BingoBongo_275

Actually Seth that isnt correct. Though LFL would argue they own the copyright on the Stormtrooper itself, the photograph copyright exists with the person who took the photo. i.e if I took a photo of Britney climbing out of a car I own the photograph copyright and get the cash for the pic if its distributed Cheers Jez

Interesting topic, here are my thoughts - nothing you wouldn’t expect History 1976. Everthings scheduled to be made in fiberglass, however with time and money running out after work concentrates on 3PO and Vader, some costumes are subbed out to Nick Pemberton (local known artist) starting with the stormtrooper helmet (clay moulds for armour already made) Nick Pemberton goes to Andrew Ainsworth (who's only a few DOORS down from him on “The Green” in Twickenham) who has a small factory designing and producing thermoplastic sports products, canoe helmets and other vac-formed stuff for the garden (like ponds). Pemberton gets him involved. AA gets non-committal "opportunity" to produce helmets. No contract. If he cocks it up then he doesnt get paid, hence he used whatever he has lying around the place (khaki Green HDPE used for the ponds), its very flexible and comes easily off the undercut of the moulds. They tried ABS but as Gino has said, it doesnt flex as well and they just cant get as good undercut unless theyre prepared to throw more away. Lack of time and the fact that theyre not paid for failures, results in the easy option of the HDPE, painted by AA using his car spray gear (powered from the same compressor as his VM machine) – remember he was a mad “kit car” man and produced parts for them too. My guess would therefore be automotive paint. Not sure who came up with the “Stunt” and “Hero” names, AA always referred to them as “Close-up” and “Background” helmets, and IIRC that’s how they were invoiced. New HDPE Helmet It looks nice, however as I’ve demonstrated it’s the wrong colour. Presumably people want to make a helmet up, paint it and then knock it about so the paint flecks off. Problem is that when it does, the wrong colour will be showing through and I don’t see the point to that! Trooper Master’s done a nice HDPE helmet is a more-accurate coloutr. I’d like to see that painted up and then the crap kicked out of it. The problem with finding the correct shade of HDPE is that in reality, its going to be a bespoke run by the plastics makers, and they wont produce less than a ton – hence its not realistic for a fan-made product. Over at Rebelscum, Jumpin Jax has been shilling the new helmet for Matt, also claiming that the original ears were Styrene, not ABS to try and further justify its accuracy. No proof, just “Matt says”. Playground stuff. “Rights” to Production Hmm, this is a grey area. Essentially I understand people believe that they have some “prop rights” to reproduce screen used items they themselves have had access to. Without this we simply wouldn’t have a hobby. I therefore can see how Matt might have once had some “rights” to reproduce TK helmets, given he bought one and recast it. HOWEVER I can never agree that Matt can on-sell his "rights" to whomever he chooses – and yet this is something he has done again and again and again. Basically his modus operandi is 1) He says “I’m quitting – going for good” 2) He sells his moulds for a significant sum, with “rights” for the buyer to reproduce 3) He waits a bit – then bitches about the new maker/deal/etc 4) He starts producing again and we go back to (1), again and again Since quitting for the “very last time” it now appears he has gone TWO runs, the Fiberglass and now the HDPE. I am not surprised if the people who bought his moulds are more than a little annoyed!! As far as whether Gino has more or less rights to make helmets than certain other people (say Meatsock), I would probably agree. However I think it’s a massive grey area and anyone manufacturing and also trying to police the hobby is clearly opening themselves up to suggestions of hypocrisy. That’s not a criticism – just an observation. I’d also add a few of names to that list of people who have “rights” to make helmets and armour, including AA, MR, TrooperMaster, Oakley etc. Also the guy who bought Matt’s moulds last time probably paid good money for them – so would feel he has as much “right” as anyone else. Apologies for rambling, carry on Cheers Jez

Its something thats been focusing my thought over whether to go PS3 or XBox 360 (The PS3 price in the UK is just crazy) However it sounds like the games been delayed till Spring 08 so I guess Ive got a bit more time to think about it Cheers Jez

Thats cool. You really shoud write to them and tell them its you. The least they could do is send you some free stuff Cheers Jez

Just saw a link to this over at the Prop Den - thanks CSMacLaren Looking at the new Force Unleased pics released, the Stormtrooper helmets are not only superb - they also show the paint peeling off the back revealing the khaki hdpe - Now thats detail! Cheers Jez

This is all I have. Mollo was keen to do a book and stuff like this he wanted to keep to himself, understandaby. Jote that like I said before this was done in 1978, after SW. I suppose its possible Liz Moore could have done a clay prototype Stormtrooper armour sculpt at the same time as she did the 3po, although its strange that Muir was so adamant that she didnt (and that he had to finish off the 3po after she quit the project). The legal case at the moment is bound to centre on how much Ainsworth did and how "his" version of the armour varies from Muir's clay version. The thing that bothers me is we've all seen lots of pics of Liz's 3po in producton, but never EVER any of the stormtrooper. Thats the bit I find very odd. Cheers Jez

Excellent word ID'ing them Braks Cheers Jez

Thats very interesting, Braks - did the book say when the articles were written - i.e. were they written recently or at the time? The reason I say this is Ive heard it from a couple of sources (including the man himself) that Brian Muir sculpted the original stormtrooper costume, although not the helmet. When asked whether Liz did a helmet or some kind of prototype (which I personally wondered) the answer was a clear "no". I'm trying to keep an open mind on this but i cant help but wonder if this is rather convenient for LFL that it fits in with their claims in the UK SDS court case, yet was not mentioned in the preceeding US case. Mollo confirmed the suspenders and the latex hand plates to me a couple of years back and I think I added that info to SWH, but some interesting points nonetheless. There's a drawing by Mollo I mentioned here of a suit assembly showing the suspenders in place, done in 1978 I think. Cheers Jez

Just a minor point - Note that the "super high" brow on "Move Along" was not trimming - it was just wedged in that position (or gaffer taped on the inside) As demonstrated by my assistant... Cheers Jez

Gino, Good post - thanks for the comments which I take in the spirit in which they were given. I agree with much of what you have said, with the following sticking out …and my response to that is “I will if you will!!” So when you say "original molds...from a certain point of view", I think this is the crux of the matter and something I’ve discussed for a long time with mutual friends. The reality is in my mind that what Ainsworth considers to be “original” may not be the same as others. I think the key thing is that the moulds are original, its just there in a significantly different state than they were in 1976, and you rightly point out that the error in the marketing of SDS is that this was never made clear – irrespective of the motivation behind that. Regarding the moulds themselves, there are a few things I disagree with you on – but that’s fine! I question there are any major differences between the “Stunt” and Hero” face plates other than AA cleaned them up in ’76 after the stunt (removing the bump in the eye for example), in order to make the TIE and Hero faceplates. Therefore in my view to “undo” that was a minor operation – however I understand if people don’t see it as minor as perhaps I do. Teeth – a long time ago I did quite a lot of work looking at the insides of AA’s new TIE helmet with an original I had access to. Unfortunately I never had them both at the same time as TIE was sold to Screenused.com a good 6 months before AA had started production on any helmets (and while on the subject can guarantee unequivocally that AA did NOT recast any part of that TIE – if he did then his mohawk would have been better). Anyway, when I spent a lot of time investigating I found that the internal characteristics of both the new and original TIE mouths were almost exactly the same. I’d certainly be interested in any evidence that might suggest that the face is difference and yes you are right that the thought that AA lied to me would hit me like a sledge hammer. However I would need to see something pretty clear to take that step. I don’t want to pre-empty what your info is but I am conscious that the difference in the materials used 1976-2005 makes a lot of difference to the finished product - a case in point being the “pinching” on the HDPE helmets most noticeable in the tears, that isn’t present in the ABS. So my view over the helmets was not based on his word alone, there was other information that backed up what he had said. One of the key things that ignited my interest was “if they’re not the original moulds – then what are they?”, and a failure to find a plausible answer to this also adds to my belief. With regard to the Armour, I have no idea what he told anyone else but he never lied to me over that – hence there was no sight of armour until after I ceased any involvement with him. In my view it was something that shouldn’t have been on his radar and I was surprised as anyone that he decided to make it. However I take the point that from other point of view, as soon as he was reported as making an untruthful claim about the armour – it totally undermined anything he had said prior to that. Dumb. Stupid. Crass. So in parting I appreciate your post and to go back to your earlier quote, I’m prepared to look outside the box if others are also. Anyway, times matching on and I’m off to see Ghost Rider with my son Cheers Jez Ps this is the longest post ever pps - TK 4510 - there's no doubt that AA made the original helmets for ANH, even LFL now seems to agree to that although they believe the original work was theirs (either based on the McQuarrie paintings or a clay sculpt). As far as the fire, we've all looked at that and chronologically it couldnt have destroyed the trooper moulds as the Hero's were done after March 26th - the date of the fire.

Defstartrooper - I dont know that for sure. However if the moulds/tools he's using are taken direct from the original then I suppose its open to interpretation. Were the MR RotS Vader helmets "from the original moulds" as they clearly werent DIRECT from them, same with the DOn Posts. IMO its a grey area. eifion, with respect your post contributes very little to the debate and is precisely what I was trying to avoid. Of all the SDS Stunt helmets Ive seen, sharpness was NOT the issue. I presume you have a stunt? Whether you think it value for money is another debate. I'm trying to understand what peoples views are regarding the moulds given the new pic above which shows the Hero helmets (and therefore the last to be made from the moulds in '76) to look a **** of a lot like an SDS Cheers Jez

No - I think he's using new production bucks off the original moulds - otherwise I dont think they would have survived this long.I dont know how many TK helmets he's made but its got to be > 400 Cheers Jez

I think any statement that AA made about damage is just wrong, and is a clear example of how inconsitancies liike this really havent helped his cause. The back/cap has the most severe undercut and is imo the most prone to damage during production in 76. In making the "prototype" helmets after star wars he used a different back section, although the same cap. I'm presuming he did this partly as the original back was so damaged (or just prone to damage) due to the undercut. However the undercut to the face has a complex undercut as well, so perhaps that was modified (maybe after damage) hence the undercuts not so pronounced now? Just an idea Cheers jez

Okay guys grab your popcorn! No really – can we try and have a discussion about this without it falling into the usual “helmet wars”? As most of you know I’ve ALWAYS thought the SDS Stormtrooper helmet is from the “original moulds” and many have disagreed – that’s cool However this pic posted by Rocko reignited my interest since it seem to show a number of the characteristics on the current SDS, namely the webbing under the tube and the dodgy ear. My belief is: a) AA created some moulds (or more specifically tools) in order to make a short run of helmets for a certain project. The chosen material was HDPE as it was cheap, available and flexible (making it easier to remove of thee moulds/tools) AA used the moulds for the Stunts and they became progressively worse due to: 1) The moulds were not intended for volume production, and they were being pushed in order to have the helmets ready on time 2) The undercut forced AA to remove the helmets fro the moulds while still hot, often having to cut them away-further damaging the moulds c) After the Stunts, AA switched to ABS for the TIE and Hero’s. This could have been up to a month later. By now (following the production of 60 helmets), the moulds were in a significantly worse state d) AA made the ABS Hero’s and ABS TIES using the reworked moulds/tools. The difference in material (and it significantly reduced flexibility compared to HDPE) made removal of the undercut areas extremely difficult causing more and greater damage to the moulds. Even though only 6 Hero’s were made, these were charged to the studio at a higher rate as “close-up helmets” so I believe more were thrown away than made. Ear moulds remade/significantly rebuilt. e) Moulds go away for 30 years in a shed somewhere. Brought out in 2002/03. Damage either left from 1976 or accrued since then is repaired (in some cases not very well) f) Moulds/tools used for production of new helmets Now CLEARLY there are significant differences between the back cap of the new SDS with the originals, however IMO the cap itself has an exact match of the curvature which suggests to me its original. I can only deduce that the rear section was so far damaged that had to be rebuilt hence it now looks different. IMO the face is original and having spent a lot of time analysing the inside of the SDS TIE face with an original I once had access to, I am sure of this as the tells are all there. To be honest I don’t think AA is as good or conscientious worker to have replicated all the inside unseen details in a reproduction. So there we go. That’s how I see it. I welcome open debate. Anyone posting sly remarks or point-scoring quips is welcome to do so but will only reveal themselves as an ***! Over to you… Cheers Jez

Excellent post Guns, I applaud your openness and generosity of spirit Youre absolutely correct that all the original helmets are different, therefore a mould taken from one specific helmet is going to reflect the characteristics of its “father” to a greater extent. However, like you say all the casts from that helmet will also vary slightly Keep up the good work Cheers Jez

Seth I totally agree with your post. There is no doubt in my mind that AA has made a number of mistakes, whether by accident or design (or most probably bravado). I take some responsibility for the over-hyping of the original Stunt helmet, which clearly was not as accurate as all the excitement suggested. I apologise for that. The key problem was that there was clearly (at best) significant damage to the mould and AA should have been more forthcoming about that, rather than suggest everything was "as it was in 1976". At the end of the day I still believe its from the original moulds and therefore is still the closest in my view to an original helmet, fettled tumblehome or not! With regard to the armour, if he did say it was from his original moulds then thats just crazy. He certainly never said it to me, but I understand he said it to others. Like I said, crazy. Bottom line is in my view Andrew Ainsworth was instrumental in the design and implementation of “characters” that many of us have loved since childhood, Stormtroopers, Imperial Gunners, TIE Pilots, Fleet Troopers, DS Guards, Rebel pilots etc etc. yet was paid a derisory fee for his work. If he does get some backdated recompence for that then imo good luck to him! Cheers Jez

My understanding is he has a very strong case. As far as how it will be resolved, my personal opinion is that they’ll come to a deal where the case is dropped with both sides claiming a “victory”. AA receives an amount of cash in turn for him ceasing production and signing over whatever IP rights he believes he has. LFL is able to resolve a problem that should have been sorted out years ago and also receives a few moulds into its archive. One year later Master Replicas releases the “Andrew Ainsworth Signature Edition” ANH Helmet, with tumblehome well and truly fettled Cheers Jez

Sorry Seth Either that or they can BOTH send ME the helmets and I'll take the pics Cheers Jez

Yes - thats the point. Copyright in the UK HAS GOT to be agreed in writing so LFL I presume will need to argue that AA did his work, based off theirs. Marc - IF LFL Wins & AA Loses - AA will be personally responsible for whatever the judge decides the value of the claim is. Anything up to $20m is possible but certainly enough to strip him of everything he has. In addition AA would have to pay LFL's legal fees which could be another million. IF LFL Loses & AA Wins - It means that LFL has not paid AA for using HIS copyright designs since 1977, i.e. they could be forced to reward him for every new movie since ANH, toy, game or collectable that featured Stormtroopers, Rebel Pilots, Fleet Troopers Death Star Gunners etc. etc. Since LFL has quantified the value of his "copyright infringement" at $20m this at least gives the court something to start with. Because both sides have so much to lose, these things normally end up being settled out of court, with the side in the more advantageous position taking funds off the other Cheers Jez

Are you suggesting that Paul should buy one of Gino's helmets to prove his is not a recast ? Cheers Jez

Agreed, although the emphasis is on LFL. AA can prove that "his" sculpts exist, as they are on film (and no one is disputing that he fabricated them). LFL therefore has to prove that AA made them FROM from their 3D designs (so they will need to show proof, the pre-moulds or photos of them), OR that he sculpted under an LFL contract (again in writing) If they have this evidence then they havn't showed it thus far, either in the US or so far in the UK case. Cheers Jez

Marc, No I don’t think thats what its saying. From what I understand the following is the crux of the matter.... AA still owns the copyright on the 3D helmets/armour he produced, unless a) LFL can prove (in writing) that he was under contract (or passed copyright to them) LFL can prove to the court that AA didn’t actually "create" anything himself, but merely fabricated in plastic 3D designs that were given to him by LFL (or someone working for LFL under contract) i.e. IF AA sculpted the helmets etc. then irrespective of whether 2D designs already existed (the McQuarrie paintings), he still owns copyright UNLESS LFL can show a document assigning copyright with his signature at the end of it. Cheers Jez

This is an update I received from an email from AA this morning. I hope this does'nt turn into a battle between us (MEPD). I have'nt put this up to stir it, I have done it as an update. Given what AA is saying he appears to have serious financial backing on this case, as I just cant believe he would have the funds to fight a civil case like this. Since this could end up at the Old Bailey I'd expect costs to be >£1m given recent IPR cases (Procul Harum, Da Vinci Code etc.) Any partners would clearly be interested in the use of "his" IPR by LFL in all the movies, toys and games since ANH, the value of which would be millions. I've just found the following article in a Law Society Journal which makes interesting reading... However matters are not that simple. Shepperton Studios produced some of the first helmets and body armours for the original Star Wars films back in the 1970s. Mr Ainsworth of Shepperton Studios claims he did not have a contract with George Lucas governing production of the costumes and that he has never surrendered his rights over the designs. Further, this is no attack of the clones as he is continuing to use the original moulds. On the other hand Lucasfilms alleges such claims are misleading and that Shepperton has no rights in the designs. It claims that as Shepperton is not entitled to recreate the costumes, this constitutes copyright infringement. Copyright in the UK is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Under these provisions copyright will attach to the author of any original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. The original designs of the Stormtrooper costumes may well be protected as an artistic work under this regime. Such copyright protection is not limited to two-dimensional drawings and has extended to items as diverse as jewellery and toys. Previously the costumes and prostheses for the film Frankenstein have gained the protection of copyright. If copyright protection is established for the Stormtroopers costumes it entitles the author to the sole right to copy the work for a period of 70 years. Any unauthorised copying by inference amounts to infringement. Matters consequently turn on establishing who the author is. In most cases the author of the work is the creator, who automatically obtains copyright protection. However an exception to this principle is where the work was created in the course of the author's employment. Such an exception could only be invoked here if Mr Ainsworth was an employee of George Lucas. In this case it appears that while Shepperton Studios were hired to create the helmets, Mr Ainsworth was not an actual employee. Much will depend on whether there was an actual written contract and in the absence of this what was verbally agreed between parties. These are all matters of fact which would need to be established by a court. Given the tight control Lucasfilms now exerts over its intellectual property rights, such a potential loophole would never transpire today. Indeed all businesses should ensure that they have contracts in place to govern the supply of services by direct employees or other companies providing a service. This is particularly critical where it involves the design of a new product or service and authorship issues may arise. Cheers Jez

Gino, its not Paul's responsibility to prove his innocence. Its yours to prove his guilt, and back up your allegation with some kind of evidence So rather than throw accusations around either substantiate your claims, or back down and apologise Cheers Jez

Gotta get me that! Out same day in UK Cheers Jez