Talk:Shepperton Design Studios

Shepperton Studios

Isn't this the same as Shepperton Studios? -129.210.161.46 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Outcome of 2008 UK Court Case

I've deleted the ill-informed speculation about the outcome of the UK court case. Having been in court for several days during the case, the reason that there was no further press comment was simply that no reporters attended after the opening day. It's perfectly normal in complicated cases like this one for the judge not to give judgment until some weeks or months after the hearing has finished, so as to allow time for consideration of arguments.

For what it's worth, if Lucasfilm had won, the last thing it would do would be to try to keep it quiet! Sjbradshaw (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now updated the article to reflect the judgment given on 31 July. Sjbradshaw (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've updated it to reflect the judgement given in July 2011. 41.135.9.101 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Unauthorized"?

The inclusion of this word is quite frankly unnecessary. As a Supreme Court ruled that the items in question do not fall under copyrighted sculpture law, it is irrelevant whether the manufacture is "unauthorized" or not. Someone is very keen to include the word however. However including the word is undoubtedly POV.41.133.47.137 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As they are being produced without a license, and the UK ruling only refers to the UK and not the rest of the world, yes, unauthorized is perfectly accurate. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that specifically refers to them as "unauthorized"? After all, the 2 links I added(which you and your friend removed) stated that Shepperton have the legal right to manufacture and sell the props in certain areas. And does the authorisation or lack of authorisation really merit inclusion in the first sentence of the article, especially given the legal ruling? 41.133.47.137 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC) (PS. Please don't remove this edit with a disparaging comment)

"the 2 links I added...stated that Shepperton have the legal right to manufacture and sell the props in certain areas" Which areas besides the UK? The BBC article says clearly they are not authorized to sell in the US, and includes a quote from a Lucasfilm spokesman indicating that Shepperton is unlikely to try to sell this stuff anywhere else since Lucasfilm will sue again.

Unlike MikeWazowski, I feel you should be allowed to re-add the links here, but they're going to get disappeared if your comments also include attacks directed at my "friend" Wazowski, who I don't think I've ever spoken with once, and me. CityOfSilver 22:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Important Link

I have repeatedly attempted to add this link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14287864

Note the headline Lucas loses Star Wars copyright case at Supreme Court.

Sadly, I have already apparently broken a Rule I was unaware of, limiting number of reversions. Sadly, two people INSIST on REMOVING this link, and going by outdated (some from Lucas' own website!)links(dating from 2006) which states that Lucas won the original hearing. Could someone please reinstate this valid link. Thank you. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)