Copyright...

[61ButteMT]

I used to spend (waste) my time trying to convince people online about why music/movie piracy was bad. Had to give up. It's sad Patt. Nobody today gives a dang.

[Chewbacca Jones]

PS: The Mexican jacket maker above even said he would not do it.

So, who is he, and how can I buy from this honest man?

Seriously, though... talk about looking for trouble. Half a wit is a dangerous thing.

[Mr_Vader]

I've been following that thread, some people just need a soapbox to stand on, you can tell in the pointless rants and justifications. An artist creates work, that work is theirs, any duplication should require specific permission, the end.

Funny that the tone over there, especially considering the community feelings on re-casters, is so forgiving of the idea of duplicating those jackets.

[Kevin Anderson]

But...what about what Magnoli does? And Wested? And Todd? And TNO? Do we all suddenly have a problem with them now?
So, it's alright for some, or does it depend on the jacket design in question?
You have (or had?) a Wolverine Jacket from Magnoli, _! That's not his design! Why is that ok??
Although, is it a 'no reverse engineering' sort of thing'? Meaning they can copy it, but not pull it to pieces to see how it 'works', so to speak?
That I can sort of understand, but it's pretty hard to prove if a maker did that.

[Adventure Dog]

My gut tells me that's its okay when Magnoli, or Todd, or Logan's Closet do it because they're not "dissecting" a jacket like the RPF people want to. It's one thing if a jacket is replicated stitch for stitch like they want to and another if a jacket is replicated by appearance. If I recall, Magnoli's handwarmer pockets on the jacket are different from Wested's. The Yoke placement on the Todd's jacket is very specific.

I don't know, I'm sure someone else can explain it better than I can. Maybe it's just 'cause I like Todd and Magnoli.

[Kevin Anderson]

Yep, I think you're right Adventure Dog.
In hindsight, and after reading through _'s first post again (properly this time), I reckon it is just that;
'Eyeballing' a jacket to match a design is probably ok (it must be, everyone does it!), but to 'dissect' one for
the express purpose of making an exact match would be considered a no-no.
I'm not suprised the guy from Heron said no.
I've seen some of their stuff on Filmjackets, and it is good.

[CRB]

Sounds like a pretty thin line to me. I don't really understand what the difference is with all Magnoli, Wested, Dan/Logans etc designs and taken something apart. Sounds like the same thing. I thought there was only problems when people then went and stuck a "Belstaff" or "Boss" (fake) label on it passing it off as a real one. All the others are "replicas" and accepted, even by Ebay.

[Hollowpond]

Didn't TNO copy the Raiders jacket pretty much stitch for stitch? I know that they copied a Californian for the surrogates jacket. And did we ever find out where Wested got that new Hero pattern? Or where Wings Legend pattern came from? While it is slimy, I think its just a part of the jacket repro business...

Oh, and like _, I will vouch for Heron. They did not solicit a jacket being sent them and only expressed an interest in recreating what is seen on screen not the actual garment offered from OLF (yes there is a difference...although I do not understand why its OK to do one but not the other).

[FLATHEAD]

What about Gibson and Barnes (Flight Suits) and the jacket _ says he gave them to copy
years ago?

Aren't their patterns for their Expedition supposed to be a "stitich for stitch" repro of an original
Indy jacket?. Its been said that the jacket given to Flight Suits was for the intention of taking
it apart, and making an exact copy. At least that is what is written in the older posts about it.

What's the difference between that and this case in the eyes of the law? I don't know the law, and
I am just asking.

Here is a direct quote from the Flight Suits website about the Expedition:

"The Expedition is a precise replica of a jacket you’ve seen in a popular film. We found an original in Hollywood
and duplicated every detail including the pattern, and hardware."

Was permission given to Flight Suits to make exact copies of the original Indy jacket by its creator?
Is that why it was/could be done?


Flathead

[Michaelson]

Re-read what _ said.

He said each company has patents on production methods on what they make.

In the case of G&B, they used _'s specs he took FROM a screen used Wested jacket, then they re-created it using those specs, changing the production pattern to make it unique to their company. They did not tear a Wested jacket apart then duplicate the pattern. They took notes off paper and created the Expedition using their production methods unique to G&B jackets.

The difference between the G&B and Wested is as different as night and day, but faithful to the original in appearance of hardware etc.

The writeup is more 'creative license' than anything else. It's faithful to the original, but with changes specific to the G&B jacket line.

Regards! Michaelson

[Long John Tinfoil]

I may be mistaken, but I think that the owner of the "intellectual property" represented in that jacket had given permission for that examination. The jacket being studied remained in one piece, so any patterns taken would have to include a "fudge-factor" for the interior of seams, etc., and that still doesn't go to the "processes and production methods" of the original maker.

LJ

[Long John Tinfoil]

Michaelson - fastest typing fingers in the East!

LJ

[Michaelson]

[Michaelson]

For those who are only on their first cup of coffee, 'IP' stands for 'intellectual property'.

Regards! Michaelson

[rick5150]

I am very interested in this topic for different reasons than most. We have a horse in this particular race as we are the only company that sells the X-3 jacket in question from the original manufacturer. While process copyright may enter into this it is very unlikely. That would mean that a manufacturer or their designated party would have to obtain each of the replicas out there (or at least one of them), then dissect them to compare them for similarities. Changing the way an inside seam (hidden by the lining) is sewn to avoid copyright issues is just like saying that the size is different so it cannot be a copyright violation. For legal action, I would look into intent... beyond that, watch for blatant logo, studio, trademark or character infringements.

[rick5150]

For clarification, Tony is a decent guy. It was not Tony who wanted to do that, but comonbub.

[61ButteMT]

Great cerebral thread! One created by ethics and lawyers and thieves.
(not you Patt )
However, they always end the same. No conclusion. If you're a morally-guided human, you kinda know what's right. There often is a fine line. But many times, it's painfully obvious when a leach is stealing and justifying it. Probably the third oldest career. gents. More coffee now!

[rick5150]

That's cool. You are entitled to that. And you are absolutely right about the feeling of ownership - I feel it myself when we design a jacket based from screenshots. I am not going to argue about who is right and who is wrong when copying jackets - we all have differing opinions of that. Besides, I would expect that some of my arguments would be taken as being somewhat hypocritical by certain people here as well, and I do not want to go down that road today.

There is an ethical line that most third party vendors walk between making a replica and making a counterfeit and that is what I meant by intent, earlier. Of course, I really appreciate your stance, since it is somewhat protective of the site's (and Milos') interests, but I personally cannot argue for either side, as I have obvious interests in this field.

I will say that it really bothers me that the person trying to market this jacket to Heron wanted payment in cash or goods in return for supplying the jacket. The fact that he blatantly discussed this on the only site authorized to distribute the jacket is somewhat disrespectful as well. But that is my problem. I will shut up about that aspect as I am truly interested in hearing members comments here.

In fact, I think that this is an interesting thread and I will probably keep (mostly) quiet so I do not risk having it shut down. There are some very intelligent people here who will give some great insight to this topic.

[FLATHEAD]

Good points. Point of clarification? Nobody gave G&B a jacket to take apart. What I provided were detailed measurements of the exterior and then only of details like the side straps, patch pockets, storm flap, etc. Nobody took apart a jacket. G&B had to then use what I had and build a jacket around it. They built a jacket using their skills in doing it. We had lengthy discussions about underlying construction – not asking how the original was built, because I did not know. Those discussions related to wearability and quality. We actively avoided methods that they guessed were actually used in order to make a jacket they could stand by.

I remember those old posts when you gave them the specs of the jacket you had in your hands.

I guess I am going by what is actually written on the Flight Suits website. Perhaps they should change
what they have written down about the jacket. It implies that they actually had the jacket in their
hands, and took it apart to copy it, or as they say "duplicated every detail including the pattern, and hardware."

Thanks for the clarificataion.

Flathead

[Oildale Jones]

...lawyers and thieves...

But you repeat yourself... (Not fond of lawyers at the moment. Sorry if you is one.)

This is probably not the place for this, but it's been bugging me for days and it came up in the thread:

The on-screen Raiders jackets have buckles on the adjustment straps. (I read about their originally having D-rings, which were replaced with buckles.) Several of the replica jackets are advertised to be "precise replicas" of the screen-used jackets. So why do these "precise replicas" have D-rings or anything other than buckles?

[Michaelson]

Back in 2008, _ supplied the following response to that very question:

The Raiders jackets were received with d-rings. Sue Wain replaced them with rectangular metal sliders. These are what G&B uses and what Todd's uses.

So, either way you go would be correct in that case.

Regards! Michaelson

[Oildale Jones]

Back in 2008, _ supplied the following response to that very question:

The Raiders jackets were received with d-rings. Sue Wain replaced them with rectangular metal sliders. These are what G&B uses and what Todd's uses.

So, either way you go would be correct in that case.

Regards! Michaelson

Not if they're supposed to be replicas of screen-used jackets. (End threadjack. If this is still bugging me after the weekend, I'll start a new thread. And/or get a life.)

[Michaelson]

It was said the stunt jackets kept the d-rings, where the 'hero' jackets did not. Therefore, they were both used 'on screen'.

That help?

Regards! Michaelson

[Long John Tinfoil]

And waaaay back in the day it was a ski-lift.

LJ

[St. Dumas]

Although the written description of a process can be the subject of copyright in the US, the jacket made from that process is not protected by the copyright.

A copyright can be registered for the expression of a system or a method of operation, but the copyright only extends to the expression of it, not the system or method of operation itself. In other words, reverse-engineering and copying a jacket that carries a registered copyright for its "blueprint" would not amount to a breach of copyright. Conversely, photocopying the "blueprint" of the original jacket, would. If it can't be reduced to writing, its not protected by copyright.

Under the current Copyright Act, a jacket would be protected only if and to the extent that its design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the jacket. In other words, it's protected if its "art" aspect can be separated from its "utilitarian clothing" aspect.

There are proponents of extending copyright protection to fashion designs, but currently there are no proposed amendments on the table.

[St. Dumas]

I wasn't correcting you, _. Just setting out the current copyright law as it relates to fashion designs. There are designers pushing for it.

[hovitos loincloth]

"But the tussle last year over Wested claiming to have made the three layer jackets when they were designer jackets? But then it's the UK. if you can still make stormtrooper gear without recourse?"


But in the US a well known Raiders prop can be recast and members on the RPF and this board will happily purchase it despite a stern "no recasting" warning at both sites.....Recast or pulled apart and copied. Is there any real difference?

[St. Dumas]

I believe that would be a licensing violation. The official prop-maker has exclusive legal right to make and sell that prop.

[Curator Rick]

Sure makes one's head spin and stomach turn! bottom line is in today's culture many folks can find a way of justifying their actions when there is a personal gain to be had regardless of who it hurts. Working in the museum field I actually run into this type of thing constantly. You'd be surprised how often in my 35 years as a museum curator/exhibit builder people from other institutions have come in and copied or plagiarized my descriptive writings word-for-word and displays to the "inth" degree. Many have justified their actions by the fact it is for "educational purposes" or that they paid to view it.
While imitation is a form of flattery (or sometimes lack of imagination ) dissecting something to copy it down to the stitch without permission is just plain forgery. Just my personal thoughts on the subject.

[CM]

Sure makes one's head spin and stomach turn! bottom line is in today's culture many folks can find a way of justifying their actions when there is a personal gain to be had regardless of who it hurts. Working in the museum field I actually run into this type of thing constantly. You'd be surprised how often in my 35 years as a museum curator/exhibit builder people from other institutions have come in and copied or plagiarized my descriptive writings word-for-word and displays to the "inth" degree. Many have justified their actions by the fact it is for "educational purposes" or that they paid to view it.
While imitation is a form of flattery (or sometimes lack of imagination ) dissecting something to copy it down to the stitch without permission is just plain forgery. Just my personal thoughts on the subject.

Well, in most forms of capitalism how things are done doesn't matter as long as a profit results and no one sues.

[Rundquist]

You mean having Señor Spielbergo direct my new Indiana Jones script is not a good idea? "F" you guys then.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWxcnl8PL_o

"You left out pleasant".

[Rundquist]

I've got a great lawyer in case I run into any trouble with my movie.

Jackie Chiles

[Puppetboy]

But in the US a well known Raiders prop can be recast and members on the RPF and this board will happily purchase it despite a stern "no recasting" warning at both sites.....Recast or pulled apart and copied. Is there any real difference?

I believe the owner of the original molds/copies would be the studio? The studio has authority to license a replica product (or do they only license the NAME to be used on the product?)

Does the age of a piece muddy the "recasting" sentiment? For instance, a star wars hand prop that some shop guy cranked out fast from on-hand parts - he doesn't own the prop, does he? In most cases, the craftsman in question isn't even known. The prop sort of falls into a "public domain" of historical artifacts to be bought and sold between collectors, and re-casts are viewed as copies of a historical piece. What's your opinion?

One man's trash is another man's treasure. The studio dumps it, and someone puts it on an auction block.

-Todd

[Michaelson]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-57353 ... l-trouble/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Timely article....

[Tennessee Smith]

Generally correct, but not so where Lucas is the IP owner... Howard the Duck too...

I would have thought Marvel comics owned that since they still use the character from time to time?

[backstagejack]

Forgive me, as I am unversed in law, etc.

I see a jacket on screen I like. I buy a jacket from that person in order to look at it, measure it etc. Then I start producing my own jackets.

Itsn't that when ALL our vendors have done?

Sure, the Magnoli Raiders isn't verbatim the Wested Raidrs but ALL the people that produce these jackets state "measurements taken from the original, etc, etc" Jacket, pants, hat, etc, etc.
So, not only are we stealing the design/look of the jacket we're taking the actual measurements, cloth, leather, etc.
The Artist that designe3d the jacket. "Im going to make a leather bomber jacket but without the elastic cuffs and waist", etc.....made the design that we all crave for. And we have people that make livings off of making THOSE jackets. They didn't create that design. They copied it.

Indygear is dedicated to replicating someones intellectual design of Indy's outfit. If we can't find the original creators, etc we find others. Those people constantly state "I've studied the original, etc, etc"

Construction? Are you telling me, if one of the vendors had been given an original they wouldn't have attempted to "reconstruct"/reengineeer it??

We'd steal the intellectual design but not the physical and its okay?

Isn't the intellectual/artistic design more important?

I make an indy jacket in the exact same pattern as the original but I use BETTER construction methods, do I get sued for being better than the original?

And vice versa, if I use the intellectual design but subpar methods and for a bad jacket do I get sued?

People have been taking other peoples inventions, dissecting them and making them their own or imporinv them for hundreds of years....we all stand on the shoulders of others.

and to be fair, we only get away with indygear because all his gear is something that can be worn individually and not necessarily be Indy. If this site was "Stormtroopergear" we'd ALL have a harder time justifying our gear to George Lucas and our multiple vendors.

Agasin, U'm new to all this "copywrigfht" stuff and may be way off base.

[Michaelson]

I make an indy jacket in the exact same pattern as the original but I use BETTER construction methods, do I get sued for being better than the original?

The answer is 'yes', if you CALL it an 'Indiana Jones' jacket without license/permission of LFL.

If you pay close attention to the description of most of the vendors, unless they have the blessing or direct license of LFL, they don't CALL their jackets an 'Indy' or 'Indiana Jones' jacket. They're called 'adventurers' jackets, 'just like one seen in a popular adventure movie'. The reader connects the dots.

Regards! Michaelson

[Indiana Jeff]

Forgive me, as I am unversed in law, etc.

I see a jacket on screen I like. I buy a jacket from that person in order to look at it, measure it etc. Then I start producing my own jackets.

Itsn't that when ALL our vendors have done?

Sure, the Magnoli Raiders isn't verbatim the Wested Raidrs but ALL the people that produce these jackets state "measurements taken from the original, etc, etc" Jacket, pants, hat, etc, etc.
So, not only are we stealing the design/look of the jacket we're taking the actual measurements, cloth, leather, etc.
The Artist that designe3d the jacket. "Im going to make a leather bomber jacket but without the elastic cuffs and waist", etc.....made the design that we all crave for. And we have people that make livings off of making THOSE jackets. They didn't create that design. They copied it.

Indygear is dedicated to replicating someones intellectual design of Indy's outfit. If we can't find the original creators, etc we find others. Those people constantly state "I've studied the original, etc, etc"

Construction? Are you telling me, if one of the vendors had been given an original they wouldn't have attempted to "reconstruct"/reengineeer it??

We'd steal the intellectual design but not the physical and its okay?

Isn't the intellectual/artistic design more important?

I make an indy jacket in the exact same pattern as the original but I use BETTER construction methods, do I get sued for being better than the original?

And vice versa, if I use the intellectual design but subpar methods and for a bad jacket do I get sued?

People have been taking other peoples inventions, dissecting them and making them their own or imporinv them for hundreds of years....we all stand on the shoulders of others.

and to be fair, we only get away with indygear because all his gear is something that can be worn individually and not necessarily be Indy. If this site was "Stormtroopergear" we'd ALL have a harder time justifying our gear to George Lucas and our multiple vendors.

Agasin, U'm new to all this "copywrigfht" stuff and may be way off base.

I might be stepping on a land mine, but the way I read backstagejack's comment/question reminded me of the work done in development of the Expedition. _ was given access to a stunt jacket, took detailed notes and worked with G&B to create reproductions. G&B didn't pull the jacket apart to make a stitch for stitch duplicate, but it seems like a fairly fine line. Granted G&B made certain internal changes to in fact improve the jacket, but the outside appearance is the same as the original. I think TNO's case is different in that LFL directly gave access to Tony to measure the jacket with the intention of him being able to produce copies.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff