interpretation of which may or may not be upheld. This is the most likely ground for appeal and it almost screams out for one.

I don't know the full background as most of what I have gathered is from reading the judgment. He took credit for work he had no right to, and I completely understand the strong feelings that evokes, especially among a community of artists and craftsmen. It is a thoroughly shoddy thing to do, even moreso if you then profit from it commercially. Whether he did so intentionally or because he genuinely believed he was the creator we can never know. Memory is a funny inherantly unreliable thing. To try to infer some form of machiavellian cunning into the man's actions I think gives him too much credit. My interpretation is he got very lucky.

He got a decision which for the time being allows him to continue with his actions without too much fear for reprisals. Winning in a law suit is subjective, and from his point of view he is probably much happier than Lucasfilm or its licensees.

As for making the blaster, what goes for the armour goes doubly for that. The design of the Sterling is not subject to copyright or other IP right, nor are the bits and pieces bolted onto it. Any patents lapsed years ago, likewise any design rights. The cobbling of them together if it did activate fresh rights will be subject to the same reasoning as the helmets and armour. His only mistake is calling it an E-11 as that might well be trademarked and thus actionable. if he called it something generic like "Trooper Blaster" even that goes away.

The problem for Lucasfilm is that IP law in the UK wasn't designed to protect this sort of thing. He is just taking advantage of it while he can.

 

[defstartrooper]

Jez i'm a level headed kind of bloke i think, and yeah okay maybe AA didn't have any knowledge of who actually sculpted the helmet or that they were dead at the time he started making the claims he made.
But he sure as the sky is blue does know now and he still makes those claims even going as far as producing DVD's and selling them showing how he supposedly created the stormtrooper.
Personally i don't think that having no knowledge of the origins at the time is an excuse i'm sure you don't either but continuing to make the same claims when he has full knowledge is just disgusting.

SSHunky please don't be fooled into thinking AA is producing his guns so costumers have a nice lightweight gun to troop with he's producing these guns for the same reason he produced everything else, profit that is all.

He has done nothing to hurt me personally and I have no reason to dislike him. I always have a view that until someone does something that personally
offends or upsets me then I don't have a problem with them.

Claiming a dead artists work as his doesn't personally offend you then ?

It seems that on this board that it is OK for someone that has access to or owns one of the ST suits that AA actually vac formed to rip it off but not OK for the guy that made them in the first place?

Don't give a crap about him making suits i'm fine with that, i'm not overly bothered about his claims of cast from originals and BS afterall every other prop collectable company make similar claims which are no more valid, that's just marketing speak.
It's his character i take issue with.

 

[sskunky]

I don't know you, yes, but with this I certainly don't ever plan to either. I've had enough of liars and the people who support them and try to tell me how sweet and innocent they really are. Got enough of all that a long time ago.

with an attitude as shallow as yours I don't plan on meeting you either. I am no liar and as I have said many times before I don't agree or condone alot of the claims that AA says but this doesn't make ME a bad person.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I don't plan on meeting you either.

Great. As long as we got that worked out. :thumbsup

 

[sskunky]

Great. As long as we got that worked out. :thumbsup

:lol

 

[sskunky]

SSHunky please don't be fooled into thinking AA is producing his guns so costumers have a nice lightweight gun to troop with he's producing these guns for the same reason he produced everything else, profit that is all.

I said it was for the money didn't I?

Claiming a dead artists work as his doesn't personally offend you then ?

I said I don't agree or condone it , but offend ME.....no.

Don't give a crap about him making suits i'm fine with that, i'm not overly bothered about his claims of cast from originals and BS afterall every other prop collectable company make similar claims which are no more valid, that's just marketing speak.
It's his character i take issue with.

Do you know him?

 

[defstartrooper]

I said it was for the money didn't I?

You did and you also said "The only reason he is doing a blaster is for troopers to have a light, strong blaster for trooping and to go with the ST armor he sells"
Of course you put the money making comment in brackets like that is a secondry thing or just a fortunate side affect for him in his wonderful crusade to give something to the fans.

I said I don't agree or condone it , but offend ME.....no.

Well it does me.

Do you know him?

I know what i need to know, i know he stole credit for a dead womans work, he possibly may not have known whose work at the time but even so stealing credit is wrong knowledge or not.
Not only that he continues to steal credit for that work now he definately does know whose work it is.
That's not heresay or an allegation it's a proven fact.

 

[KaanE]

I though this thread was about his blaster, not about the person himself (AA)...

 

[sskunky]

IT WAS!!!
But as always anything to do with AA turns into a character assasination for him and anyone associated with him.

Life's too short......

 

[Spaceace]

lol..you would think AA was a mass murderer.

 

[Kerr Avon]

I said it was for the money didn't I?

If he was doing it at cost, would that be okay to you? How is profit an evil thing?