Quote from Jhyphen:
Quote:
Let me add a few comments:
LFL has always been gracious in my experience. Several years ago I helped Gerardo Follano when he stumbled onto their radar. Although LFL flexed its mighty muscles at first, once we showed them that Gerardo respected their rights, they showed him clemency. I was very impressed by their deft touch.
In contrast, AA/SDS has displayed a willful disregard for LFL's interests, and indeed has tried to usurp them. AA/SDS forced LFL's hand IMO by not backing down after being given several opportunities to do so.
Before AA/SDS began producing helmets, their representative approached me to solicit a legal opinion to support their position. I politely declined, but as a courtesy I shared my informal, personal view that they lacked a legitimate claim to LFL's rights under US copyright . I warned them that even if they truly believed--as they said--that AA/SDS had some residual interest in the copyright under UK law, that US law was a different animal altogether, and that UK law would not protect sales to the United States. I ended our brief discussions by urging restraint and respect.
Obviously, AA/SDS disregarded my friendly advice, and in a big way....
Unfortunately, AA/SDS, mostly through a spokesman on the prop replica forums, began a very public negative marketing campaign, trashing MR and others while promoting their own wares. This sharp practice polarized people, and cost AA/SDS a lot of good will.
Although I do not enjoy seeing AA/SDS suffer such massive, life-altering consequences, I can't say they have done much to protect themselves. The bottom line is that they thumbed their nose at LFL, and miscalculated the support they would receive from the fan base.
It's important to remember (or learn) that copyright law does not require that you target every infringer. The concept of "selective enforcement" means that you can go after all, some, or none. It's completely up to the copyright holder, who can decide that one infringer is OK and that another deserves to be sued into oblivion. It doesn't have to seem fair to the world at large or make sense.
In this case, AA/SDS antagonized LFL and allegedly misled its customers about the provenance of its moulds. Also, credible allegations surfaced that AA/SDS simply recast armor pieces from other unlicensed makers for their full suit.
In a nutshell, while I have sympathy for them on a human nature, they are essentially unsympathetic defendants. They were given numerous opportunities to stand down, but they bit the hand that fed them, and now they are in this unfortunate situation.
But perhaps much, much worse, I now hear through the grapevine that LFL is preparing to go after other less obnoxious armor makers. I even heard Gerardo's name being bandied about.
I certainly hope I'm misinformed, because it would be a crying shame if LFL decided to declare war on everyone because of AA/SDS. If that comes to pass, my sympathy toward AA/SDS will harden into anger, because had AA/SDS stayed under the radar, I'm confident that none of this unpleasantness would have come to pass.
By the way, although my views here don't constitute legal advice, I am a lawyer, with particular experience dealing with LFL on several similar matters.