Club Obi Wan

its funny but here we have hundreds of hairdressers called by the same name but not affiliated to each other...like "curl up and dye" etc etc.

why could you not name it nathan and bermans?

i'm a bit dubious about stating the company has been around since 18 something...whats with that...a complete fabrication.

if i was making a jacket based on westeds i would ask peter if he would object...in my experience in copying someone elses work that has always gone in my favour.

also remember wested filed a cease and desist to that seller/maker of a knock off jacket.

Michaelson wrote:Wested still owns the rights and patterns to this jacket. It was never turned over to Lucasfilm. The Expedition was created as an exact copy of the stunt jacket in a private collection. I'm sure, though, if Peter had been a manufacturer on the State side of the big water, I'm sure it would have hit the fan when it was going on.

HIGH regards!

Michaelson

Peter told me, "if Flightsuits was a UK company, I would have sued them years ago."

why could you not name it nathan and bermans?

Why? Becuase IF someone still owns the rights to the name of that company, whether it is still around or not, they can sue you for using their company name without consent, a company which was named after two individuals who were well respected in the costuming, stage and film community. It's really not that hard to figure out.

The real question I'd have is WHY? Why would you want to name it after another company whether it is in operation or not? It just seems like such a bad and wasteful idea.

i'm a bit dubious about stating the company has been around since 18 something...whats with that...a complete fabrication.

What does that mean? I'm not following you.

Harrison_Davies wrote:its funny but here we have hundreds of hairdressers called by the same name but not affiliated to each other...like "curl up and dye" etc etc.

why could you not name it nathan and bermans?

It's called "passing off"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

In exactly the same way you cannot use trademarked or registered trade marked names you cannot trade under someone else's name, infringing their reputation or goodwill.

Everybody knows that "Curl up and Dye or The Victoria" are generic trade names and no specific association is inferred.

Nathan and Berman are now Angels and Bermans, or merely Angels and they are still very much in business. The recently rediscovered original Obi-Wan cloak was discovered in Angels warehouse.

I'm a little "disinclined" to use "Nathan and Burman's" because it was an actual company and I don't want to ruffle feathers unnecessarily. It might be more headache than it is worth, even if it is legal. And here's another point to ponder: I have had more than one scam artist pass off my replicas as actual screen-used props. That kills me when that happens and I try my best to stop it if I'm not too late. Making super-accurate replicas has a down side, too.

Ownership of the jacket: Peter should know that copyright law does not protect clothing design, no matter how "fanciful". Some of you lawyer types - am I wrong on this? I've done a lot of reading and I think it's pretty clear. We're nowhere near a character costume or logo or artwork that is separable from the clothing.

if he's as deeply involved in the creation and sales of Xena gear, he KNOWS he has to keep his 't's crossed and 'i's' dotted to keep on the good side of the owner of THAT franchise.

Yeah, I actually had Rob Tapert call me to buy a Xena chakram a few years ago. Funny, huh?

Using the same caution as on using the "Nathan and Burmans" label, at first I liked the idea of using ficticious dates on the label, like "est 1890" or something, but now that I think about it, it might seem deceptive to some who don't know that the label is just decoration.

As to the "why" of the jacket, it's simple.
1. Many customers find me who do not find Peter or FlightSuits, etc. I have an opportunity to sell a jacket if I have one to offer.
2. My leather will be different than others, as I have a different "ideal" in mind
3. I hope to beat the US offerings price-wise.
4. My jacket will be another alternative. Some will prefer it, some won't. That's fine. Some will prefer my price, some my leather, some my little details that differ from the other offerings... some my location, my customer service... the list goes on and on.

Time will tell!

Thanks, all!

Todd

well it looks like i opened a can of worms! I was just joking about calling it bermans and nathans because everyone was talking about screen accuracy. I think that if he doesnt want to put Todds Costumes and put TC INC. or something like that. No one will notice, or care, and its much better than putting some fake name.

In the photo outside the cave, please note the placement of the side strap. It goes in the middle of the pocket height.

I need one clarification. The side straps on your final model will face backwards or not?

You are right - I noted the side strap and that is my spec. As to the direction, they will face the same way as "standard" so that you can double them back through the buckle and have them come out pointing backwards. They will not be like my photo.

agent5 wrote:

why could you not name it nathan and bermans?

- Why would you want to name it after another company whether it is in operation or not? It just seems like such a bad and wasteful idea.

i'm a bit dubious about stating the company has been around since 18 something...whats with that...a complete fabrication.

What does that mean? I'm not following you.

i thought the company w
s berman and nathans not nathan and bermans...i was saying no harm switching it round...

someone was saying the company should read since 1847

Puppetboy wrote:Ownership of the jacket: Peter should know that copyright law does not protect clothing design, no matter how "fanciful". Some of you lawyer types - am I wrong on this? I've done a lot of reading and I think it's pretty clear. We're nowhere near a character costume or logo or artwork that is separable from the clothing.

Todd

From what I've been involved in, if it can be proven that the design is original, and provenance shown as to who created the item first....then the answer is 'Yes', it DOES protect the rights of the originator of an item. This is true by U.S. AND International copyright law standards.

At least that's what has been discussed and decided in Federal courts located here in Tennessee, and what they have said when it came to disputes regarding these rights involving the University of Tennessee.

Regards! Michaelson

So essentially, if he doesn't call the jacket Berman's and Nathan's (which he never said he would) he's good to go? Michaelson, does Peter have a copyright on the jacket patterns?

Best Regards,

Dr. J

Not to get off topic, afterall this thread is for PuppetBoy's new item.

But, I can't but think of Agent-5's statement about how Wested is the original maker + has the "original patterns." I beieve that he is half right. Yes they are the original makers, ect. However, it's obvious that Wested doesn't have all of the original patterns as Peter claims on the Indygear main site when he says, "I still have the original patterns that date back to 1980," ect...Thats why we had to help him with a lot of the details over the past few years in getting "screen-accuracy" back into his jackets from pre mod to post mod. When I bought a pre-mod jacket a few years back, I read his description (still exists today on the Indy gear main site) and I was dissapointed in the jacket. I felt that it was false-advertisement on Wested's behalf. And lastly, if Wested still had the "original patterns that date back to 1980," then why was the Expedition jacket ever created in the first place?

I'm not trying to bash Wested or Agent-5, I have high respect for them both indeed. Again, I don't want to get off topic for PuppetBoy, I just wanted to voice some things over "patterns" while we were on that particular subject matter...

I know everytime I bring something like this up, a discussion regarding copyright law or trade mark law erupts....and that's not what I'm trying to do. I only mentioned that for Todd's consideration.

As to Dr.J's question...if you study copyright law, it states that anytime someone creates something, and it can be PROVEN it was created BY that person, it is (according to U.S. copyright law) automatically 'copyrighted', and under the protection of U.S. copyright laws. It's still up to the owner of said item to register the copyright....but once again, it all goes to having the paperwork to PROVE when it was created, and by whom.
I'm not as positive about international copyright law....but from all readings, they're pretty much parallel to each other, and each court recognizes the other when disputes come into play.

As to the problems with 'Peter's patterns'....he said he owned Ford's original patterns....The problem was, they were miss filed for a LONG time.
He'll have to fill in those details, or you can have fun doing some research to find the old posts here and at Indyfan.

Regards! Michaelson

This is the situation with copyright.

You cannot copyright an idea. So anyone can make a brown leather jacket with a collar, patch pockets and no elastic on the cuffs, etc.

However once an idea is codified in soem tangiable form then it is copyright protected. So a movie script for instance - if yiou show a script your wrote to some Holywood studios and a year later they made a film actually using your script verbatim you can sue them as that is your script they stole.

But if they used the ideas from your script and basically changed things enough that you could not claim they used your script itself, then they can get away with it. And of course this is what happens in Hollywood all the time.

The same is true with jackets. The patterns and the jackets themselves will represent the tangiable corporeal entities so there is no dispute that Peter's jacket is just an idea. So the more closely another jacket matches Peter's jacket then the more likely it will be held that the replica of Peter's jacket is breaching that copyright.

Now of course some people will raise issue that its copying the screen jackets and not Peter's current offerings. This would create a whole legal minefield for the course but I am sure that whether or not you think Peter's current offerings reflect what we see on film, the fact that he was the one who did make the original jackets for the film will carry a great deal of weight in his favour legally. Although there is a lot the courts would need to determine and define legally to make any definite predictions.

Ken

...and back to my very first line in my very first post in this string....deep and dark waters.....

Regards! Michaelson

You know what a 100 copyright barristers standing at the edge of the Canyon of the Crescent Moon is?

I'm afraid to ask....what?

Regards! Michaelson

Here's what I have read (tell me if I'm wrong) that CLOTHING is to wear, and as such is not protected as a work of art, but as a USEFUL item subject to patent protection, but not copyright. Opening the courts to a floodgate of disputes over who's blue jeans are unique and to what percent is not something the courts are willing to do.

As to who owns the design (if in fact it could be owned) wouldn't that be DEBORAH NADOOLMAN? Didn't she decide on the design and do the creative work by telling Peter to take his "James Dean" jacket and add the A2 pockets? Peter did the mechanical (although very skilled) work of implementing her design and perhaps added his own creative touches, but the idea that created a new jacket was hers.

And as to ownership, that would have to go to Paramount or Lucasfilm, since both Nadoolman and Leather Concessionaires engaged in these creative endeavors on their behalf and under their employment and became part of their copyrighted motion picture?

Food for thought...

A good place to 'accidenally' start pushing.lol

Sorry, couldn't resist. One of my smartest x-girlfriends is a copyright lawyer in Nashville. I would just use something with no ties to anyone. Although,I thought Mola Ram was the funniest, Lucasfilm probably owns that name. regards,hanson.

I KNEW I shouldn't have asked.

All good points, Todd, and very valid. Just depends on how the contract was written, as under normal contract wording, it would be a 'work for hire'. We have to remember that Peter was a SUBCONTRACTOR to B&N, and therefore possibly NOT subject to those contractual points that B&N was subject to in creating the costume...therefore maintaining his ownership of the jacket HE created. He had a contract with B&N...NOT Lucasfilm.

What was eventually seen on Ford's back was NOT what was originally designed by the designer, but WAS signed off by her after seeing the examples that Peter supplied. According to all the examples ever published of her conceptual drawings, Indy should have been wearing an A-2 styled jacket, complete with knit cuffs.

Regard! Michaelson

Just to add my two cents, people here are making some very sweeping and very "definitive" statements as to the law in the context of possibly counseling others on how to proceed (or not proceed). That can be a dangerous thing to do, for a number of reasons.

Intellectual property (copyright, trademark, patent, etc.) is a highly specialized field of law which can vary greatly between jurisdictions. (Even the supposedly unitary federal judiciary can have conflicting rules among the district courts and circuit courts.) If anyone is thinking about venturing into an area in which intellectual property law may apply, I would consult an attorney specializing in that field. I would never, ever rely on what someone posts on an internet message board (how's that for irony? ), and I would urge others to refrain from offering advice or opinions as to what the law is. It's just safer that way.

Sweeping statements? Not necessarily. Anyone can offer legal 'advice'. It's up to an individual to check up on the offered information to see if it's worth considering. We have more lawyers than you can shake a stick at as members here. This has ALL been discussed and hashed before, and in MY case all I've done is repeat those discussions, as well as state what I've experienced in my field.

If you go back and re-read my very first post, that's pretty much what I suggested....make sure all the 't's' are crossed, and 'i's' are dotted before proceeding, as a LOT of monies are being invested in this, and not making sure all that research is done using the proper legal aids is not a good idea.

Thanks, that_dog, for stating it much clearer than I was apparently doing.

Regards! Michaelson

Good advice, sounds like something my x would say. I'll never tell them where it came from,Todd, and you don't have to put a label in on my account. I never saw one on screen anyhow. The Leather Concessionaires and Union Jack label on mine are right below the entrance to the inside pocket.regards,hanson.

I personally am not comfortable with the idea of this jacket and I'm going to state something that might make me unpopular here but here goes.

I believe the pattern copyright, the pleats/straps/cargo pockets/no knit on cuffs and hem belong to him, he was the person to bring those elements together.

Taken at face value, the simple legal point is: you cannot "copyright a piece of clothing". But you can "Pass off" the product as another persons work by making it so close as to be confusing to the consumer and thus taking the sale.

The example given in the wiki I posted doesn't fit exactly but you will see the point: Jif lemon sell their lemon juice in that famous plastic lemon, when another company sold their juice in another platsic lemon they were found guilty of passing off their product as Jif's and thus liable to pay damages for lost revenue.

Todd I'm sure you are a great craftsman, I know you have many loyal customers here and I know you are doing this because you want to produce something you feel is screen accurate. I have never bought anything from you, it's not personal I just never have, I do have a couple of web belts of yours that another member kindly bought for me and they are great, you've carved youself a nice niche with the products you sell and your gloves are great.

Would it not have been possible to work with Peter to make his jackets more "screen accurate" and selling those. In a similar way you sell repro MK VIIs or the HJ's.

Peter is someone I've come to be friendly with I've chatted to and visited him a few times over the last year and a half or so. He is a great friend of this board and also has many loyal customers here.

I was talking with him the other day, he's been busy working on a film project, I suspect too busy to look in here. And you know what? I couldn't bring myself to bring up the subject of your jacket with him, I know he would be hurt. I didn't want to be the bearer of bad news.

The flipside of this is: "Peter makes replicas of other film jackets", yes he does... but he takes steps to make them significantly different to the screen versions, an extra seam here, a different closure there. And he is very careful to clearly state if he made the original or if he is making a look alike.

He also sells to a completely different section of the market to some of the jackets he makes. His "WOW replica" jacket is a inexpensive alternative to the Belstaff licensed version for instance.

Todds jacket is being sold in the same price bracket at Wested, if in fact he sold at the same price as G&B for instance I probably wouldn't mind so much. Or even if it were $100 cheaper. Perhaps I'm strange.

I don't mind the G&B as it came at the time it did and for the reasons it did and it is a replica of a screen used jacket. I don't mind the US Wings because they have historical value being decended from the Cooper.

We've always said, he's brought us the Indy jacket, he made the original and he really charges us far less than he could or perhaps should.

This appears, to me, to be an unseeming way to treat one of our favourite vendors.

Just my gut feeling, sorry for rambling.

Here, take my advice. I'm not usin' it.

At the end of the day we are talking about businesses here,and good old-fashioned healthy competition always benefits the customer,it 'ups' the game for the established companies and we will all reap the benefits in more competitive prices and (hopefully)better products-we will definately have more choice which is always a good thing.I'm all for this new jacket-the leather looks the best I've seen for a Raiders jacket and I'll get one for that alone but most of us here buy more than one jacket or hat anyway-it's part of the fun of the hobby,buying new gear from different companies and finding our favourettes.You could easily level the same critisims at adventurebilts if you wanted to-what's the differance in Steve copying a HJ exactly?,he didn't design this hat,he doesn't own the official licence to make it but most of us are saying now that these are the best Indy hats you can get,who's to say that we won't be talking about Todds jacket the same way in a couple of years.

Kt Templar wrote:I personally am not comfortable with the idea of this jacket and I'm going to state something that might make me unpopular here but here goes.

I believe the pattern copyright, the pleats/straps/cargo pockets/no knit on cuffs and hem belong to him, he was the person to bring those elements together.

Taken at face value, the simple legal point is: you cannot "copyright a piece of clothing". But you can "Pass off" the product as another persons work by making it so close as to be confusing to the consumer and thus taking the sale.

The example given in the wiki I posted doesn't fit exactly but you will see the point: Jif lemon sell their lemon juice in that famous plastic lemon, when another company sold their juice in another platsic lemon they were found guilty of passing off their product as Jif's and thus liable to pay damages for lost revenue.

Todd I'm sure you are a great craftsman, I know you have many loyal customers here and I know you are doing this because you want to produce something you feel is screen accurate. I have never bought anything from you, it's not personal I just never have, I do have a couple of web belts of yours that another member kindly bought for me and they are great, you've carved youself a nice niche with the products you sell and your gloves are great.

Would it not have been possible to work with Peter to make his jackets more "screen accurate" and selling those. In a similar way you sell repro MK VIIs or the HJ's.

Peter is someone I've come to be friendly with I've chatted to and visited him a few times over the last year and a half or so. He is a great friend of this board and also has many loyal customers here.

I was talking with him the other day, he's been busy working on a film project, I suspect too busy to look in here. And you know what? I couldn't bring myself to bring up the subject of your jacket with him, I know he would be hurt. I didn't want to be the bearer of bad news.

The flipside of this is: "Peter makes replicas of other film jackets", yes he does... but he takes steps to make them significantly different to the screen versions, an extra seam here, a different closure there. And he is very careful to clearly state if he made the original or if he is making a look alike.

He also sells to a completely different section of the market to some of the jackets he makes. His "WOW replica" jacket is a inexpensive alternative to the Belstaff licensed version for instance.

Todds jacket is being sold in the same price bracket at Wested, if in fact he sold at the same price as G&B for instance I probably wouldn't mind so much. Or even if it were $100 cheaper. Perhaps I'm strange.

I don't mind the G&B as it came at the time it did and for the reasons it did and it is a replica of a screen used jacket. I don't mind the US Wings because they have historical value being decended from the Cooper.

We've always said, he's brought us the Indy jacket, he made the original and he really charges us far less than he could or perhaps should.

This appears, to me, to be an unseeming way to treat one of our favourite vendors.

Just my gut feeling, sorry for rambling.

i agree with you KT 100% would be nice to see a colaboration rather than yet another choice...i guess all of the above was what i was trying to say in my own useless way. peter wont be doing this forever...now is the time to forma partnership like steve and marc from AB...a franchise?

How long does something have to be 'in the public domain' before it can be made by anyone ie. generic drugs,or does this apply to clothing? Raiders is 25 years old and should be coming up on a statute of limitations or something. On a lighter note, I can see a sort of 'east coat vs.west coat drive by shooting now. "Police say .455 Webley bullets were recovered from the scene of a drive-by shooting outside a well known west coast coat maker..."lol hanson.

Well, collaborating with Peter to make one perfect jacket.....umm,..isn't that what we've all been doing to get the Wested we have today??
Todd's looking to offer a jacket to us using HIS vision of what he sees on screen. He's asking advice from all of us to what he can change to make it better. I really don't see how Todds new jacket is any different than USWings and G&B having their versions in the mix. Wouldn't it be better to actually see the jacket in it's completed and "ready to go" form, before crucifying it?
I say give him a chance. If it's a good jacket, people will buy it. If it *****, they won't. Simple as that.
'Blues

who's crucifying Todd? Fair play to him, good luck, but we are entitled to our opinions, and mine is collaboration to take over from Peter some day...at which time we would have the ultimate jacket.

I didn't say crucifying Todd, I said the jacket. And saying that those two collaborating for a future "takeover" from Peter, so we can have the perfect jacket....well, I'm not touching that one.
'Blues

IndyBlues wrote:I didn't say crucifying Todd, I said the jacket. And saying that those two collaborating for a future "takeover" from Peter, so we can have the perfect jacket....well, I'm not touching that one.
'Blues

why not? marc and steve did it, and steve admits the whoole reason was to better the AB.

Todd and Peter could work together fulfilling orders when Wested is busy with film work. but enough from me im just a blabbermouth liable to look silly

Harrison_Davies wrote:who's crucifying Todd? Fair play to him, good luck, but we are entitled to our opinions, and mine is collaboration to take over from Peter some day...at which time we would have the ultimate jacket.

Another person "taking over" from Wested isn't really on the cards. There's Gerry who would probably step up when Peter eventually retires.
The AB/AB Deluxe template does not fit in this case. Wested's are excellently made in Britain with fine Italian leather. He could possibly make them even cheaper by going to a third world manufacturer but he does not want to do that for his jackets.

His bike panniers are made in Turkey as the market for those is completely different to the jackets. Tough stitching rather than craftmanship are requirements there.

thats a shame...still no harm in forging links with wested if possible.

The "AB" comparison was perfect. Fedora has essentially copied a hat made by Herbert Johnson, yet there was no talk of copyright infringement then. I'm sure people will rifle back that the "Poet" is no longer being offered, but as you can see from Todd's site, the HJ Indy hat is still available. The Indy shirt is the same thing. SOMEONE had to design it originally (though I forget who), yet no one ever had a problem with copies of those.

Todd, good for you for taking on this project. I know how hard you work to give us an accurate and quality product. You've worked with us since the begininng. I like the direction you're going in and look forward to seeing your final product! Cheers.

Regards,

Dr. J

I appreciate the discussion. And I don't feel crucified, either

I did sell Peter's jackets for a short time. The problem is that he is selling them at cost and has no room for a discount. There's no way for me to sell his jackets and make any money, and thus there's no reason. You can buy it straight from him. Who needs me?

Yes, the Adventurebilt analogy is perfect, since HJ does claim they "own" the Indy hat. That's why they almost stopped supplying them to me - because they didn't like me calling them an "Indy Hat" as they say they are the only ones with the right to say that.

The truth is, if you want to know who really "owns" this stuff (IF it can be owned, which I don't believe it can) simply look at who has the right to license it. It's not Peter, HJ, Noel Howard, or Deborah Nadoolman. It's LucasFilm and Paramount. They have licensed both the jacket and the hat at numerous times to various companies (and even produced their own fan club jacket). Talk about "deep pockets"! Peter or HJ should go after LucasFilm for licensing his jacket design. Of course, it was the trademark
"Indiana Jones" that is actually licensed and the logo, but the jacket and hat design were part of the deal. And I'm sure there was a lot of money involved in those licensing deals.

And I think no one's willing to admit Deborah Nadoolman's part in the jacket design. She certainly made the creative decisions (color, look, distress, etc.) You HAVE to admit that it was at the LEAST a collaborative effort!

What Peter does have is bragging rights. I mean, he was directly involved in creating this jacket that combined familiar elements in a way we like because we like the movie and the character. What a fantastic thing to be able to say! There will only be one of him (Peter) and if you want a jacket "touched by the master", then he's the only one. I suspect that even if there are 20 good Indy jackets out there, he is the only one with a personal connection to the film. Sure, FlightSuits was based on a stunt jacket, but that's not even close to the same as being made by the one who actually constructed the original.

Don't worry, Peter will be just fine and his business won't even see a difference. He's one of a kind. It's not like we're talking about a finite "pie" here and if I take some, there will be less for him. We're talking about making a bigger pie.

Puppetboy wrote:It's not like we're talking about a finite "pie" here and if I take some, there will be less for him. We're talking about making a bigger pie.

...... ......Ummm.....How? Are you thinking about cloning gearheads?

Bufflehead,

"Gearheads" will buy more than one jacket, thus making the "pie" bigger. It's not a case of taking a sale from him and giving it to me. I think every gearhead's first choice will always be Wested.

The "pie" also gets bigger by finding new customers who are not gearheads, and that wouldn't be inclined to buy from Peter even if they did because he is in the UK. Someone who just wants to go out for Halloween isn't likely to go to that length and go through that wait. So it would be a sale he wouldn't make anyway.

See my point?

I really don't see a problem with this....its not like we're talking about hundreds of thousands of units and billions of dollars. Its a niche market with a loyal following. How many people here own more than 2 or 3 Westeds or several Westeds and a FS? I don't see anyone getting hurt, the business will sustain for all parties. This particular jacket is an option out of many offerings in each vendor's stable; no one is living off the income of the Indy jacket alone. If this new offering is of good quality, I'm sure many of us will add this to the collection anyways.

Can't wait to see what the final jacket looks like.

I'm sure Peter doesn't own the patent to the 'leather jacket'. He trademarked "Wested" and owns the copyright of the logo, but I don't think he invented the leather jacket.

And I can't see any aspect of the jacket that's fanciful or doesn't have utility.

Heck, the jackets aren't even going to be the same.

And unless puppetboy tries to use Wested's name, how will he be "stealing" Wested's business? He's not confusing consumers. Nobody will buy his jacket thinking it's a Wested.

This is called capitalism and competition. Fair play is exactly what it is. Even if this is a pie with limited slices, as a consumer, I would like to buy the best possible product at the best possible price. Apparently, Peter has been successful and has a loyal following because his products are great and his pricing is excellent. What does he have to worry about?

If puppetboy's jacket is screen-accurate and it's a good fit, I'll buy one. If I want a customized jacket, I'll go with Wested.

But good luck to you puppetboy, keep us updated.

Puppetboy wrote:The "pie" also gets bigger by finding new customers who are not gearheads, and that wouldn't be inclined to buy from Peter even if they did because he is in the UK. Someone who just wants to go out for Halloween isn't likely to go to that length and go through that wait.

Which brings us back to the concern about price, which started clear back on page one of this string...as only a gearhead will be the LEAST bit concerned and/or interested about screen accurate details, and a non-gearhead will only be interested in obtaining an 'Indy jacket' for the best price available from a U. S. manufacturer if he's not willing to wait for a Wested.

So, if you're going for this, keeping to making it the best detailed jacket ever made in off the rack sizing, and it beats U. S. Wings in price ( as Wings still beats the Expedition price wise in off the rack sized offerings)....this should prove to be a very interesting project.

Like I said, I've been through this particular exercise. I'm just trying to prepare you for what's coming.

My best to you, my friend!

Regards! Michaelson

milesfides wrote:
This is called capitalism and competition. Fair play is exactly what it is.

No, it's not. Copying something that some one else originated is still copying.

Take it this way if Peter had not made the jacket in the first place would Todd have anything to make?

(Todd that isn't an attack on you it was a more a matter of semantics).

well maybe if peter made his jackets more screen accurate, since he has the original patterns that he is appearantly just ignoring, then Todd wouldnt have to make his jacket. Dont get me wrong i love my wested and i have another on the way, but my question is why, if he has the rights to the jacket and is the original maker, can he not at least offer a 'screen version' jacket with all the specs of the film jacket as well as his current jacket which has modifactions for every day use. It couldnt hurt and it would save him and us a lot of headaches!! Untill then, i say kudos to anyone who is going for an entirely screen accurate version of the jacket. If he succeeds in thsi i'll be shore to place an order with him as well.

Copying something that some one else originated is still copying.

If this site was about gear only from people who originated it, it would be a very small site, would it not?

Take it this way if Peter had not made the jacket in the first place would Todd have anything to make?

Did you happen to think that if "Raiders" hadn't been a blockbuster hit, Peter wouldn't be selling these jackets, either? How many people are lining up to buy replicas of Ford's jacket from "Hanover Street"?

If some uncredited artisan hadn't scuplted the gold fertility idol, would Magnoli have anything to make? These articles have a built-in desirability due to the popularity of the movie. The more popular the movie, the more desirable. That's just the way it is. Magnoli could sculpt original idols all day long and not sell one in a million years. That's just the way it is.

Interesting discussion!

I do believe that Lee Keppler,_,et.al would have come up with a jacket. A very good jacket at that. I got a very close jacket in the early '80's from Schott in NY. Still have it. It doesn't have splits at the bottom of the back panel, but does have side adjustment straps, very close action pleats, and does have a rain flap on the right side of the zipper added like the Remo Williams jacket, but has dual entry flap pockets. It was the greatest jacket until I talked to Lee and now I've got 3 Indy jackets. regards ,hanson.

Kt Templar wrote:

milesfides wrote:
This is called capitalism and competition. Fair play is exactly what it is.

No, it's not. Copying something that some one else originated is still copying.

Take it this way if Peter had not made the jacket in the first place would Todd have anything to make?

(Todd that isn't an attack on you it was a more a matter of semantics).

That's a pretty broad and bold statement.

First of all, copying is done all the time. It's done perfectly legally too. Whether it's a product or a service, if nobody were allowed to reproduce or duplicate an existing service, there would only be monopolies operating in this world.

Now, you might give allowance to 'inspired' works, or reproductions that seek to improve upon the original. If that's the case, puppetboy's creations would fall into that category. Why? Puppetboy is not directly reproducing Wested's jackets. If I'm not mistaken, he's using a different source of leather, and he's even tinkering with the design elements of the jacket, including the pockets. And above all, he's trying to make a jacket that is more screen-accurate.

As I see it, he's making a jacket based on his interpretation of the one depicted on film. It's modified. And if that's a conceded point, then one would have to recognize the fact that the original jacket was inspired by the military bomber jacket (a-2?). Who holds the patent for that? I'm guessing it doesn't exist.

Legally, it's a leather jacket, and there's no feature of the jacket that can be patented (that I can see).

Morally, I think any ethical qualms about this is misguided. Puppetboy is offering a different, more screen-accurate interpretation of the jacket as he sees it on screen. If I, as a customer, don't like the features offered by one jacket, why shouldn't I be able to buy another one that has the features that satisfy me?

Puppetboy wrote:
If this site was about gear only from people who originated it, it would be a very small site, would it not?

Yes, it's kind of move in a strange direction. But interesting.

Like I've said before you seem to be very screen accurate minded and that should be applauded.

My point in that sentence was not that it was made BY Peter particularly but: if there was not item A in the film it would not have been possible for you or anyone to make another item A because it didn't exist to replicate.

There is something very special about the Raiders jacket that make's it so very desirable, and it's not just the popularity of the film, e.g. the Aliens jacket, very popular film but not an iconic item.

Did you happen to think that if "Raiders" hadn't been a blockbuster hit, Peter wouldn't be selling these jackets, either? How many people are lining up to buy replicas of Ford's jacket from "Hanover Street"?

No, but neither would any of the other suppliers. The Hannover Street jacket isn't a unique design, it's a generic A2 and something of an 70's style one at that.

The idols and the headpieces, perhaps it is exactly that the artist is "Lucasfilm Ltd" that I don't really mind. I think there is an arguement that both those items are actually historical pieces and are therefore way out of any theoretical/ethical copyright.

milesfides wrote:

Kt Templar wrote:

milesfides wrote:
This is called capitalism and competition. Fair play is exactly what it is.

No, it's not. Copying something that some one else originated is still copying.

Take it this way if Peter had not made the jacket in the first place would Todd have anything to make?

(Todd that isn't an attack on you it was a more a matter of semantics).

That's a pretty broad and bold statement.

First of all, copying is done all the time. It's done perfectly legally too. Whether it's a product or a service, if nobody were allowed to reproduce or duplicate an existing service, there would only be monopolies operating in this world.

Now, you might give allowance to 'inspired' works, or reproductions that seek to improve upon the original. If that's the case, puppetboy's creations would fall into that category. Why? Puppetboy is not directly reproducing Wested's jackets. If I'm not mistaken, he's using a different source of leather, and he's even tinkering with the design elements of the jacket, including the pockets. And above all, he's trying to make a jacket that is more screen-accurate.

As I see it, he's making a jacket based on his interpretation of the one depicted on film. It's modified. And if that's a conceded point, then one would have to recognize the fact that the original jacket was inspired by the military bomber jacket (a-2?). Who holds the patent for that? I'm guessing it doesn't exist.

Legally, it's a leather jacket, and there's no feature of the jacket that can be patented (that I can see).

Morally, I think any ethical qualms about this is misguided. Puppetboy is offering a different, more screen-accurate interpretation of the jacket as he sees it on screen. If I, as a customer, don't like the features offered by one jacket, why shouldn't I be able to buy another one that has the features that satisfy me?

The legal statement is true, you cannot "Copyright" or "Patent" a generic leather jacket. I'm talking ethics here.

Yes, you're finally seeing what I mean, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the ethics of the matter. If Todd had licensed the jacket from Peter paying say $50 each to him for the rights to make them and adding the legal line:

"This jacket is an idealised reproduction of the jacket originally created for the film by Peter Botwright."

I'd put my hands up and say, cool.

First of all, copying is done all the time. It's done perfectly legally too. Whether it's a product or a service, if nobody were allowed to reproduce or duplicate an existing service, there would only be monopolies operating in this world.

People with deep pockets would disagree with you there. Licensed products make the wourld go around, why else do we have McDonalds in every town, someone paid for the franchise. There is an inherant value in the product so it has to be paid for. Just try opening a McDonalds without paying your franchise fee!

You can reproduce a service no problem at all, it the tangible end product that is owned.

KT,Peter didn't design the Indy jacket,I think you'll find that the costume designer Nadoolman did that,Peter constructed the jacket to her specs-paid for by Paramount pictures-Peter isn't a designer,he doesn't even own the official rights to produce the jacket himself!You are obviously loyal to a brand(Wested),fair enough,I choose to drink Coke and not Pepsi but I'm not going to try and cook up some 'ethical' argument why YOU shouldn't drink Pepsi-wear your Wested and let others have the choice without feeling that they have to take sides yet again.

CairoIndy wrote:KT,Peter didn't design the Indy jacket,I think you'll find that the costume designer Nadoolman did that,Peter constructed the jacket to her specs-paid for by Paramount pictures-Peter isn't a designer,he doesn't even own the rights to produce the jacket himself!You are obviously loyal to a brand(Wested),fair enough,I choose to drink Coke and not Pepsi but I'm not going to try and cook up some 'ethical' argument why YOU shouldn't drink Pepsi-wear your Wested and let others have the choice without feeling that they have to take sides yet again.

LOL, not cooking anything. BTW I like Coke Zero.

Actually he does own the rights to the patterns. He physically drew the patterns he owns them.

See here

Does material have to have novelty or aesthetic value to get copyright protection?

No, it simply has to be the result of independent intellectual effort. Technical descriptions, catalogues and engineering drawings are all examples of material that qualifies for copyright protection, whatever the subject matter.

Deborah came to him and said I want a jacket, he brought in the pleated back jacket and added the cargo pockets. Her design was basically an A2.

As to duration of copyright ownership, in the UK that is 70 years after the death of the author. It is protected in the US under the Bern Convention.