I guess the "force" has limited powers court. A judges ruling is mightier than the light saber!
Lucas loses UK battle over stormtrooper helmets


(07-27) 05:54 PDT LONDON, United Kingdom (AP) --

The Empire has struck out.

Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday defeated a bid by George Lucas' company to stop a prop designer making and selling replicas of the iconic stormtrooper helmets from the "Star Wars" films. The court did, however, prevent him from selling them in the United States.

Andrew Ainsworth sculpted the white helmets worn by the sinister galactic warriors in the original "Star Wars" film in 1977, and now sells replicas over the Internet. Lucasfilm Ltd. has been trying for years to stop him, in a battle that has climbed through the British courts.

Lucasfilm's lawyers argued that the stormtrooper suits are sculptures and therefore works of art covered by British copyright law. Two lower courts ruled in 2008 and 2009 that the costumes were props, not artworks — victories for Ainsworth.

The country's highest court on Wednesday upheld those decisions. The panel of five judges said "it was the 'Star Wars' film that was the work of art that Mr. Lucas and his companies created. The helmet was utilitarian in the sense that it was an element in the process of production of the film."

But the judges agreed with Lucasfilm's lawyers that Ainsworth had violated Lucas's copyright in the United States by selling costumes there.

Ainsworth's lawyers said the ruling means he can continue to make and sell the replicas, but not export them to the U.S.

The designer said he was delighted.

"I am proud to report that in the English legal system David can prevail against Goliath, if his cause is right," Ainsworth said. "If there is a Force, then it has been with me these past five years."

Lucasfilm said that "unfortunately" the court had upheld an "anomaly of British copyright law under which the creative and highly artistic works made for use in films — which are protected by the copyright laws of virtually every other country in the world — may not be entitled to copyright protection in the U.K."

The eminent Supreme Court judges may be experts in law, but their ruling revealed gaps in their knowledge of science fiction. The judgment said the "Star Wars" movies are set "in an imaginary, science-fiction world of the future."

Film fans know that they take place "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...76.DTL#ixzz1TKXVAtFh

------------------



"Friends don't let their friends drive stock."

Wow, Lucas loses in court... hah hah!

while not a fan of the Lucas way of doing things - I do NOT see how this stands. Someone created the stormtrooper body armor. that was in fact someones "work of art". I guess whoever designed it needs to stand up and defend his work. and, I assume that someone worked for Lucas.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: while not a fan of the Lucas way of doing things - I do NOT see how this stands. Someone created the stormtrooper body armor. that was in fact someones "work of art". I guess whoever designed it needs to stand up and defend his work. and, I assume that someone worked for Lucas.

Does that extend to any costume or prop designed by the production crew for use in the movie?
What if it's an off-the-shelf item that happens to be used in a movie, is that now also considered art or are only original creations worthy of that title?
How about props that are original creations but made from regular off the shelf items?

The line between prop and art can get very blurry very fast.

would a rubber Jar Jar be considered an artistic sculpture?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: while not a fan of the Lucas way of doing things - I do NOT see how this stands. Someone created the stormtrooper body armor. that was in fact someones "work of art". I guess whoever designed it needs to stand up and defend his work. and, I assume that someone worked for Lucas.

He can't sell them in America, so the court agrees to some extent. The copyright is under American law, IIRC, and they were trying to bar him from it because English law covers works of art being copied, such as a statue, but not all items from every country.

I agree with the ruling, but still think it's wrong, if that makes sense.

But this is all just if I understood it correctly. I basically skimmed the article.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Does that extend to any costume or prop designed by the production crew for use in the movie? What if it's an off-the-shelf item that happens to be used in a movie, is that now also considered art or are only original creations worthy of that title? How about props that are original creations but made from regular off the shelf items? The line between prop and art can get very blurry very fast.

yes, it does. can anyone make & sell Darth Vader stuff? no. they cannot. the stormtrooper body armor is unique and identifiable as part of Star Wars.

I am sure off the shelf items protect themselves as well. If a item appears in a movie, this does not invalidate any copyrights or patents the creator of the item holds.

broken down, everything is made from "off the shelf" stuff.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - oops it is in fact the guy who designed them that is selling them so - yes - it all makes sense now - carry on Andrew Ainsworth

OHHHH.

I didn't catch that either.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, it does. can anyone make & sell Darth Vader stuff? no. they cannot. the stormtrooper body armor is unique and identifiable as part of Star Wars. I am sure off the shelf items protect themselves as well. If a item appears in a movie, this does not invalidate any copyrights or patents the creator of the item holds. broken down, everything is made from "off the shelf" stuff.

I was referring to things like kit bashing.
Is a Revel model car in a movie considered art?
How about if the propmaster creates something with a bunch of Revel kits?

Can someone make and sell Darth Vader stuff? Of course they have the ability. The question is if they have the legal permission.

Uniforms on Battlestar Galactica are unique and identifiable. Are they art?
The Stormtrooper rifles used in Star Wars are made from German submachine guns. Are they art?
Obi-Wan Kenobi's light sabre, which is unique and identifyable was made from a defused hand grenate, gas knob and burner from a stove. Is it art?

I'm not trying to say whether they are or aren't. I'm only trying to point out that it's not always clear cut. Lots of stuff is unique and identifiable to a production. Is that what makes it art? How about the paper with the corners cut off used in Battlestar Galactica?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I was referring to things like kit bashing. Is a Revel model car in a movie considered art? How about if the propmaster creates something with a bunch of Revel kits? Can someone make and sell Darth Vader stuff? Of course they have the ability. The question is if they have the legal permission. Uniforms on Battlestar Galactica are unique and identifiable. Are they art? The Stormtrooper rifles used in Star Wars are made from German submachine guns. Are they art? Obi-Wan Kenobi's light sabre, which is unique and identifyable was made from a defused hand grenate, gas knob and burner from a stove. Is it art? I'm not trying to say whether they are or aren't. I'm only trying to point out that it's not always clear cut. Lots of stuff is unique and identifiable to a production. Is that what makes it art? How about the paper with the corners cut off used in Battlestar Galactica?

oh yes - I can easily see how it can get nutty. the real answer always lies with $$$
if someone else makes much $$$ off of someone elses "art", there will be legal actions. really what it comes down to.
everything around all of us is someones art. even this paragraph, this thread, this forum. it only becomes an issue with $$$$
and, yes - even Blow-Me Once Kenobi's light sabre. and - that "Blow-Me Once Kenobi" - that is someone elses art I have stolen. should this thread be packed onto a CD, and sold for profit, the original artist may want a slice of the pie. tho, somehow, doubt anything of the sorts will happen......

All the things mentioned when combined in a unique way are art.
Not reading the article, my only question is what this Ainsworth fellow's agreement was with Lucas. I'm guessing he signed all the rights over to lucas, if not many other artists who worked on the film would be doing the same thing now no?
Didn't Lucas himself produce a lot of the drawings for star wars?
How would you feel about it if it is something Lucas conceived on paper, and this guy just put it into physical form, and is now profiting from it?