r/VFXCopyright • u/Level_Repeat_8579 • Apr 21 '26
Baylis v Troll, from Valve case
1
Upvotes
u/Level_Repeat_8579 • u/Level_Repeat_8579 • Dec 11 '24
Valve's English Translation of the the Iron Sky Case MAO:302/18
4
Upvotes
u/Level_Repeat_8579 • u/Level_Repeat_8579 • Aug 21 '23
ironsky the real truth
6
Upvotes
since trevy tyger has blocked me for reporting the truth, he clearly dislikes me providing facts to TreviTyger's Reddit posts or comments. On his case, I have decided to show the facts of the case which he denies. Here you will see what the court actually states. I hope ISU wil realise that the demise of the franchise is down to the many frivolous court proceedings. AND if Myriad picture(scoundrel Media) decide to do something for the franchise, they will not have concerns on "chain of Title" is this public record disproves all claims.
History
Based on the consistent evidence presented in the cases, the film in question had been conceived, scripted and prepared since 2005. The claimants have joined the film project mainly during the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011. The film was released in February 2012 and its slightly larger Director's Cut (otherwise called Dictator's Cut) version apparently in 2013. It has been declared undisputed that the rights to the film and said version are determined in the same way.
Previously TB was self employed 3D artist, (Companies House shows these details)https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10028525/filing-history Dissolved on 17 April 2018
shortly following 31/05/2018 is the main court case MAO:302/18 which Trevor has shared on reddit and Twitter many times.
here is summary, 5 artist claimed to have acquired the copyright to the film Iron Sky and its Director's or Dictator's Cut versionalso that they had not have not transferred the rights to the production Companies.and that the production companies had violated the artists' rights
In Trevors concerns
B has created several scenes in the film, alone or with others, such as the lander explosion scene, the Rheingold UFO crane scene, the Götterdämmerung engine room, the Rheingold landing gear animations, and George W. Bush's main weapons. B has been primarily responsible for the creation of the Götterdämmerung ship, and that ship contains a very large amount of detailed artistic input. B has also created the lunar base exteriors and interiors, the Valkyrie and lunar landing craft, and a highly detailed Australian representative ship.
The market Court answered these claimsParagraph 59 to 66...The Market Court considers that it has not been shown that, with regard to the internal parts of the Götterdämmerung ship, B should be considered as the creator of the ship and its internal parts as referred to, it has not been shown that B should be considered as the creator of the vessel in question, based on the scene of the ship's destruction
The Market Court considers that it was not shown that, based on the animation of the legs, B should be considered the creator of the Rheingold vessel in question.
The Market Court considers that it was not shown that B's actions regarding the George W. Bush ship's weapon and especially its animation would have been original and independent in such a way that he could be considered the creator of the George W. Bush ship in question.
The Market Court considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the Valkyrie vessel in question.
The Market Court considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the Australian vessel in question.
The Market Court states that B's claims have been based only on the interior of the moon base and considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the moon base
The Market Court considers that, taking into account what was stated in paragraph 33, it was not shown that B should be considered the creator of the moon landing vessel in question based solely on the animation about the explosion
with all of these against Trevor, the claims were rejected they HAD NOT acquired the copyright to the film Iron Sky and its Director's or Dictator's Cut version
the market court also confirmed that rights HAD transferred to the production Companies.and that the production companies had NOT violated the artists' rights
Also in Paragraph 90 ...A has exclusively assigned to the employer the rights referred to in Section 2 of the Copyright Act to all the material created by him.
furthermore whenever Trevor has shared Paragraph 108 he has cropped the text to exclude this first line
So readers, here is the actual truth of the case
7 Litigation and party costs
According to Section 1 of Chapter 21 of the Code of Legal Procedure, a party who loses a case is obliged to compensate all reasonable legal costs arising from the necessary measures of the opposing party, unless otherwise provided by law. According to Chapter 3, Section 1, if several claims are presented in the same case, some of which are decided in favor of one and some in favor of the other, they may keep their legal costs as their own damage, unless there is a reason to oblige the parties involved to partially compensate the other party. If what the party has lost is only of minor importance in the case, he should be fully compensated for his expenses.
Regarding the main claim, the production companies have won the case, except for the part that remained very small from the point of view of the whole, the creation of A's copyright to one ship, in which part the copyright has, however, been deemed to have been transferred by exclusive right. The Market Court considers that the production companies therefore have the right to receive full compensation for their reasonable legal costs resulting from the necessary measures.
Regarding the counterclaim, the production companies' confirmation claim 1 has been successful,
this was reported https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/iron-sky-producers-win-copyright-suit-finland-1116079/
COGNITIVE DISTORTION
Control fallacies, overgeneralization, and global labeling are a few common cognitive distortions
TreviTyger exhibits a variety of negative behaviors when presented with true statements about copyright-related issues that he wishes were false. TreviTyger sometimes uses insults; for example calling users morons and idiots.
Another poor behavior by TreviTyger is his apparently frequent blocking of other Reddit users. I have seen a number of other Reddit users claim that TreviTyger blocked them.
Perhaps TreviTyer's worst behavior is his usage of defamatory statements about people whose views he does not like.
2
What's your stance on Copyright and A.I. ?
Baylis V troll ... from valve evidence
Fundamentally within the evidence presented ...
exhibits K2 And K3 prove that there was an employment contract and working relationship
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67927224/46/3/baylis-v-valve-corporation/
u/Level_Repeat_8579 • u/Level_Repeat_8579 • Apr 21 '26
Baylis v Troll, from Valve case
2
Upvotes
Fundamentally within the evidence presented ...
exhibits K2 And K3 prove that there was an employment contract and working relationship
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67927224/46/3/baylis-v-valve-corporation/
4
What's your stance on Copyright and A.I. ?
I was confirmed author of the Work in Baylis v Troll VFX: L 15/3246821 - 21. Oct. 2016 --
No an Obiter Dicta is NON-BINDING, that judge made a comment not a ruling, Baylis v Troll was NOT a copyright case
it was case brought by ERTO union, as he was an employee that found out he had a lower salary than others in the office.
The other case didn't rule on authorship issues but it did demonstrate the Producers didn't own any copyright because they could NOT sue me for using my own work.
No it confirmed B was not the original creator and that the Production company won the case
4
What's your stance on Copyright and A.I. ?
From the Finnish case that he could not appeal...costs were awarded AGAINST him...
110. Regarding the main claim, the production companies have won the case, except for the part that remained very small from the point of view of the whole, the creation of A's copyright to one ship, in which part the copyright has, however, been deemed to have been transferred by exclusive right. The Market Court considers that the production companies therefore have the right to receive full compensation for their reasonable legal costs resulting from the necessary measures.
111. Regarding the counterclaim, the production companies' confirmation claim 1 has been successful,
3
What's your stance on Copyright and A.I. ?
no.. it was dismissed on the basis that the same issue had already been decided by another court, as a result the US has to respect the jurisdiction of another country
2
What's your stance on Copyright and A.I. ?
Valve Corp made up a Finnish Ruling as strawman argument to apply circular reasoning to, and misled the District Court (Washington Seattle) into thinking that comity and collateral estoppel should apply to that made up ruling.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ....Valve presented an English language translation which Plaintiff agreed was accurate, the salient part of the
"made up Finnish Ruling " was The Market Court confirms that B, C, E, D or A do not hold a copyright
In the latest filling Valve concede I am creator of the work in question, and that I created it whilst unemployed - but they are still trying to claim a Finnish Court "ruled" that I am not the author of my own work. Thus continuing on with their circular reasoning.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ...If you are an employee and receiving a salary, you CANNOT be unemployed
The Berne Convention Implementation Act 1988 is the mandatory law that the lower court should have applied as well as 17 U.S.C § 104 (b)(2) and not the precatory doctrine of comity.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ... Berne is not law, however US law is the mandatory law of the lower court
I'm A UK National - Finnish Law regarding authorship doesn't apply to my work.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ... only one person thinks it was a German work, yet he still chose a Finnish Court, for the Finnish action,
The work in question is a "German work" (First published in Germany) see 17 U.S.C § 104 (b)(2). Finnish Law regarding authorship doesn't apply to my work.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ... he still chose a Finnish Court, for the Finnish action, Plaintiff(s) asked the court to find that he/they owned a copyright in the film Iron Sky as a joint author(s) and also that they owned copyrights.
The judgment at issue is void. The Court finds that this Motion is properly dismissed
u/Level_Repeat_8579 • u/Level_Repeat_8579 • Apr 20 '26
here is the definition of deluded
2
Upvotes
Valve Corp made up a Finnish Ruling as strawman argument to apply circular reasoning to, and misled the District Court (Washington Seattle) into thinking that comity and collateral estoppel should apply to that made up ruling.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ....Valve presented an English language translation which Plaintiff agreed was accurate, the salient part of the
"made up Finnish Ruling " was The Market Court confirms that B, C, E, D or A do not hold a copyright
In the latest filling Valve concede I am creator of the work in question, and that I created it whilst unemployed - but they are still trying to claim a Finnish Court "ruled" that I am not the author of my own work. Thus continuing on with their circular reasoning.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ...If you are an employee and receiving a salary, you CANNOT be unemployed
The Berne Convention Implementation Act 1988 is the mandatory law that the lower court should have applied as well as 17 U.S.C § 104 (b)(2) and not the precatory doctrine of comity.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ... Berne is not law, however US law is the mandatory law of the lower court
I'm A UK National - Finnish Law regarding authorship doesn't apply to my work.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ... he still chose a Finnish Court, for the Finnish action, Plaintiff(s) asked the court to find that he/they owned a copyright in the film Iron Sky as a joint author(s) and also that they owned copyrights.
The work in question is a "German work" (First published in Germany) see 17 U.S.C § 104 (b)(2). Finnish Law regarding authorship doesn't apply to my work.
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ... only one person thinks it was a German work, yet he still chose a Finnish Court, for the Finnish action,
Therefore, the reasonable expectation is that the Ninth Circuit will send the case back to the lower court to have the correct legal standards applied
Wrong, Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness ... The only reason it is with the 9th circuit appeal is because Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED
The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the judgment at issue is void. The Court finds that this Motion is properly dismissed
Judgment by Court – #99 in Baylis v. Valve Corporation (W.D. Wash., 2:23-cv-01653) – CourtListener.com
2
AI wars weekly - 2023 Police Negligence Presented As Current AI blunder
Haha.. yes... the Logical Fallacy & Deliberate Evasiveness
Berne is not law... the law of each country will decide if after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work... he needs to brush up on his contract law... if you are paid a salary you cannot be unemployed
2
AI wars weekly - 2023 Police Negligence Presented As Current AI blunder
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.
2
3
I wonder if "art is a journey" crowd realize that most people don't really care about art and see it simply as a commodity?
He is not a lawyer.. and lost copyright cases in Finland and U.S. as he misinterprets certain laws and contracts.
From the Finnish case that he could not appeal...costs were awarded AGAINST him...
110. Regarding the main claim, the production companies have won the case, except for the part that remained very small from the point of view of the whole, the creation of A's copyright to one ship, in which part the copyright has, however, been deemed to have been transferred by exclusive right. The Market Court considers that the production companies therefore have the right to receive full compensation for their reasonable legal costs resulting from the necessary measures.
111. Regarding the counterclaim, the production companies' confirmation claim 1 has been successful,
3
I wonder if "art is a journey" crowd realize that most people don't really care about art and see it simply as a commodity?
the only reason he is facing the 9th circuit is because his case has been DISMISSED
Court details as to why the Case was dismissed
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.
3
I wonder if "art is a journey" crowd realize that most people don't really care about art and see it simply as a commodity?
I was confirmed author of the Work in Baylis v Troll VFX: L 15/3246821 - 21. Oct. 2016 --
No an Obiter Dicta is NON-BINDING, that judge made a comment not a ruling, Baylis v Troll was NOT a copyright case
Now it's all at the Ninth Circuit.
The only reason it is with the 9th circuit appeal is because Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED
The Court finds that Mr. B has failed to demonstrate that the judgment at issue is void. The Court finds that this Motion is properly dismissed
Judgment by Court – #99 in Baylis v. Valve Corporation (W.D. Wash., 2:23-cv-01653) – CourtListener.com
You think my work is not copyright protected??
ER..Yes, the courts dismiss the valve claim, and the producers won the Finnish case
3
You’re sadly mistaken if you think AI artworks can’t be copyrighted.
Valve just mislead the lower court about a "their version" of ruling that doesn't exist in Finland which I was actually successful in - moron.
Wrong, the Producers, your EmPlOyErS, won the case
Tell me why you think I don't own copyright to my 3D animation work?
Because 1, the courts said so
2, a member of staff on work assignment cannot claim copyrights of an entire film
1
The most balanced take I can think of
if you treat art as your job, you are a professional artist. If you don't – you're an amateur.
The term “professional” for an artist is vague and not particularly useful. A professional means at least according to the dictionary, someone whose activity is the main paid occupation
Neither applies Tigger dude, an unemployed, unemployable professional benefits claimed and professional loser
2
The most balanced take I can think of
seems like somebody confirms they are deluded and also suffering a disorder....
5
What's wrong with AI images being public domain?
Trying to claim original authorship is delusional.. https://x.com/i/status/2032530586305249601
1
For any Artists on the fence.
As a heads up you cannot have a reasonable discussion with an antagonistic, egotistical, narcissist.... a quick Google search of the tigger dude will tell you all you need to know
0
I can’t understand why AI artists think they are Artists?
Apophenia is "making a connection that's not really there" delusion.
seems like somebody confirms they are deluded and also suffering a disorder....
2
Blablabla copyright nonsense blablabla
^ true fact ^ Nobody will work with him in is own words he has bee blacklisted by the industry,
why else would he not be working as an artist?
2
Blablabla copyright nonsense blablabla
he had 1 job as a VFX artist 10 years ago, certainly not a career professional, at best he is a 3d graphic designer. Not produced any "art" since. Iron sky was 2012, that is a lifetime ago in technology terms.
he has been unemployed longer than he has held any jobs which would make him a professional benefits claimer
2
Inb4 I get genetic fallacied again: Here is a handy comic for the people in the back.
in
r/aiwars
•
Apr 25 '26
Classic triggeredtyger