Slashdot Mirror
Trekkie Sues Christie's for Fraudulent Props
Token_Internet_Girl passed us a link to an MSNBC article on a very disappointed Star Trek fan. Mr. Moustakis of NJ bought a poker visor he thought was worn by Data in Next Generation at a Christie's auction for some $6,000. When he brought it to a convention to have it signed, actor Brent Spiner explained that he'd already sold the well-known visor in a personal sale; like Senator Vreenak, Moustakis had been given a fake. "Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit. The lawsuit, filed in state court in Manhattan, demands millions of dollars in punitive damages and a refund for the visor and two other items Moustakis bought at the 2006 auction."
If it's fake, he should get his money back, but damages? What was damaged? His fantasy of pretending he's Data while playing poker with somebody in a Whorf costume? Or was it his hope to resell the visor for a ton more movney on eBay once it was signed by Spiner?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
There are probably some real damages, in terms of distress and so forth, with hard-to-quantify monetary value. However, if the scam was deliberate, punitive damages are certainly called for.
C//
And I was so hoping to buy a real phaser at auction.
Without knowing the details intimately, I'm sure if he would have been offered a prompt refund instead of a denial from Christie's we wouldn't be talking about here on /.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
I agree that he'd be entitled to punitive damages if this were a scam, but I find it hard to fathom that Christie's would knowingly commit fraud.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Huh? Since when are actors considered the authorities on their costumes and paraphenalia? One might suspect the studio art and prop departments would be better and more reliable judges of what was actually used on a show. As if that matters.
I am certainly a major trekkie myself
...
;-)
IT IS A FLIPPING GREEN TRANSLUCENT VISOR!
Well proven, my friend!
I have to admit, I know the episode, but couldn't actually have described the visor off the top of my head.
"Distress"? I say, whine more, noob. Why should he get a windfall, even if Christie's was pulling a scam?
But yes, his monetary damages of $6000 should be reimbursed if the item was indeed a fake.
If the item had been sold for $5000 instead of $6000, though, he could have filed this case in small claims court and gotten his just compensation a lot faster. He could have even ended up on TV because of it.
At least they didn't try and auction off a functional replicator. You know Star Fleet's feelings on sharing technology like that lol.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Punitive civil damages. A way of bitch slapping them so they won't do it again. In Indiana the government keeps 90 percent of such judgments. The left over is usually eaten up in attorney fees or the attorney will gamble and take all of that 10 percent even if there is zero awarded the client then pays no fees and keeps the whole refund.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
That is not a very flattering picture of Mr. Spiner. I have only seen paler skin on an albino vampire who lived in a cave and ate only monobenzylether of hydroquinone. Old Brent is actually starting to look like Data! Could someone be so kind to give him a nice tanning bed for Christmas ?
I can throw as many stones as I wish; my house is made of transparent aluminum.
Why is it so wrong for someone to be so into Star Trek that they might actually experience negative physical effects from such an ordeal? As a hardcore Tolkien fan I could only imagine that if I was in the position to purchase something worn by the man himself, I would flip my wig. Then to find out later it was a fake, yeah the stress and turmoil would certainly have an effect on my blood pressure, mood, interactions with friends/family, etc, etc.
So now I ask you, are we putting this guy down because this is merely an object that caused his distress. Are we putting him down because the item in question is from a television series not everyone might respect on the same level as this man, Or are we putting him down for the amount of damages asked for?
Well in regards to the latter, I say if a company is unable or unwilling to accept fault (or even to admit the possibility of fault) well then I say get what ya can while ya can because a company such as that, is not built for the long haul.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
I too bought some Star Trek memoribilia a few years ago - one of Uhuru's pubic hairs that had become entangled in La Forge's high tech visor. It came in a box and cost me $60,000 and still smelt vaguely fishy. Unfortunately after presenting the pubic hair to Uhulu at a Star Trek convention a couple years later, she insisted that it wasn't hers. A DNA test was conducted, and it turns out that the pubic hair actually belonged to Kirk. I was disgusted, and threw it away.
Fraud is one of the few cases in tort law where punitive damages are somewhat commonly awarded...not usually on the order of what this guy is asking, but still to some degree.
Someone has been watching too much of it.
So really, this guy spent a wad on stuff that he hadn't properly researched.
Personally if I was going to drop $24k on stuff like this, I'd have done a bit of homework first. It can't be that difficult to check an auction catalog to see if a table is actually the same as one in a scene, or even eyeball it before the auction starts. Even more with the costume - $11,400 buys a lot of preparation, not least an assessment of what your maximum bid would be.
Of course, if these items were unresearched impulse buys in a bidding war that went horribly out of control and what we're really seeing is a large dose of buyer's remorse, well it was an expensive lesson.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Why is it so wrong for someone to be so into Star Trek that they might actually experience negative physical effects from such an ordeal?
Ask a psychiatrist, if none is available, a psychologist would be fine as well.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Value these days is indeed anticipatory. If you bought a house that was guaranteed to be atop a famous grave, that purchase is more or less an investment. If it turned out that John Q. Public was underneath, that would be bad for business. Similarly, if you bought a stock based on reports from cooked books, you'd have a similar gripe.
What's interesting about this is, does value equal what you thought you could make, or the price you paid for whatever you bought? This guy was in a line with (at best) 10 people in earshot of what was said, not quite worth what he's suing for if the merit is based entirely on the buyer being 'humiliated'.
Something tells me this lawsuit could have been better if a lawyer wasn't so eager to grasp at straws. It looks like the guy was sold a fake, nonetheless, so avoiding that auction house until this is settled might be a good idea.
Yo homies in da house - lissen up good - Im sendin a shout out to my dogg Christies n MAD PROPS ta Christies for sellin dem FAKE PROPS to sum un-suspektin dude an bein all like, aint nothin bro, its all good, its still cool, dont sue me bro, less work sumthin out, ya know, sum freebies an' shiiiiiiiit.
I can throw as many stones as I wish; my house is made of transparent aluminum.
Damn, my "transporter duplication accident" line ain't workin' anymore.
Table-ized A.I.
Was looking for information about a duplicate set of Dorothy's ruby slippers (I think there was a similar thing about them - a couple of pairs - one worn and one not - and this web page came up:
;-)
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/
Quote:
"Coincidentally, the visor that is referenced in the article as the piece Spiner told the collector was not his visor, was a piece I was interested in for myself at the time of the auction. I had asked a friend in attendance to place a bid for me. After reading this story, I immediately remembered that the auctioneer had noted, before opening the item for bids, that there was an updated description for the item, and that it was made for the show/character, but was not the one seen/used. I don't have the exact quote from the live webcast, but my note on a private forum at the time (we were making notes and discussing in real time) was as follows:
I asked Brandon to bid $1600 on Data's visor (up now)...
Not even worn! I'm okay to miss that one then!
Because this was broadcast on the web and via the History Channel on television, I'm sure the exact remarks by the Christies auctioneer/representative prior to bids placed will have an impact on this case."
End Quote...
If this is true then the guy probably has no case but does have an expensive spiffy green visor.
Let's not forget Christie's is a prestigious auction house. While I'm no trekkie, and kinda creeped out by them, I find it even more repulsive that an auction house with a reputation to protect would be so cavalier about the authenticity to make this mistake. How is the buyer's admiration any different from people's obsession with Princess Diana or Jackie Kennedy? How big would the damages be if Christies defrauded people over one of those items?
I also saw a comment where someone said he was supposed to "properly do his research". Sorry, places like Christie's are supposed to do their research.
Btw, the story was submitted by "Token_internet_girl". Didn't know any girls were ever into star trek, but whatever.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
In TFA, plaintiff's attorney claims "It's negligent misrepresentation." To me (and as far as I know, the law) negligence is not exercising the due care expected of one, given the wider standards of due care that other people or businesses take in similar situations. Supposing that plaintiff's merchandise is indeed fake, I would argue that it is surely appropriate to begin a process of discovery, to determine if Christies was negligent. One does have to wonder how they sold at auction fake merchandise, and what process they used to make sure it wasn't fake. This is something that they have every imperative to avoid.
Christies does have the opportunity to avoid the discovery process. They could settle, and probably should. Having the world find out that they auctioned off fake merchandise, however inadvertently, is damaging to their reputation per se, as is continuing press on the matter.
C//
I would pay LOTS of money for any piece of clothing that was anywhere near Cmdr. Troi's, ummm, "chestal" area.
Get over it! It's just a canvas with paint splattered on it!
Get over it! Just a piece of cardboard with a photo on it!
Get over it! Just a circuit board with wires and stuff on it!
Why do paintings sell for millions? Why do baseball cards go in the thousands? Because people perceive them as having value and hence are investments. There will be no shortage of trekkies, so sometime in the future, he would be able to auction that visor off himself for a return, assuming it's an original.
Just because it doesn't make sense to you, personally, doesn't make it accurate. So you wouldn't get it. Big deal. Neither would I, but I'm sure someone else out there would.
Maybe not him but Christie's should definitely get stung for a large wad of cash. IIRC, their business model rather depends upon the legitimacy of the items going under the hammer.
Requiem for the American Dream
feeling any sympathy for this guy?
I mean, if Christie's really did fraudulently represent these as real props, more power to him in his lawsuit. Don't stop until you've got the auctioneer's gavel.
But, holy fuck, $24K on Star Trek memorabilia? The thousands of dollars a year I spend smoking is put to better use than this dude's cash.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Is anyone else, like me, totally ashamed that they got the (deceased) Senator Vreenak reference, without having to look it up?
Certainly, damage to your reputation if you claim (and believe) that you have an authentic widget and then are laughed at by other people when they find out you (unintentionally) lied to them. The auction house advertises the goods as authentic and sells them as what they are claimed to be. If you sell goods that aren't as advertised, isn't that fraud?
i am a soviet space shuttle
No, but when you put it in front of your eyes it will make you blind like Geordi.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
*sigh*
...
The issue here isn't the specific item, the specific buyer, or the specific value. The issue is that a major auction house has sold something that wasn't what they claimed it was. This is a huge problem for them as the press they are now getting due to the high profile of the item sold (almost everyone has at least heard of Star Trek) is doing damage to their reputation. If Christie's sold a fake to this guy, how do you know that that multimillion-dollar painting you had your eye on in the next Christie's art auction isn't a fake too? So you don't buy it from them, and neither does anyone else due to the bad press, and Sotheby's gets the future business instead
And who are you to make fun of other peoples' hobbies? Don't watch Star Trek if you don't like it, but slandering other people is yet another example of people who have really big Internet high horses and makes you look foolish. One man's piece of junk is another's treasure.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Maybe this is a little redundant when discussing Wikipedia, but I'm a little surprised that apparently every episode of DS9 has its own entry on Wikipedia (for example, linked in article summary above), while entries on webcomics that have a number of fans "only" numbering in the thousands is considered not significant enough to merit an article.
And that is definitely something you don't want companies doing.
OTOH, it was proof that at least there, he has some hair left :-)
bickerdyke
I didn't submit the story, but I'm female, on Slashdot, and a Trekkie (though not the die-hard hardcore sort, though at times I can admire people who are wholeheartedly into their hobbies, whatever they may be, including the hardcore Trekkies/Trekkers, and some of the costumers do amazing work).
i am a soviet space shuttle
Suing for millions is a little over the top, his suit has some merit if his allegations are correct. Did the auction house actually say that the items he won were worn and used by the cast and crew? I say he is at least entitled to return the items for the money. It doesn't matter that he's a trekkie. Suppose he bought the tuxedo worn by Sean Connery in Dr. No only to find out it was never worn by Sean Connery, would his suit have more merit then?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Honestly... is it really that difficult to proof-read the headline? It's "fraud" not "frad."
Anyone who pays $6,000 for such an item (even with the dollar being so worthless) gets no sympathy from me!
"Christie's spokesman, a Ferengi trader of rare and unusual items..."
I might have known!
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
Translation: Brent Spiner had the real one. Brent Spiner sold the real one. According to the transitive property, the buyer got ripped off.
Translation: What does Brent Spiner know, trust me, you bought the real one from us. (As an aside, does anyone think they deliberately chose this spokesman for his surname?)
Translation: I bought something they claimed was X, turns out it's not, and I was informed of this standing in a line with an assload of people around me.
When you remove the Star Trek slant, it's a case of Person X selling something to Person Y claiming it's Object A when in actuality it's Object B. If you see nothing wrong with this, I have a Ming Vase I'd like to sell you for the bargain basement price of $50,000,000. I just have to go to the dollar store and pick it up.
And from your post:
Who says he's looking for those things? Did you ever think maybe he wanted to own a small piece of a fond childhood memory? Even if he wants it to wear it in the bathroom and relive the moment when Data proved to Tasha Yar he was fully functional, it doesn't change the fact they sold him something that's not what they claimed it was.
Wrong again. I'd say it's an investment, just not one that returns monetarily. Believe it or not, there are many things like that in the world. Are you going to put off having children until you can get a guaranteed ROI?
But Ron Paul says if a company sells fake stuff, they get a bad reputation, and then people don't shop there.
...the fact that there are entire Wikipedia articles on each episode of Star Trek, or the fact that the submitter not only knew this, but knew a relevant episode to link to as well.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Yo I heard u like visors so I put an extra visor in the glove compartment dawg so you can poker.
That gives me an idea for "Step 2" . . .
1. Sell N pairs fake Star Trek underpants for U dollars each.
2. Get caught M times, refund M*U dollars.
3. (N-M)*U dollars Profit!!!
I am not a crackpot.
I sure hope my Wonder Woman bracelets aren't fake. I'd hate to eat a bullet someday from a home intruder.
I agree that he'd be entitled to punitive damages if this were a scam, but I find it hard to fathom that Christie's would knowingly commit fraud.
Didn't read TFA posted here, but there was an article/interview in the NY Daily News the other day with this guy and he said one of the things Spiner told him when they met was "I told them not to sell" the visor because it was fake. If that's true - and it seems like you'd have to take the word of the guy who supposedly wore it - then there could be a case for fraud. Christie's at that point went ahead with an auction they were warned about by one of the principals involved with the merchandise.
Of course, it also depends on how these items were presented. I read the catalog for this auction at the time and many of the items were presented as rehearsal props or backups, or were otherwise never claimed to have actually been used on the show. Maybe this guy *believed* this visor was used on the show, but Christie's never said so. If that's the case, he's gonna have a tough time collecting anything from them.
Sir, I applaud you for attempting to keep the use of the subjunctive mood alive. Unfortunately, in this particular instance, you should not say "if this were" but rather "if this was". Let me explain.
The subjunctive mood in English is not simply a sentence-pattern; it is not simply a matter of using "were" rather than "was" any time a third-person clause is preceeded by "if". It actually encodes a particular meaning, which is why (in my opinion) its use is important. The subjunctive mood indicates that a particular statement makes a hypothesis contrary to fact.
See, when I say "if I were an asshole", the use of were implies that I am not, in fact, an asshole. I am hypothesizing about something that is not in fact true, and I'll probably follow it up with "I wouldn't pay for the abortion" or something similar. Now, here's a similar example, that is in the indicative mood: "If I was an asshole, I'm sorry." You can likely imagine the context: you've had a fight with your girlfriend, and she accuses you of being a dick, and you don't contest it. You admit as much, and so you are not talking about something that is not in fact the case, as you were in the first example.
Here's the problem with using the subjunctive mood in your statement: we do not know whether or not this was a scam. The subjunctive here implies that we know for a fact that it wasn't a scam, and that you're only hypothesizing about what would happen in the event that it were. It's like saying "if I were a woman, I imagine I'd like well-endowed men." You're not a woman, and the subjunctive makes that explicit.
Hope this helps!
Didn't know any girls were ever into star trek, but whatever.
You have got to be kidding.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Punative damages aren't from anticipatory value in resale. As the name suggest, they're a punishment. The idea is that they act as an extra deterrent to fraud, or whatever the crime is.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Ask a psychiatrist, if none is available, a psychologist would be fine as well.
Oh, please. We don't call people crazy when they pay shitloads of money for some piece of abstract art that looks like something done by a moderately talented three-year-old with finger paints, but happens to have a famous name attached to it. (Mind you, I think it's kind of dumb, but it's not crazy.) And we very definitely wouldn't call them crazy if they then found out it was a fake, and got pretty upset about it.
People put substantial monetary value on all kinds of things which have little actual utility. If this is crazy, it's a type of insanity which afflicts a large proportion (perhaps a majority) of the human race.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"Maybe not him but Christie's should definitely get stung for a large wad of cash."
More appropriately, they should be required to, for each item auctioned, state that the item they're selling may or may not be authentic and as far as they're concerned they make more money if you think it is.
"IIRC, their business model rather depends upon the legitimacy of the items going under the hammer."
The actual legitimacy isnt as importance as the appearance of legitimacy. Which may be why auctioning houses have a long and profitable history of making mistakes.
"Oh, please. We don't call people crazy when they pay shitloads of money for some piece of abstract art that looks like something done by a moderately talented three-year-old with finger paints, but happens to have a famous name attached to it."
;-)
I do.
>If Christie's sold a fake to this guy, how do you know that that multimillion-dollar painting you had your eye on in the next Christie's art auction isn't a fake too?
Its a lot of reading but this is Hans Buhr's story on Christies selling fake art http://fakeartroadshow.com/ The guy is quite the character too, like an older Indiana Jones.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Pretending to be Worf? Obviously, you've never seen the dentists' family on "Trekkies", and heard what people really do when they're pretending to be Data...
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
I am so happy to meet a fellow Shatnerologist in the hallowed grounds of Slashdot...
Moderators, be warned: by NOT modding parent as funny may cause you to:
1) Have nightmares of bald Kirks in your sleep (though these may be excorsiced by following the preaches and sermons of the FCOS)
2) Grow large soft pimply buttocks!
3) Be transformed to a ``Gdank,,
Heed my warnings, enlist the power of Prayer and when the temptation of the big ``M,, is strong, yell "Oh Yeah" and get at it! In the words of the Shapostle I depart:
Make way for the hairless and bloated one. For his ego is great and his talents few...
Today's lesson in legal terminology: If you sue someone and are awarded a refund, that is still called damages. (Being awarded money means either damages or costs. Costs are to recompense you for taking the case to court - i.e., lawyers fees and court fees. Compensatory damages are to right-the-wrong. Punative damages are to punish the defendant.)
The question is whether *punitive* damages should be awarded.
The parent's usage of the subjunctive is correct. The subjunctive mood is used to express uncertainty as well as things contrary to fact.
If they claimed it was genuine they're fucked, pure and simple.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
As Rob pointed out, if you don't slap them _somehow_, then it's actually profitable to run a scam. At 6000 a pop, if you sell 1000 fakes and even as high as 80% of those realize it's a scam (though it probably will be a lot less), you've still made over a million profit off the remaining 20%.
I'm sure a _lot_ of people would consider a life of crime, if the only punishment were, "if you get caught, you must give it back."
I mean, seriously, then what would be the deterrent to, say, stealing cars? If you get caught you give the car back, if not, you fence the parts. It's guaranteed profit.
There has to be _some_ punishment above and beyond giving back what you stole, or there is no deterrent.
And if you want to say, "that's not equivalent", yes, in a sense it is. If I steal your wallet (or empty your account via ID theft), get caught, and give you your wallet and your money back, what more can you want from me? You got your money back, didn't you? All's settled and fair, and I can go back on the street, right?
Well, chances are you'd want _some_ kind of punishment to both punish and deter further crime. You wouldn't want me back on the street looking for another wallet to swipe, with essentially nothing lost except a day's work.
Now for crimes like above, ok, we have jails. But for companies we can't throw the whole company in jail, and jailing the directors is stuff we keep for more serious stuff. So slapping them with a fine is thought to be an acceptable substitute. The idea is to slap them hard enough that repeating the offense doesn't even remotely look profitable. That's all.
Now the US system does look funny seen from Europe, and, I gather, seen from the USA too. It's easy to see it as "OMG, some greedy guy's trying to get rich off Christie." And it could even be the case. But, really, it's just one of the possible ways to deter companies from doing antisocial stuff. Whether it's a bunch of guys wanting big money (in punitive damages or as a settlement) or a government agency doing the same, well, the end effect is the same: the company is slapped hard enough for doing bad stuff.
In Europe we have government agencies looking out for us, and dishing out huge fines. In the USA, I gather, you couldn't trust the government as far as you could throw them, and the whole system is geared towards a more personal "lawyers at ten paces at high noon" approach. End effect, nevertheless, the company gets slapped. We could bitch about details, like that that causes lawyers in the USA to breed like rabbits, but in the end it's one way to keep companies in line. Can't see anything wrong with that underlying idea.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I wonder what the trekkie said when he found out the item was not authentic.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Here is what most people don't understand about this:
Most film/TV props are NOT unique. Even for a single use, usually 5 or 6 copies are made, mainly to ensure that there is no delay in the event of breakage. (Extra Prop == $$$$, Delay == $$$$$$$)
So the filmshoot or series ends and the props wind up scattered to the winds... some go into the prop houses' cavernous closets; some get lifted by cast or crew; some are thrown in the trash and salvaged by random persons. And people soon forget that other copies exist, or in the case of folks not in the biz, never knew that in the first place.
Eventually, one or more of these MULTIPLE COPIES makes its way to the collectibles market. Since extra copies exist, situations like this one sometimes arise (this isn't the first I've heard about; indeed, it's not the first reported here on slashdot), where everyone swears they alone have THE ONE TRUE PROP.
So... chances are that BOTH are genuine; that is, were made for the show. Chances are also good that only one was ever worn by Brent Spiner, and he may have never seen or known of others.
The collectibles dealer usually has no way to know how many copies of a given prop exist; all they have is a general provenance, such as that it was known to be a discard from a given production.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
It doesn't matter what we know, it only matters what he is talking about. And he implied in the second part of the sentence that he did not believe it was a scam. But if it were, he says, then he agrees about some point. It may certainly be true that it is a scam, and if agreed that it was, then you would be right. But that is not the case, so you are wrong.
Putting it differently, if the only consequence of being caught in fraud were having to give the money back, fraud would be consistently profitable. Cheat ten people out of $100 apiece, get caught twice, and you're $800 ahead...so we have punitive damages to discourage that.
You could call it a large-scale version of shortchanging...same principle.
rj
LIS above... The visor Data used may not even have been the SAME one on all the episodes mentioned. Actors don't get to keep props and take them home at night. Props go back into the prop box.... where there might be 5 or 6 copies of said prop, made as a hedge against breakage and subsequent (expensive) delays.
It's quite possible that BOTH are genuine; one just happened to get given to (or lifted by) the actor, the other got into the world by another route (usually by discard).
It's also possible that the plaintiff's visor is a fan-made knockoff, but that strikes me as less likely, since the Hollywood collectibles thing has been serious business for a long time, and usually there's some chain of provenance that can document its origins. (Frex, I've seen prop house tags and discard slips on collectible clothing.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The authentication process will be scrutinized and other potential fakes will also come to light.
Christies will be ruined unless they settle out of court for millions.
They're using their grammar skills there.
While as I think it is silly to spend that much money on "toys", there are lots of people who do. Some of this is silly hype created by the industry, but that is part of the process (of creating wealth). There are lots of other memorabilia where similar other items are misrepresented. This type of fraud happens in more serious industries, e.g. finance [Merril-Lynch], insurance [mandatory in many cases], education [MBA mills], politics [need I say WMD and sexed up intelligence reports], and medical services [unnecessary procedures]. The guy has merit to sue for damages above and beyond a $1K. Maybe, he was looking to make a flip by selling it on EBay for far more. I am sure that most art collectors buy art with the full expectations of making far more in the future. To a large extent, this sort of speculation is behind the real estate bubble and by the Federal Reserve for meddling with interest rates. A lot of people were making lots of money flipping property which was well beyond expectations. I am sure those that bought property which was fraudulently represented are also suing developers.
So who is going to know what they wore while doing a particular job than the person who wore that item of clothing/accessory as part of their job?
Do you think the prop/costume department only acquired a single visor? Did the actor take that first visor worn home and bring it back for every future episode? Did the actor mark that visor so he knew it was the same one? Unless he was hoping to cash in at some future date why would he even pay such close attention to a particular prop like this to ensure it is the one and only visor ever used?
Who knows better than you what wallet/purse you've carried for the last X years? It was on your person. You repeatedly saw it up close. You remember what it looks like.
That may be true for items that are used to a high degree and experience significant wear, thereby becoming personalized. This would seem unlikely for the visor in question, a prop. It would seem normal for prop/costume people to acquire several items for continuity purposes and replace any item if it acquired any damage or visible wear. Also, one new visor with wear looks like any other. If they had a few new ones in a box how would anyone know the same one was pulled every time? I don't think your "saw it close up" argument is very reliable.
He's also complaining about a uniform he bought. FTA: "He said that . . . the uniform appeared to be one of several made for the program, not a one-of-a-kind, as [he] believed it to be."
It's possible that this guy was mislead about or misunderstood the rarity of these costume items, but either way, I believe it's incorrect to claim that they're fraudulent.
Speaking from personal experience, there are no "one-of-a-kind" spacesuits for regular cast members, because the studio needed to have several doubles in case one of our costumes got dirty or damaged in some way (I once fell while running to the set, and tore the knee out of my hideous gray suit from Season 2, for example.) We never had just one of anything, unless it was expensive to make, or for a guest star who was appearing in just one show.
This guy also says that Brent told him that the visor he bought wasn't the one Brent wore, because Brent already sold that one years ago. Again, Brent could have been talking about a visor from Best of Both Worlds, and this guy got a visor from All Good Things, or something like that.
It doesn't make sense that CBS an Christie's would defraud fans the way this guy alleges, and I think it's more likely that this guy has buyer's remorse, and is looking for a way to get his money back.
It's also possible that the plaintiff's visor is a fan-made knockoff
I find it much easier to believe that the prop/costume people went to the local Wal-mart and bought a visor for a dollar than hand made something. I always thought the visor was supposed to be something replicated to resemble an item from a "classical" era of history. So buying something off-the-shelf at a convenient retailer makes sense, fans would only have to find something that came from the same assembly line. There could be millions.
...for something he paid 6,000 for? How can that be? IANAL, so please explain.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Look I know its a long shot but has anyone considered its Data who might be the one lying? He might have sold tons of these to make some cash. I know hes a machine and they cant tell lies but he gets more and more human all the time.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Government graft in India? Imagine that. Maybe that's why the power grid in major cities in the country looks like a five-year old designed it.
Is there such a thing as a fake movie prop?
Tell that to Ebay :-|
Spiner told him when they met was "I told them not to sell" the visor because it was fake.
Um, ya'll are aware that there are many copies of the props, aren't you? It's not like they only make one and hope it never breaks. it's certainly possible that Spiner had one copy, and Christie's had another.
one has to consider the possibilities as to which way to go. There are two possible truths, and two possible reactions.
1) It's authentic (or at least, authentic enough, it may have been a prop double or spare instead of the "hero" prop, and that may count enough), and they refund the money
2) it's authentic and they don't refund
3) it's fake and they refund
4) it's fake and they don't refund
Case 1 shuts up the buyer and may limit the bad press a bit, and 6 grand is not a big hit to take, but leaves other buyers questioning the autheniticity of other items
Case 2 puts slightly more credibility in the auction house at the expense of more bad press and litigation
Case 3 REALLY is no different than case 1
Case 4 sets them up for a double fall, selling bad goods AND trying to get away with it
Right now they are probably trying for case 2, and really if you compare them, is the best possible outcome. It's quite likely that the visor was a prop double, and was not the actual one Spiner used on the set when they made the take. It could easily have been one worn during rehearsal or an alternate previous take, or during a cut additional scene we didn't see. This would make it pretty close to as authentic as described. Things like that they have more than one of, who knows, brent could have dropped it on the floor walking up to the set for a second take and scratched the visor, and so the prop master quickly handed him another one. Which is the "real" one? Most fanatics would be interested in the actual one he wore in the shot they watched, but both were brent's props and were bot worn by him during that episode. It's also possible due to the multiple takes for the scene that he wore two or even three of them during all the shots taken, and brent may only be considering the last one he wore, the one he took back to the trailer and later sold, to be the "real" one.
If you REALLY wanna get dirty, you could say that brent realized the value of the prop later after forgetting it on the set, (or just plain wanted to keep it at the time) and picked up another one in the prop room after being unable to find the one he just took off and left on the set, and sold that as the original.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Err... millions of dollars or something he paid 6,000 for? How can that be? IANAL, so please explain.
IIRC, in the US, something around 9x is the usual cap for punitive, well in judge's minds. Even then something particularly heinous usually needs to have been done. So he *asks* for millions, the court awards $15,000 (2.5x) in damages, he runs for the courthouse with the check giggling with joy. If he asked for $15,000 the judge might only award $12,000. So to keep the 9x ($54,000) in play you should probably ask for at least $100,000, you might get lucky and find a crazy judge. If you have a jury determining the damages, well they might be even crazier. Hell ask for a million, hope the jury is dumb enough to let this somehow influence their calculations. Do you think a particular jury would come up with the same number whether $100,000 or $1,000,000 was asked for?
This case is chock full of merit. The authenticity of the item has been questioned by the person who may be most qualified to authenticate it. Brent Spiner himself stated it is not the poker visor used on the show. I know some may say the prop department would have the final word, but Brent Spiner then goes on to back up his claim to this poor individual by stating the original, authenticated version had been sold already to someone else. Few things are as absolute as that, unless Brent Spiner is lying. What if Picasso appeared and told some poor soul that the painting they own was not drawn by HIM? This is like a clouded title to a property. While you are arguing who actually owns it, you cannot sell it. This guy had every right to either make this an investment financially or emotionally. If he can't ever be sure if it is the right prop, then effectively, it is not the right one. He cannot enjoy it from an emotional fanboy aspect, and he cannot sell it if he KNOWS that it might not be the right one. What happens to him if he sells it to someone else and they find out the same thing? They have as much merit to sue him, as he does to sue Christie's.
Christie's may be screwed. The authenticity is absolutely in question. I doubt that Christie's had the time to authenticate each item that thoroughly. I watched a special on this, and that collection was just part of a HUGE number of items going back nearly 40 years. Just the fact the visor was found with all those items, may have been good enough for Christie's to state it was an official prop. They had gone too far in stating it was the ACTUAL one used by Brent Spiner, since we now know it may not be.
Did Christie's knowingly attempt to defraud? There was a large number of Christie employees and staff from the shows working on creating that collection. You would have to prove they knew it was the wrong visor, yet chose to sell it anyways. However, if Brent Spiner DID tell them that he felt it was the wrong one and the prop department disagreed..... it could be construed as fraudulent for Christie's to fail to inform the buyer of this confusion beforehand.
Was Christie's negligent? Most of their process was filmed for a documentary. With so much input from the shows staff, location in which the item was found, etc. it would be hard to say that they did not take enough steps to prove authenticity. I doubt it would have been possible to literally go to Brent Spiner, for god knows how many items, and ask him to authenticate it. With input from the prop department, they could have chosen to not seek the validation of the actors themselves.
This case has plenty of merit to make it to a trial. At the very least this gentlemen deserves his money back. As for punitive damages, that would have to be determined by the court.
His fantasy of pretending he's Data while playing poker with somebody in a Whorf costume? Or was it his hope to resell the visor for a ton more movney on eBay once it was signed by Spiner?
Actually it was LaForge who wore the visor, and Levar Burton who played him.
Why should ebay be responsible when they are not the ones who write the descriptions, are not directly selling the items, and never claimed to research the provenance?
It's a legit reason to not trust ebay, but blaming them for not doing something they never claimed to do is silly.
i am a soviet space shuttle
You're ten times the loser that the guy in the article would be even if he did think the visor had magic powers.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
In general, the auction house is just selling stuff, not standing behind its authenticity.
For art, and other one of a kind items, they rely on provenance - essentially a chain of ownerswhip back to the original source. For some items, they may rely on an outside expert (e.g. for a newly "discovered" Picasso.)
If they've done this, they are assumed to be acting in good faith, and you have little chance of collecting damages for fraud - be happy the transaction is cancelled, and you get your money back.
That's it. Hand over the ears and membership card and go to your room.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Galactic Emporium: Dealing in legal items, etc.
Moreover, the simple fact that Spiner once sold it does not mean it is not that very same one now sold again. This would need to be demonstrated however.
I have the official Christie's catalog - it says it was "worn by Brent Spiner as Data" in "Descent, Part I" and "All Good Things".
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Hey Fucktard!!! Does your ADHD allow you to finish reading a complete WORD!!!
He said "Indiana" not India. One is a State in the US and the other is a Country!!
Look closer before you pull your bigoted flame trigger next time.
While this comment is well-taken, I'm suspecting that Christies would object to having the same level of authenticity for products as Ebay. :-)
C//
Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit.
Nor did you read the actual article:
According to the lawsuit, Spiner recognized the visor as the one that had been sold by Christie's and told Moustakis that it wasn't the real deal. The actual visor had been sold by the actor himself some time ago.
Regardless of any indemnification on Christi's part on their website, by stating publicly that you stand behind the authenticity, they are de-facto guaranteeing the authenticity.
MOD PARENT UP. The reason should be pretty obvious.
Surprise! They do anyway!
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
That site reads like the Time Cube site.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If all ppl act like this...then when (if) I get famous I'm going to auction of my used underwear instead of throwing them away. For 6000 a pop you can do whatever you want with them once they're yours...cash up front though!
This is Slashdot! Give me the latest gadget, bug, or OS project! This ain't english class so don't confuse the two!
I'm sorry to say, but really, who cares?
***Fraudulent*** is the adjective form of fraud. I don't know what a frad is.
Dude! It's Star Trek, not Doctor Who! ;)
Collectibles and antiques can appreciate considerably, though they aren't dependable on a year-over-year income basis as, say, stocks or bonds, or as an absolute store of value way as, say, gold. You do have to claim valuable collectibles you own or aquire as assets for tax purposes, among other things, and you just need to watch one episode of the Antiques Roadshow to see just how valuable a piece of entertainment memorabilia can be worth.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
And Christie's does?
Do you really believe there is a difference between them? My point is nothing against Ebay as such but more against the reputation that Christies has, taking their very long legal get out clauses as evidence that they care almost as much about the 'customer' as the online auction houses.
All of them suck
All of them have get out clauses that say you are buying what the description says on the good faith of the seller.
All of them would sell sand to an arab or ice to an eskimo if they thought they'd get away with it.
Does Christie's Claim to write all the descriptions? NO
Does Christie's sell the item themselves? NO it's sold on behalf of the owner
Does Christie's claim their research to be 100% accurate? NO
Ebay DO claim they are 100% secure until you read the small print, Christies DO claim they are 100% secure until you read the small print. At the end of the day there is legally sweet F all between them.
Only so long as she's half Betazoid.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Well, since you're amusing me with a discussion of language, I'll agree that I mangled the language. The issue here is with the term "deliberate scam" as opposed to some accidental scam, which is really semantically challenged, thinking about it, as there is no such thing as a not deliberate scam.
I'll remind myself to drink more coffee in future mornings,
C//
this fish...it has a taste
nom nom nom nom
Actually it would be (N-M)*(U-C) profit, where C is the original cost of the underpants. :P
(Can you believe someone actually went to the trouble to post this??)
The guy has enough of an obsession that he spent $24,000 on mostly Data props, and Brent Spiner told him he was ripped off. I doubt his feelings of humiliation are based on who else was in the line.
What was damaged? His fantasy of pretending he's Data while playing poker with somebody in a Whorf costume?
Hey, stop picking on my date!
Table-ized A.I.
Or suppose he bought a pair of diamond cuff-links that were never worn by anyone in any movie or TV show, but they turned out to have half the karat weight described (One little each slipped into the text...)? Or they were Zircons instead? Or they were described as high clarity yellow, and were in fact dirty brown? Or they were described as cruelty free Canadian diamonds and they turned out to come from De Beers #4 Namibian mine? If frauds in general don't justify a lawsuit, then how about it Slashdotters, just which frauds would you let slide?
Who is John Cabal?
I didn't submit the story, but I'm female, on Slashdot, and a Trekkie
Quick someone trace her IP address!!
Putting it differently, if the only consequence of being caught in fraud were having to give the money back, fraud would be consistently profitable. Cheat ten people out of $100 apiece, get caught twice, and you're $800 ahead...so we have punitive damages to discourage that.
You've just rediscovered Circuit City's M.O.
Table-ized A.I.
Believe it or not, there are many things like that in the world. Are you going to put off having children until you can get a guaranteed ROI?
You betcha. I'm waiting for the slavery laws to be repealed myself.
According to tv.com Descent(pt1) was first aired 6/21/93 and All Good Things... 5/23/94.
And how many other episodes had poker scenes with green visors and then how many takes were needed to film them all? And everyone of them has a chance of having its own duplicate prop.
Uh-oh, looks like the cat that played Spot used that one for a scratching post, we're going to need a new Timmy, err...visor.
How many websites are devoted to finding discrepancies in TV shows? In this cut Data is wearing his correct LtCmdr rank but in that cut of the same scene he is only wearing LtJG rank.
Christie's error was naming(episode) names without being able to prove that the item being auctioned was used in all they listed.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
It's unlikely to be fake, just one of many.
Anyone who buys props thinking it's the *only* copy is deceiving themselves.
Not to mention that other posters have noted that the auctioneer clearly stated that the item wasn't the one worn on the episode *before* the auction. IMO This guy has no case.
Um...yes, they do.
Provenance is the backbone of the high-end auction business. These firms employ hundreds of learned and trained individuals whose duties include establishing and verifying the provenance of items auctioned.
If the provenance of a supposedly-"important" piece (or collection) cannot be verified, it is marked as "attributed to." If a piece has no historical significance at all, as with Aunt Tillie's old dining room table, it is simply sold as such: "old dining room table, Victorian reproduction, circa 1932."
Punitive damages are very much in order here if Christie's performed shoddy research and passed off little-used props or seconds as "the actual item/s used by Brent Spiner in specific episodes."
You cannot compare high-end auction houses to eBay at all, because eBay is not an auction house; it is purely a middleman.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
There probably was more than one prop, but the trouble is that the Christie's catalog claims it was "worn by Brent Spiner" in the episodes in question, and Brent Spiner claims that he only used one prop and it is accounted for, heck the claims by Christie are false.
I don't get it. Isn't fraud something you're supposed to go to jail for? Why just a fine? Someone in the process must have committed the fraud, i.e. lied, he should have to face *criminal* charges. No need for punitive damages.
>Get over it! It's just a canvas with paint splattered on it!
[etc...]
Oh please. The prop masters probably bought it off the shelf at some department store. Comparing a green visor to creative art or photography is a bit insane. But you are right- people place all kinds of value on strange stuff.
Brent Spiner claims that he only used one prop and it is accounted for
Was Brent also the Prop Master for that episode? If not, then he has no idea how many copies of that prop the show had. He also has no idea if he wore the same one for each and every take.
The posting was meant to be a bit humorous, you know... (well, obviously didn't hit the mark; and it wasn't "slander"). Yes, it would be sad if it were a fake, and wrong of Christie's. And I don't wish sorrow or monetary loss on the guy. I am trying to say "hey people, step back... it is a piece of plastic! Cherish the shows, not the fibers, wood, and plastic."
The whole issue is what the auction house said they were. If the diamond cuff links were advertised to be a certain carat weight and/or a certain clarity, and they were not, it is grounds for him to return the items for his money back. I think it's a little over the top to sue for millions but the auction house may not have given him a choice.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
IANAL, but I would guess the buyer could be entitled to charge them in both civil and criminal courts. You don't have to choose one or the other AFAIK.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
You've just rediscovered Circuit City's M.O.
Sorry, but you seem to have mis-spelled "Best Buy".
Oh, look honey, more vengeful mods.
Let's take me back to 4, guys. Just because I've made a lot of enemies (and a lot of friends) doesn't mean I deserve this BS.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Didn't even read the full post did you?
Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit.
Nor did you read the actual article:
According to the lawsuit, Spiner recognized the visor as the one that had been sold by Christie's and told Moustakis that it wasn't the real deal. The actual visor had been sold by the actor himself some time ago.
Regardless of any indemnification on Christi's part on their website, by stating publicly that you stand behind the authenticity, they are de-facto guaranteeing the authenticity.
I did read the post, and article. Note that the Christie's spokesman carefully avoided standing behind the authenticity of the item - he only said the auction itself was authentic.
They'll claim they did due diligence. It doesn't matter if the item eventually proved to be fake. At worst, they'll unwind the sale.
No judge is going to find fraud here, unless they made some serious misrepresentation. These guys have two hundred years experience selling art, etc, with questionable history coming out of war-torn countries. You really think this visor is going to blindside them in a fraud suit?
RAWR STAR TREK Tee hee :)
Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
TheSpoom's reply is correct: there is civil fraud, remedied with lawsuits, and there is criminal fraud, remedied with prosecution. It's often possible to give the perp both barrels.
rj
Ok, maybe I'm a retard...
Can someone explain to my why it's utterly impossible that the fan Brent Spiner sold the visor to later sold it to Christie's? And then Christie's auctioned it?
Have we been sucked into a strange parallel universe where items can't possible be re-sold?
Comment of the year
Idiot!
Blithering, butt picking, government trusting, non-gun toting moron.
Read some history, not the stuff they fed you in high-school.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I think you have your priorities a bit screwy here.
Filling our prisons with those who commit fraud is a horrible waste of resources that would better be served by enclosing those who would pirate movies and music.
I believe we all know who the *real* criminals are.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
"Just suppose for a moment that he did it in one take. Or they did multiple takes, but didn't take a break or change costume. Given that Data only ever changes costume to play a character on the holodeck (or pose for a kidnapper), this is not implausible.
I mean, why would you shoot the scene more than once? Why would you change visors, unless there was something visually wrong with it, in which case, it wouldn't be that one that was "worn in the scene". It's not like a jacket worn for a stunt which might damage it. It's an accessory worn for a sedentary, non violent, game.
I'm sure Mr Spiner would be aware of whether they changed visors mid-scene, or shot the scene over more than a single filming session.
"Pike"? You think Christie's Auction House's PR department remembers the deformed guy in the chair with the "yes/no" lights from the original series, and decided to pick a spokesman who had the same last name?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
there is only one comment that can be made to this:
fuck*right*off
Return money plus expences. If the scam were deliberate, punish the perpetrators in criminal court. And stuff the litigious bullshit up your arse. Distress... get him a security blanket if he's that freakin' strung out by this. Or maybe he should pour a hot coffee on his nuts and sue McDonalds too. JH Christ, sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue argh!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
On the other hand, Christie's has appraisers on staff and/or farms out the work. Ebay doesn't.
i am a soviet space shuttle
http://xkcd.com/322/
I mean, why would you shoot the scene more than once?
Ever see a Blooper reel? Sometimes, the actors mess up. Sometimes, the lighting is not right. Sometimes the props break. Sometimes, SAG rules require them to break for lunch (or for the day) before they get it right.
Why would you change visors
Well, if you break for lunch, you don't take the props with you. You turn them over to the Prop Master, who stores them safely. If there are multiple copies of the same prop, then the prop given back to the actor after lunch might not be the same one they turned in before lunch.
I'm sure Mr Spiner would be aware of whether they changed visors mid-scene, or shot the scene over more than a single filming session.
Are YOU "sure" of stuff that happened at work 15 to 20 years ago?? (ST:TNG started in 1987!)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So the underpants are free when you get caught? Duh... (N-M)*U-N*C
(Can you believe someone actually went to the trouble to post this??)Well...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Well if it is the distress of paying a lot of money for a fake prop he should sue Brent Spiner for telling him the truth, he was quite happy until he found out that he had a fake ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
...now that it's "the actual Data visor that someone sued Christies over"? Could the hype around the thing actually make it worth something?
I'd expect they know the difference... after all, they deal in much more important stuff. Who's to say that Louis the 14th chair is REALLY Louis the 14th? They're pretty easy to make in China, or a meticulous SCA member could dupe you. Christie's whole reason for commanding the prices they do is that they have experts that are PAID to know these things, not believe, not opinion, but Know, to the ability of science who made this and where it came from.
Like you said, if they are making the claim of being in said episodes, then they'd better have prop master paperwork to back it up or they'll be sued.
No you're not, you goddam amphibian!
Fuckin' wanna-be frogs thinkin' they're just as good as us REAL fish, makes me sick.....
No, I haven't. I have this thing called a Real Life.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I think they mean something like this, not the plastic/metal doohickey that Levar Burton wore as a prop.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Only if you explain why it's utterly impossible that Brent Spiner could have sold the visor to someone who he knows still has it.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Heil.
Spiner could have been lying or joking. Lying in order to keep the guy from getting it signed and flipping it for a profit, or joking and the trekkie, like oh so many in that population, didn't grok the humor.
If I were a sci-fi idol, I think I'd find it very hard to resist fucking with fans from time to time.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
So the underpants are free when you get caught?
If they return them for a full refund, why not ship them right back out?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"Value these days is indeed anticipatory.-------- If you bought a house that was guaranteed to be atop a famous grave, that purchase is more or less an investment. If it turned out that John Q. Public was underneath, that would be bad for business. Similarly, if you bought a stock based on reports from cooked books, you'd have a similar gripe." You never provide detail for your opening sentence in that paragraph. Your two supporting sentences are employ the same illustrate the same disappointment in a different situation. That is not count as analysis. Also, It's not interesting, that auction houses sell unique items at inflated values, its almost the definition of auction. I love Sl'dot post for what they are, but pick up a Roget's Tyrannosaurus instead of using the same word twice. "Similarly, if you bought a stock based on reports from cooked books, you'd have a similar gripe."
I don't want to hear the end of any sentences.
Well, if you break for lunch, you don't take the props with you. You turn them over to the Prop Master, who stores them safely. If there are multiple copies of the same prop, then the prop given back to the actor after lunch might not be the same one they turned in before lunch
Why would they continously be changing props like that, provided the original prop wasn't broken or damaged in some way? People keep saying this, and it makes no sense. By doing that you're just introducing a chance for continuity errors if the props aren't exactly the same. No one wants to reshoot scenes needlessly, that's why they hire a Prop Master whose only job is to keep that kind of stuff straight.
Besides, I'm sure Mr. Spiner, as an experienced actor, knows how these things work, and wouldn't say anything if he wasn't sure that the one purchased was a fake. I suppose he could be lying, but why would he do that?
Your profit would actually be (N-M)*U - L, where L=Lawyers. They're a constant.
True, but in order to get punitive damages, I believe that he would have to prove the Christie's knowingly participated in the fraud. Assuming that they acted in good faith (extremely likely considering the potential damage to their reputation otherwise), than he would only seem to have a legitimate claim for the value of the item plus interest and legal fees. (Of course IANAL, so...)
I thought about that, but I have no idea how much he has / makes and is able to spend. To some people, 24 grand is like 24 bucks. Yeah, he was rather humiliated in front of Brent Spiner, but is that really worth a million bucks?
If the auction house knowingly sold the guy a fake, they should be made to pay some damages. I feel for the guy but I also hate to keep seeing people spanked to the tune of millions every time that someone gets their feelings hurt. No matter the cause, I hate to see (what looks like) lawsuit abuse. Nothing but the dollar amount is bothering me.
* note: this prop was not worn on the head.
These guys have two hundred years experience selling art, etc, with questionable history coming out of war-torn countries. You really think this visor is going to blindside them in a fraud suit?
If tachyons are present at abnormally high levels and disrupt the temporal matrix? It could totally blindside them.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Damages in any suit are almost never awarded to the total asked for by the plaintiff. The common-law court system operates a little oddly: the plaintiff is responsible for figuring out all the details of the rules under which damages could be awarded and presenting the judge with a list of which ones should be considered, and what range of penalties can be applied for each of them; the amount which they "ask for" is the total of all these. The judge (or jury, in certain brain-damaged jurisdictions) then decides which of these rules to apply, and to what extent, to generate the figure for damages awarded. Nobody ever expects this to be the maximum.
The idea behind this approach is that a common-law system has so many obscure and poorly-documented rules, you might never be sure that you have uncovered all of the ones that apply to a given case, so the courts limit themselves to considering only those rules that the plaintiff can cite.
The point here is that the amount which the plaintiff asks for is not a particularly interesting number in its own right. All it does is define the upper boundary on what the case will consider.
Millions of dollars of punitive damages? Why not just ask for refunds for the items and the cost of the convention ticket?
and Brent Spiner told him he was ripped off
Come to think of it, the bonus features on the next gen dvds generally portray Spiner as being the most sarcastic cast member... I wouldn't discount the possibility that he was just pulling this guy's leg.
Dude. I am really surprised at Lieutenant Commander Data in this one. He was smart enough to beat Moriarty in Ship in a Bottle, yet he cannot solve this simple mystery? It is entirely possible that the visor in question is, in fact, the very same visor worn by Mr. Data in the Poker game, which, unless I'm mistaken, takes place in the episode Cause and Effect. Mr. Data later sold this visor in a personal sale. The beneficiary of the aforementioned transaction may have later sold the visor to someone else, and after a string of such sales, it ended up in the hands of one Mr. Moustakis, who asked Mr. Data to autograph it. I may be wrong. Perhaps this is one for the master himself, Mr. Sherlock Holmes.
Unfortunately all we have from the auction house is what the person doing the complaining wishes to tell us.
"Translation: What does Brent Spiner know, trust me, you bought the real one from us. (As an aside, does anyone think they deliberately chose this spokesman for his surname?)"
At least according to several posters and people who watched the auction on TV (I thought I was crazy watching c-span live coverage of congressional hearings) the auctioneer explicitly stated that this was not the one worn by Brent Spiner and that there was an error in the catalog.
People are showing the catalog, and if they had bid from the catalog I would tend to agree. However, if one ignored the auctioneer then it is their own fault.
I very well could be Translation: "Brent Spiner told us it was not the one he wore but only a spare, it is misprinted in the catalog and we informed everyone who could cast a bid on the item."
And that translation is MUCH more damaging to the person writing the article than "We stand behind what we said" and all they are telling that they said is "The one seen in episode blah and blah".
Of course, that will come out in the court case. I find both fairly possible, in fact given the reputation of Christie's with their need to maintain it and that the people reporting that have nothing to loose I tend to side with TFA writer to be wrong. In the end assuming it goes to court we will see. I would also say that given that Christie's hasn't offered to settle and are vehemently denying they mislead people I would even guess that if they sold it as "worn by Data" that they have enough evidence past Brent Spiner's testimony behind them. They are 100% where they are by people being able to trust them fully with many-million dollar bids and even offering millions is to keep a mistake quite is *well* worth the money, let alone continuing to argue that they were 100% accurate.
Eh, I suppose it wouldn't be the first time someplace with their reputation did the absolute wrong thing either - though that is VERY rare.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Not to mention that money is devalued as time passes...
So ner.
Surely he would have just sat there in his electric mobility chair beeping a red light a few times?
Oh, wait, that was Chris Pike...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Odd. I watched the show, but am not a Trekkie. I knew what the visor looked like.
I think Data's moral program prohibits him from lying?
*DrugCheese rants*
Data wouldn't lie. It's probably his evil twin Lore.
You may have a point. In cases where it can make no possible difference to the buyer if the thing is authentic (random example: gold-plated toothpick owned by napoleon vs an identical toothpick owned by rich but historically insignficant landowner X), appearance is enough. To me this just hilights the pointlessness of the whole auction game.
Requiem for the American Dream
Fuckin' wanna-be frogs thinkin' they're just as good as us REAL fish, makes me sick..... I have mod points, but there is no option for +1 fish, only -1 troll
People put substantial monetary value on all kinds of things which have little actual utility. If this is crazy, it's a type of insanity which afflicts a large proportion (perhaps a majority) of the human race.
Decide for yourself:, quote: "Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older -- about one in four adults -- suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion -- about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 -- who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada for ages 15-44. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity."
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
> Mr. Moustakis of NJ bought a poker visor he thought was worn by Data in Next Generation at a
> Christie's auction for some $6,000. When he brought it to a convention to have it signed,
> actor Brent Spiner explained that he'd already sold the well-known visor in a personal sale
>
> "...The lawsuit, filed in state court in Manhattan, demands millions of dollars in punitive
> damages and a refund for the visor and two other items Moustakis bought at the 2006 auction."
Continues Mr. Moustakis, "And furthermore, Geordi's visor didn't even work!"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Well, they could have at least revealed that the cloaking device he bought didn't work before he went in the girls' locker room.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
But Lister taught him how to break his pogram and lie, if he can call a banana an off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, then he can lie about a plastic visor.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Look I know its a long shot but has anyone considered its Data who might be the one lying?
Actually it's the same visor but hundreds of years later it was given to Data on his birthday and later he brought it back in time and sold it for bus fare.
Auction Houses like Christie's, Sotheby's and Swann operate completely differently than most other businesses, in part due to the fact they usually deal in one of a kind items, many of dubious provenance. If you ever have attended an auction, you'll know that buyer beware is the law of the land. The auctions houses may state that such and such a work is by Egon Schiele, or whomever, but that's just an attribution. Basically, they are saying it is the best guest they can make that a certain person produced that work. The attributions are not guarantees, or statements of authenticity. All people bidding in auctions, are assumed to experts, or acting on the advice of experts. Once the hammer is down, if you have the highest bid, it's yours, you are stuck with it. In some cases, a house may 'buy back' an item that 'isn't right', but this usually occurs quietly, and only if the buyer is a good customer. Once you run to the press you're done - the auction house won't do a thing for you. Basically, the moral here is that auctions aren't for the faint of heart, or the broke. I have no sympathy for this guy, and if he knew how the system worked, he would understand that the auction house is just the agent, and he's responsible for verification. This ain't Ebay cowboy.
Et In Arcadia Ego
They're a business. If they think they can get away with it, and they can make a profit on it, of course they're not above committing fraud.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
We may think it was Brent Spiner. But this smacks of the evil doings of Lohr.
OBviously, this was Lore.
Its not worth going to court unless you feel you can get a million bucks. The legal process itself takes so much time, effort and legal cost. The value of the original offence pales with respect to the cost of validating that offence and getting the law to spank the wrong-doer.
So in this case, I'd argue that the claimant feels that unless he can get a few million dollars, why should he bother with the years of hoop jumping? That's where the real cost is.
We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
never pay $6000 for a hat.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
I think you're referring to Kryten in Red Dwarf, not Data from Star Trek TNG.
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
"I believe we all know who the *real* criminals are."
Ooooh! Ooooh! Ooooooooh! is it the 59,945 people Rudy Giuliani put in jail for smoking pot?!?!?
"PUNITIVE damages", not "damages".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Somewhat off-topic for this, but on the topic of Best Buy. I recently needed a molex y-cable on short notice, so I drove out looking for one. I looked in (based mostly on the order I passed them) Radio Shack, Office Depot, Circuit City, Staples, and finally Best Buy before I found any Molex connectors let alone a y-cable. I was somewhat surprised that only Best Buy out of all those stores carried them. If it wasn't for finding them at Best Buy, my last hope would have been Compusa (going out of business as already covered) which also happens to be a 45 minute drive I wasn't particularly looking forward to. Say what you will about Best Buy, but in some places it's just about the only place to find certain computer components without having to wait a few days for shipping.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
It also largely depends on intent. They're suing Christies for civil damages I imagine because they have no evidence of intent to defraud. They're claiming that Christies didn't do their part to ensure that what they sold was the genuine article, so they're responsible for paying. Christies in turn can perform its own investigation and may very well sue whoever told them the item was the genuine article for civil damages, while the court follows up with criminal charges. Standard IANAL disclaimer here.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Patent Pending ST:TNG Plot Formula:
Crew discovers anomaly.
Crew investigates.
Senior Bridge Crew deduce cause of anomaly.
Picard after listening to his crews advice manages to deal with (or delegate dealing with) anomaly and save the day.
Roll ending credits.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
That was supposed to be " anomaly" but I forgot that I was posting HTML formated so slashcode ate it as a tag.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Actually, I just bought some Molex connectors at Radio Shack - they didn't know what they were, though, but they connectors were in the sliding-drawer-tacklebox area in the components area. Which used to be half the store and is now a closet, ah well. But the kid had NO idea what a Molex was.
In actual practice it is rare for actors to be allowed to just take props and wardrobe home with them. Usually, they get to take a few things home with them when a series wraps, but not much (since these are actually serious studio financial assets).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The one I went to the guy actually did know what a Molex connector was. The first place I looked was the connector draw at the back of the store (and you're right, it has shrunk considerably), but all they had there were (mostly) audio and RF connectors, no Molex or anything along those lines. I don't know, maybe I just have a bad Radio Shack in my area, but more and more the only thing they carry are cheap RC cars and random Chinese made electronic toys/accessories. More and more it's getting to be where you can't find any actual electronics components for sale in brick and morter stores. I guess maybe they can't compete with being able to order things in bulk online and have it shipped to your door, after all, who actually repairs electronics these days? For the most part if your shopping for electronics you're building something, not trying to repair it, so what difference does it make if you have to wait a few days for it to arrive?
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
If there are that many disorders, than I submit that they are not disorders at all, but rather the natural variance in the human condition.
Hello, I am the owner of the site referenced above, OriginalPropBlog.com. A friend has located the Christie's lot/description amendment for Data's poker visor and I have posted a scan of this on my blog. It reads: "Please note this should read 'made for' and not worn by." This is consistent with my recollection and notes from watching that portion of the live video feed at the time. Here is a direct link to my article: http://www.originalprop.com/blog/?p=1321 Thanks, Jason
I have to wonder, though-- couldn't the visor have been sold (via Christies) by the very person who originally bought it from Brent Spiner? Thus, both Data is right ("I already sold it") and Christies is right ("This is as worn by Data...")
UTF-8: There and Back Again