AA case begins

Ben, that logic is so messed up it's not worth trying to unravel it. You immediately dismiss contracts, laws, time of conception, artistic/industrial design, etc. For you it's b&w, cut and dried, over and done. Sorry, but real life, and creative rights, are not so easily done.

Read up on intellectual property rights and the on-going legal battles in this country between corporations such as Novell, SCO, IBM, and Microsoft over who owns what, who contracted with who, etc. and you'll see just how flawed your "A+B=C" is and how it's not that easy except from an opinionated point of view.

Mike I don't really need to read up on any of that considering I have worked on well over 100 intellectual property theft cases with some of the most well known law firms around. And have given expert testimony as well even assisted in court strategy. Mike the cases you are quoting all involve US courts which AA surely didn't make a case there. I guess I am trying to figure out why you are such a cheer leader of a guy who has already been caught in lies.
 
I won't say the guy is a demon, but I guess I think higher of the crafters here than I ever will of him. The crafters here, while making trooper pieces for the money as well, did it because there weren't any options and they love the items. This guy...my opinion again...could give two craps about us in the hobby beyond our bank accounts. If he could make anywhere near as much money selling ponds, or boat parts, he would never have looked at trooper buckets.

Hmmmm. Not sure about that. I think there are a number of people in this hobby who have produced props over the years in order to merely line their own pockets.

Irrespective of how they started off, they ended up fat, egotistical and greedy.

Cheers

Jez
 
Mike I don't really need to read up on any of that considering I have worked on well over 100 intellectual property theft cases with some of the most well known law firms around. And have given expert testimony as well even assisted in court strategy. Mike the cases you are quoting all involve US courts which AA surely didn't make a case there. I guess I am trying to figure out why you are such a cheer leader of a guy who has already been caught in lies.

Because he's "lied" no more than any other licensed or fan made prop maker has in the past to sell his wares. Don Post "authentic" helmets is the prime SW example. It's business. And being an expert in business, laws, etc. then you of all people should know very clearly that if there was no contract covering the creation of the 3D model (under UK law from what I understand) then *by law* LFL has no claims. However of course the reverse is true, that if AA was contracted and had the proper papers then he deserves what he gets. And again, AA didn't try to make a case in US courts (in fact if you read some of the various comments from UK citizens, and lawyers, you'll see they think very low about US courts ideas of who owns what by law). The US court case was a default judgement.

My being a "cheerleader" is nothing more than many others who have supported various people/makers of props in the past and the arguments of who made what for whom. And as for "lies" the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I don't push the button on the electric chair as fast as you Ben, not without knowing all the facts from both sides. LFL can't exactly be called stand-up in its presentation of the facts in some of their lawsuits either. But again, that's business.
 
TBH this is the bit that really astounds me. AA has apparently got a pretty decent legal team on a "no win no fee" basis so presumably they see something in his case that warrants their attention. If as it now seems "all" he did was produce a set of working vac-forming moulds from a pre-existing sculpt then I just cant get my head around why his legal team would want to stump up the cost of the defence. These guys go through a due dilligence process - there must be something going on. Maybe this isnt actually about the Stormtroopers but more about the TIE's, Rebel Fleet Troopers, Imperial Gunners etc. Maybe SDS's legal team feel they can lose some things but win on others?

Good point Jez. This will have been risk-assessed by highly skilled Barristers working for thousands of £££'s an hour. I don't think it is as clear cut as the lay/armchair lawyers are making out.

Gary there are such things as implied terms which can be imputed into business contracts.

I think it best to wait and see....

Joe
 
Because he's "lied" no more than any other licensed or fan made prop maker has in the past to sell his wares. Don Post "authentic" helmets is the prime SW example. It's business. And being an expert in business, laws, etc. then you of all people should know very clearly that if there was no contract covering the creation of the 3D model (under UK law from what I understand) then *by law* LFL has no claims. However of course the reverse is true, that if AA was contracted and had the proper papers then he deserves what he gets. And again, AA didn't try to make a case in US courts (in fact if you read some of the various comments from UK citizens, and lawyers, you'll see they think very low about US courts ideas of who owns what by law). The US court case was a default judgement.

My being a "cheerleader" is nothing more than many others who have supported various people/makers of props in the past and the arguments of who made what for whom. And as for "lies" the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I don't push the button on the electric chair as fast as you Ben, not without knowing all the facts from both sides. LFL can't exactly be called stand-up in its presentation of the facts in some of their lawsuits either. But again, that's business.

MIke I have personally helped nail guys using the same logic when they took things they were paid to design by some very large organizations. Bottom line is AA is hoping to skate out on some UK loophole that would not hold any water in US courts. For some reason you seem to think this is the same thing as others making unlicensed armor. Which I have showed you time and time again. You attack my arguments saying they are personal opinion however you never address the issues I raise. Before you respond to this post. I will ask you this question again which you always seem to refuse to answer.

If you paid me to produce an idea of yours would you think it was ok if I went off and profited off it after you paid me for my work?

Please answer that question above.
 
MIke I have personally helped nail guys using the same logic when they took things they were paid to design by some very large organizations. Bottom line is AA is hoping to skate out on some UK loophole that would not hold any water in US courts. For some reason you seem to think this is the same thing as others making unlicensed armor. Which I have showed you time and time again. You attack my arguments saying they are personal opinion however you never address the issues I raise. Before you respond to this post. I will ask you this question again which you always seem to refuse to answer.

If you paid me to produce an idea of yours would you think it was ok if I went off and profited off it after you paid me for my work?

Please answer that question above.

And I've answered this before. Yes. If I did not have a clear contract or legal right that the *final work* you created from my *idea* was not specifically mine and only mine, you most definitely would be able to do what you want with it. Why? Because people come up with ideas all the time, it's only those that have the copyrights, patents and contracts that get to actually use them hence why we have laws about such things. And there is a huge, vast difference between an *idea* and a *final product.*

And I find it ironic how UK law is a "loophole" to you, but the fact LFL didn't sue AA in the UK but ONLY in the US was in essence using a USA law "loophole" as well from the other point of view.
 
Wow so much venom for the guy because he talks up his product in advertising it ?
Seriously remember MR's trooper helmet a very short while ago the LE one the advertising for that on their site ? banging on about how accurate it is that it was cast from an original etc, tall tales aswell yeah ok they took moulds and scans from 2 original helmets but they messed about with the design so much there's not one thing recognisable as accurate on it, nobody screamed LIAR and fetched the torches and demanded their heads on the block did they ?
And they aren't the only company to do that either but for some reason in the case of SDS it's a crime.
 
Hmmmm. Not sure about that. I think there are a number of people in this hobby who have produced props over the years in order to merely line their own pockets.

Irrespective of how they started off, they ended up fat, egotistical and greedy.

Cheers

Jez

:lol

Last time i looked LFL were a money making machine too
 
MIke I have personally helped nail guys using the same logic when they took things they were paid to design by some very large organizations. Bottom line is AA is hoping to skate out on some UK loophole that would not hold any water in US courts. For some reason you seem to think this is the same thing as others making unlicensed armor. Which I have showed you time and time again. You attack my arguments saying they are personal opinion however you never address the issues I raise. Before you respond to this post. I will ask you this question again which you always seem to refuse to answer.

If you paid me to produce an idea of yours would you think it was ok if I went off and profited off it after you paid me for my work?

Please answer that question above.

Yes but the point is AA says he wasn't paid for the work or the designing he did only the final product.
Note the line from the article at the start of this thread " i sold the first 50 to them for £35 each "
Now if at the time LFL had a contract with him to make these peices why the hell would they be buying them off him when they are their property under contract ?
 
Yes but the point is AA says he wasn't paid for the work or the designing he did only the final product.
Note the line from the article at the start of this thread " i sold the first 50 to them for £35 each "
Now if at the time LFL had a contract with him to make these peices why the hell would they be buying them off him when they are their property under contract ?

Its like anytime you bring in some cad files and have a guy manufacture a product for you. You pay per unit so that's not unusual at all.
 
And I've answered this before. Yes. If I did not have a clear contract or legal right that the *final work* you created from my *idea* was not specifically mine and only mine, you most definitely would be able to do what you want with it. Why? Because people come up with ideas all the time, it's only those that have the copyrights, patents and contracts that get to actually use them hence why we have laws about such things. And there is a huge, vast difference between an *idea* and a *final product.*

And I find it ironic how UK law is a "loophole" to you, but the fact LFL didn't sue AA in the UK but ONLY in the US was in essence using a USA law "loophole" as well from the other point of view.

So you are saying you wouldn't have a problem with it. Well if thats the case I would definitely love to do some work for you.
 
For me the big frustration was that AA was portrayed as some kind of Demon for doing things very similar to a host of other maker's in this hobby - often by those very maker's themselves!


Lies! Lies! No one would do that! No one would be so hypocritical as to do the exact same thing as Andrew, claim to have made more than a quarter million off unlicensed Star Wars products and then turn on Andrew and tell LFL what they wanted to hear just so they could get special treatment from LFL and satisfy their own vengeful appetite. And if someone did, surely the prop community wouldn't continue to praise and revere such a person would they? Surely not... You MUST be mistaken Jez. Things like that just don't happen around here... :unsure
 
Yes but the point is AA says he wasn't paid for the work or the designing he did only the final product.
Note the line from the article at the start of this thread " i sold the first 50 to them for £35 each "
Now if at the time LFL had a contract with him to make these peices why the hell would they be buying them off him when they are their property under contract ?
That could also mean he set a per piece price of 35 each at 50 pieces. Pretty simple "I'm gonna cut you a deal on these at 55 a piece if you order 20, or 35 a piece if you order 50". Hell, Russrep is doing the very same thing. He knows how much his flash hiders will go for, but he is telling us a per piece price.
 
Lies! Lies! No one would do that! No one would be so hypocritical as to do the exact same thing as Andrew, claim to have made more than a quarter million off unlicensed Star Wars products and then turn on Andrew and tell LFL what they wanted to hear just so they could get special treatment from LFL and satisfy their own vengeful appetite. And if someone did, surely the prop community wouldn't continue to praise and revere such a person would they? Surely not... You MUST be mistaken Jez. Things like that just don't happen around here... :unsure

Youre right Art - that just wouldnt happen here :lol:lol:lol

Cheers

Jez
 
Its like anytime you bring in some cad files and have a guy manufacture a product for you. You pay per unit so that's not unusual at all.

Not exactly no if i took a design to a company to manufacture that design would be protected and remain mine unless i was very stupid and didn't protect it before handing a design over.
If i went to a manufacturer and contracted them to design and manufacture a product, unless there was a written agreement/contract that the design they create will become my property then they retain ownership of the design.
 
Not exactly no if i took a design to a company to manufacture that design would be protected and remain mine unless i was very stupid and didn't protect it before handing a design over.
If i went to a manufacturer and contracted them to design and manufacture a product, unless there was a written agreement/contract that the design they create will become my property then they retain ownership of the design.
Therein lies the rub. The design was not his. His job was manufacture, plain and simple.
 
Some interesting news stories from today, including a report at close....

A short time ago, in a galaxy not too far away, Star Wars studio Lucasfilm won their case for copyright infringement against a small British design studio for the sale of replica stormtrooper helmets and uniforms.

Today, they take their fight to the High Court to try to enforce that judgement in the UK and settle once and for all the 'Saga of the Star Wars Stormtroopers Copyright'.

Back in 1976, Shepperton Design Studios produced the original stormtrooper helmets for the first film. At the time, Star Wars was a relatively low-budget, low-tech, high-risk venture into the unpopular genre of Sci-Fi and George Lucas was a young, unknown director.

With no formal contract, it will be for the courts to decide where the division of copyright lies. Intellectual property rights lawyer Robert Lands told Sky News Online: "The default position is that if there is no written contract, the person who created the work owns the rights, so that would be Shepperton. "But the court could in certain circumstances imply that the contract is such that the rights belong to the company - to Lucasfilm.

"Lucas is saying that this is a copyright infringement because the stormtroopers were depicted originally by an artist, Ralph McQuarrie, who did a fantastic production painting, which was then given to Shepperton Studios to create the props.

"So Lucas is going to say the props are derived from the artistic work and they therefore infringe the artistic copyright, which belongs to Lucasfilm," Mr Lands said.

Shepperton are expected to argue that the costumes are covered by design rights law - where the protection ends after 10 years, and not artistic copyright - which lasts for the artist's lifetime, plus 70 years.

Furthermore, if they can prove that they added something significant to the final design - that they contributed meaningfully to the stormtrooper look - they could counter-sue for a share of the copyright, and a corresponding chunk of the £6bn merchandising mountain.

"It is amazing, back then, there wasn't something more specific put in place," explained film critic Wendy Lloyd.

"With hindsight, of course, we live now in such a litigious world that it's very hard to believe that all these things aren't absolutely clarified down to the finest detail.

"People these days are very savvy, in a way that they weren't 30 years ago."

And so the case of Lucasfilm Ltd v Shepperton Design Studios will be heard by the High Court's Chancery Division. The two sides will march their respective private armies of Imperial Stormtroopers and Rebel Fighters into court and before the judge. The dusty benches of the Royal Courts have witnessed many things - cases both spectacular and scandalous - but they will never have seen anything like this.


Life-Sized Stormtrooper Appears In Court
Updated:17:51, Tuesday April 08, 2008


A Star Wars Stormtrooper has come face to face with a High Court judge in a multi-million pound battle over the rights to the costumes used in the films. George Lucas, the creator of the sci-fi series, is suing prop designer Andrew Ainsworth, who made the first helmets and suits for the original 1977 film.

He is now selling replicas made at his studio in Twickenham, south west London. As well as the Stormtrooper, a life-size model of an imperial fighter pilot, the head of a Tuscan raider and numerous helmets and body parts were brought into the court.

Michael Bloch QC, representing Lucasfilm, told Mr Justice Mann: "The gentlemen sitting in front of me and around me, who are known throughout the world, are the subject matter of the entire case." The judge, looking at the white armour of the Stormtrooper in front of him, asked: "Will they be there for the entire case?" The barrister replied that there would be "no rustling of papers or use of telephones" from them, and that they would be staying for the time being.

Mr Bloch continued: "As far as we know they are half human and half non-human and are known as Stormtroopers. What we are dealing with are characters of the imagination." He claimed they evolved through teamwork and the original ideas from George Lucas who got Ralph McQuarrie to draw pictures of his vision.

Prop designer Mr. Ainsworth was sent some of these pictures to create the helmets and was paid £35 each for 50 helmets for the original 1977 film, the court heard. It was not until 2004 when he found one of the original helmets in a cupboard at his home that he sold it to a collector .

He then began manufacturing Stormtrooper outfits and selling them through his company Shepperton Design Studios to Star Wars fans for up to £1,800 each. Mr. Ainsworth claims that the copyright has expired because they were pieces of industrial design rather than works of art.

Three Academy award winning designers who have worked on the Star Wars films are due to give evidence in court over the next ten days. Lucasfilm has already successfully sued Mr Ainsworth for £10 million for copyright infringement in a case brought in California.


Cheers

Jez
 
The barrister replied that there would be "no rustling of papers or use of telephones" from them, and that they would be staying for the time being.

Damn but I love UK trials, they have a much more drool humor to them than ours! :lol
 
This thread is more than 14 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top