Jump to content

Border Model's Statement Regarding Lancaster Legal Issues


LSP_Kevin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks for posting this.  It seems to make Border’s position clear, but I’m not sure that it legally clears them like they seem to think.  Granted, if they never used WNW’s name on the kit or marketing materials, they aren’t really capitalizing on their name and reputation.  But I think the key part of this is whether the company that had the molds had the right to sell them to Border, or anyone else.  That would depend on what was in the contract the company had with WNW regarding payments and ownership of the molds.  A company simply saying “we tried to contact them for a year and a half, but never heard back” may not be enough, depending on what the contract language was.  I’m not sure that Border has actually seen the contract to see if it was really legal for the company had the molds to sell it.  Border’s statement makes it seem like they just went by what a friend company told them and may not have done due diligence.  The fact that Border spent their own money to finish and correct the molds, made instructions, etc., doesn’t mean anything if they didn’t have the legal right to have the molds in the first place.  It’s like if you buy a stolen car and put money into it, and then the owner comes to claim it.  You don’t get the money back that you put into it.

 

I don’t think this is really over as there are legal questions that aren’t answered by Border’s statement.  Also, some of the comments against Peter Jackson personally may be seen as a bit libelous.  While it’s unlikely to stop the actual production of the kit, the lawyer letters sent to sellers and distributors may have the effect of stopping anyone from selling the kit until ownership of the molds is legally established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Everyone knows that military models are not copyrighted"

 

This statement is a pretty clear indication of the mindset at play.

And it is completely incorrect. 

 

19 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:


You’re talking about international business here. And China specifically. Good luck putting a lien on anything in China under any circumstances.

 

This.

 For better or worse, things are done very differently in China. 

WnW lawyers mightn't be able to stop border from producing kits, but they might be able to scare re-sellers from stocking the kit.

 

Every bit of information about WnWs internal dealings has been second hand, they know how to be tight-lipped, so running to Border Models defence, based only on what they have to say, is forgetting that there are 3 sides to every story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I wrong, or Border recently got into another feud with RFM about something?
If I am not wrong, well it seems to me that they are using the old publicity tricks making fake scandals to draw attention.

They have good models, but not that good. Same as with P. Jackson. He is a good director, but he ain't that good. IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People continually talk about what Border is contractually obligated to do for WnW. That same contract specifies how much WnW pays Border. Why is it that one party can break a contract, then hold tge other to its terms?

 

In the US, we have mechanic's liens. You don't pay for the work done to your car, it can be sold to cover costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lee White said:

People continually talk about what Border is contractually obligated to do for WnW. That same contract specifies how much WnW pays Border. Why is it that one party can break a contract, then hold tge other to its terms?

 

In the US, we have mechanic's liens. You don't pay for the work done to your car, it can be sold to cover costs.


Based on what Border said, they aren’t the ones who had the contract with WNW.  The other company that had the molds were the ones who had the contract.  I don’t think Border has anything with WNW.  Also, what we have in the US may have little relevance to what the laws are in China.

Edited by Dave Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lee White said:

People continually talk about what Border is contractually obligated to do for WnW. That same contract specifies how much WnW pays Border. Why is it that one party can break a contract, then hold tge other to its terms?

 

In the US, we have mechanic's liens. You don't pay for the work done to your car, it can be sold to cover costs.

My understanding is that it went-> WNW contracted to an otherwise unnamed manufacturer in China to make the moulds-> Mould manufacturer didn't get paid and never heard from WnW again - >Mould manufacturer on-sold moulds to Border to recover costs ->Border want to release kit but have received legal correspondence from WnW claiming IP theft.

WnW and Border's only relationship seems to be one over contested IP rights via the WnW lawyer.

I'm just :popcorn: with no idea how it'll all pan out. Should be educational.

Matty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the way i read it. The mould company asked for money. Waited an appropriate amount of time to receive said funds. PJ didn't fufil his contract so mould company sold moulds to Border. Border then updated/reworked said moulds, therefore changing the IP to their own standards. If what Borders say is true then i hope two very large fingers are raised in PJ's face. Not all Chinese companys are 'at it'. And yet they always seem to be portrayed as the enemy and evil doers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

 

 

A.  That has exactly nothing to do with this situation.  Scanning a published work that is under copyright protection and selling a PDF of it is in no way the same as contracting with someone to do a lot of expensive work, then filching on the debt you owe them, after they've done the work for you.  Sorry, but you need to look up "false equivalence" and get back to us.  Copyright of published material and ownership of physical things like tooling for a plastic kit are not remotely the same thing.  If a customer buys a product in good faith, that doesn't make them an accomplice in anything.  If you buy something knowing it's a fake or a pirated copy, then yes.  But that's far from clear in this case.

 

B.  Don't know how things work where you live, but I've bought and sold six houses in my life, and a lawyer has never been involved in any of the transactions.  Business is done all over the world each and every day, including deals worth millions, with no lawyers involved in any way.  Nothing would ever get done if lawyers had to be involved in every business deal.

 

A. You missed the point. The comparison is very apt in the sense that there are people who believe that just because they paid money for something of dodgy origin they actually own the product and that everything is above board. I can use the same analogy with buying a worn out laptop without a charger from a guy with shifty eyes at the corner of a bar. The only thing that makes the difference is whether the item is purchased from someone who is or is not entitled to sell it. Not doing your due dilligence and not knowing that the stuff is dodgy is no excuse. Ignorance is no defence in court. But, to return to how you missed the point, the comparison with that row about pirated books is apt in the sense that, just like Border, the people who purchased the dodgy stuff tried to depict themselves as virtuous victims and the authors as evil and money-grabbing.  

B. I live in Ireland, where transfer of property involves a legal instrument called "conveyancing" which has to be carried out by a property solicitor. I hired a solicitor to do the conveyancing on my house. No regrets. Wikipedia says that conveyancing exists in the US as well. 

Radu 

 

Edited by Radub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...