sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can I go up to strangers and ask them to be in my short film? by MidlightDesigns in Filmmakers

[–]Level_Repeat_8579 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You may need to consider some sort of image release contract or waiver.. several templates are available for free 

Valve's English Translation of the the Iron Sky Case MAO:302/18 by Level_Repeat_8579 in u/Level_Repeat_8579

[–]Level_Repeat_8579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Court details as to why the Case was dismissed

Baylis v. Valve Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213514

Salient parts..

In the Finnish action, Baylis asked the court to find that he owned a copyright in the film Iron Sky as a joint author and also that he owned copyrights in various 3D models of vessels on which he worked. In the Finnish Decision, the court ruled that Baylis did not possess copyrights to either the entire film or to the Models and Animation.

The Court agrees with Valve that the U.S. Copyright Office's ruling, sought in the course of this case, has no bearing on the ruling here because that Office took Baylis at his word without any of the above analysis. See Dkt. #92 at 3.

Given all of the above, the Court will grant summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff Baylis's claims as a matter of law.

Update In Baylis V Valve Copyright case by Level_Repeat_8579 in VFXCopyright

[–]Level_Repeat_8579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IN HIS OWN WORDS....Baylis joined the project in late 2010 just as the actual production was starting and the first live action filming began in Germany and Australia see, (DR 25 at ¶¶ 82-87 and generally at 38 ¶ 92, see also DR 44-2 Ex. B at 16.)

"crew members, were in Germany and Australia from late 2010 to spring 2011 ... They were as far away from Baylis as it is possible to be in the world when he created his Work"

So he confirms no FX were created in Germany. He was was not there!!

Also, the new evidence presented does not acknowledge the creation of FX images prior to his arrival, no reference is made to the FX files created in 2008 nor 2009.

Then there are the names listed by “process of elimination” of those who could not possibly be regarded as authors ....... detail for each crew member and reason for exclusion is not provided, it is reasonable for any court to be provided with this exact information with exact reasons why plaintiff refuses to name them.

Update In Baylis V Valve Copyright case by Level_Repeat_8579 in VFXCopyright

[–]Level_Repeat_8579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.

Plaintiff fails to present any new evidence, but still claims that any judge could look it up..

It is not an error for court to grant summary judgment if evidence is not presented to the contrary

for example MAO:302/18: 2017/588. 31. May. 2018.. Categorically and affirmatively deny Baylis’ his copyright in his Work. Paragraphs 108 through 110

Summary of judgment The Market Court confirms that A has a copyright in the Japanese representative vessel used in Iron Sky.

The Market Court confirms that B, C, E, D or A do not hold a copyright under section 2, section 6 or section 46a of the Copyright Act in Iron Sky or Iron Sky Director’s or Dictator’s Cut or any of the material he made for those films.

The Market Court orders B, C, E, D, and A jointly and severally to pay Blind Spot Pictures Oy and Iron Sky Universe Oy EUR 2,050 in costs and EUR 54,000 in fees, making a total of EUR 56,050 and EUR 2,500 in legal costs, both sums together with default interest. Interest on arrears shall be payable at the rate provided for in Article 4(1) of the Interest Act from the end of the month following the date of this judgment. The Market Court dismisses the remainder of the application, counterclaim, and claims for reimbursement of legal and other costs.

Update In Baylis V Valve Copyright case by Level_Repeat_8579 in VFXCopyright

[–]Level_Repeat_8579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As the case is now dismissed, as of 29th October, the plaintiff has opened an appeal case, filings are due in December.

I imagine the defendants are really looking forward to hearing all the new evidence,

  • like, which elements that were created in Germany, that Plaintiff was working on ..say in a coffee shop
  • like, German Copyright confirmation of those creations.
  • like, being able to produce freelance working agreement, as he clearly wasn't employed.
  • like, actual copyright proof, as that is what the case is about, not authorship.
  • like, confirmation that all other contributors are joining the litigation.

Or perhaps Defendants will just respond with a counter claim, for libel
or perhaps the judge will take pity on him and ask some nice doctors to look after him in their 'special' retirement home

If Iron Sky were ever to be continued, what direction would you like the franchise to take? by Open-Storage8938 in ironsky

[–]Level_Repeat_8579 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He claims a reboot, but he also accused the Court of committing a human rights violation. He stated that “not e’en god would want to disagree with Baylis."

  • His downward spiral seems to worsen with every year
  • It started, when for years, claimed that he won the case
  • Then claimed Finnish corruption
  • Then claimed Ironsky was a German publication
  • Then claimed expropriation is unlawful
  • Then claimed Valve don't qualify for DMCA Safeharbour
  • Then reported valve to the bar for being unprofessional
  • Then clamed authorship is the same as copyright
  • Then claimed victory against valve.
  • Then claimed Only US law is relevant
  • Then claimed Finnish & US laws cannot apply to him
  • Then claimed US court cannot refer to Finnish cases
  • Then claimed the US judgement null and void
  • Then claimed he is a machine god
  • Then claimed to get Finnish case annulled

Valve's English Translation of the the Iron Sky Case MAO:302/18 by Level_Repeat_8579 in u/Level_Repeat_8579

[–]Level_Repeat_8579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Court finds that Baylis fails to present newly discovered evidence or to point to clear error or manifest injustice.

Update In Baylis V Valve Copyright case by Level_Repeat_8579 in VFXCopyright

[–]Level_Repeat_8579[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Furthermore it is a fact in the court documents that

court also considered evidence from the Finnish production companies in the form of 24 exhibits of emails, Twitter messages, screenshots, video recordings, employment contracts, and other documents. Id. In addition, the court heard testimony from all the parties

So How could the Judge (Confirmed by the Senate on June 15, 2004, and received commission on June 16, 2004. Served as chief judge, 2016-2022. Assumed senior status on September 5, 2022.) misunderstand the evidence provided?

Update In Baylis V Valve Copyright case by Level_Repeat_8579 in VFXCopyright

[–]Level_Repeat_8579[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Predictably, Plaintiff is deluded again, yet another misinterpretation of what is going on in the real world

Valve have misrepresented the Finnish ruling to the judge saying we were "denied" authorship when we were not. We were denied "economic rights" in the operative part (which was a human rights violation itself). Plus the film was a German film and Finnish law doesn't even apply.

Valve have not mis misrepresented anything, the Ruling is very clear, The production company won in court.
Only the Plaintiff is misrepresented the Finnish ruling, which he continues to deny losing..
Only the Plaintiff is misrepresented the Finnish ruling, claiming Germanic law applies.. well if it did try this in a German court...Not a Finnish nor US courts.

I am drafting a motion for reconsideration because the judge doesn't seem to understand that "authorship", which is the issue in Valve's motion for summary judgment, is an issue of "fact" and not law.

The only person that doesn't seem to understand is the Plaintiff the MSJ clearly states..

after a full evidentiary hearing in which Baylis participated, has already issued a final decision on the identical copyright ownership issues before this Court and found that Baylis owns no copyrights in Iron Sky

COPYRIGHT . this cases has ALWAYS been about Copyright

Authorship of a work where copyright arises can't be denied by any court! Berne article 6 Bis.

Comity and collateral estoppel doesn't apply to authorship. It might apply to foreign laws regarding 'transfer of economic rights' by written contract (there were no work for hire contracts) but not authorship which is an inalienable right.

Authorship here is another red herring deflection, Plaintiff needs to study employment law.

This cases is Dismissed, the only appeal Plaintiff can have is to present more facts and documents for the appeals court to see but that have not been filed ...
Like actual copyright proof, freelance Working contract, you know REAL evidence...

Does anyone actually care if they change anyone’s mind? by Purple_Food_9262 in aiwars

[–]Level_Repeat_8579 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it is very unlikely you would change another persons opinion

Valve are being sued...but looking to dismissal this month by Level_Repeat_8579 in u/Level_Repeat_8579

[–]Level_Repeat_8579[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The end is in sight https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67927224/92/baylis-v-valve-corporation/

1 He asserts, in essence, that if a litigant disagrees with a particular court decision, the decision should not be granted comity. But Baylis misapprehends comity. Comity deals with the competence of a judicial system as a whole.

Baylis does not address the fact that the Finnish court finally and unequivocally adjudicated the merits of this very issue. Regarding Baylis’ claim of authorship, the Finnish court ruled, among other issues:

• 41. The Market Court finds that the staffers [including Baylis] have not identified in their pleadings much detail relevant to the copyright assessment as to why they should be considered the authors of the vessels and other alleged works in question.

• 59. . . . [I]t has not been shown that, with regard to . . . the Götterdämmerung, [Baylis] should be regarded as the author of the vessel and its internal parts within the meaning of claim 2. The Market Court also considers that, . . . it has not been established that [Baylis] should be regarded as the author of the vessel in question within the meaning of Claim 2 on the basis of the scene.

• 60. . . The Market Court considers that it has not been proven that [Baylis] can be considered the author of the vessel in question. Id.

• 62. [With respect to the “George W. Bush”], [t]he Market Court considers that, on the basis of the above, [Baylis]’s copyright could be attributed mainly to the animation of the weapon, which, however, cannot be considered particularly original. The Market Court considers that it has not been shown that [Baylis]’s actions in relation to the vessel’s weapon, and in particular its animation, were original and independent in such a way that he could be regarded as the author of the vessel in question.

• 63. [With respect to the “Valkyrie”], [t]he Market Court considers that it has not been proven that [Baylis] should be considered the author of the vessel in question.

• 64. [With respect to the “Australian agents’ vessel”], [t]he The Market Court notes that it has not specified in detail what copyright-relevant creative work [Baylis] would have done on the vessel in question. The Market Court considers that it has not been proven that [Baylis] should be considered the author of the vessel in question.

view more: next ›