Lucas alway includes similar wording every time they crack down on a bootlegger... In the end if the makers and sellers stay under the radar LFL will almost certainly leave them alone as they have in the past...Megamicrofish said:
Claiming to own the rights, pulling ads in magazines, putting ads up on other sites, having a full blown website and having full blown booths at conventions promoting your goods is a whole different story then selling it online by the murmur of the wind...
Last edited by exoray; Jul 31, 2008 at 10:53 AM.
Hedjii72 said:
Thanks to you and Nightrider for your welcome - good to be here
More importantly the quote above that one...Montagar said:
As I have said all along the UK courts will probably enforce the US judgment to some degree adjusting damages to UK standards... And that is pretty much what is being said...The British court held that it could apply U.S. law to the matter and ruled in Lucasfilm’s favor on the merits of the infringement case.
Welcome Brian
Well, hopefully this can all be put to rest now and all of the bad feelings from the past can likewise go by the wayside. Here's Hoping Liz Moore is looking down and knowing that her contributions are now known and part of documented history...
As for Andrew....will make fishponds for food
brianian said:
Thanks to you and Nightrider for your welcome - good to be here
Well it comes as no surprise here.
Andrew asked for it and boy is he going to get it!
Last edited by Apollo; Jul 31, 2008 at 12:29 PM.
Welcome aboard good Sir!brianian said:
Great to have you here!!
Brian, you sneaky fella! Good to see you here! Been here for over a year and hasn't uttered a peep.brianian said:
I've got no love for Ainsworth, and I do hope that LFL gets their tidy sum from this tool. Go build me a pond!
Last edited by Qui-Gonzalez; Jul 31, 2008 at 1:02 PM.
Qui-Gonzalez said:
Brian, you sneaky fella! Good to see you here! Been here for over a year and hasn't uttered a peep.
I've got no love for Ainsworth, and I do hope that LFL gets their tidy sum from this tool. Go build me a pond!
It's been enjoyable just to watch
As one of the dancing monkeys in this thread, I resemble that remark! Or is it resent? I can't remember which.brianian said:
It's been enjoyable just to watch
The ruling in full unedited glory...
http://rpf.exoray.com/LFL_vs_SDS/UK_decision.html
I will fix the links in the html, later but here is the linked Appendix file...
http://rpf.exoray.com/LFL_vs_SDS/1878.pdf
Last edited by exoray; Jul 31, 2008 at 2:38 PM.
Just glancing over some of it while at work. Is this Judge saying Pemberton did the sculpt for the trooper helmet now, or am I misreading this: "He created a clay model of the Stormtrooper head which ultimately went to Mr Ainsworth"exoray said:
exoray said:
I love this judge!His attempts to play up his part, and to play down Mr Mollo's part, in the creation of this helmet is a good example of his viewing events through his own Ainsworth-tinted spectacles.
If anything this is a great resource and reference for how the helmets and costumes were made.
I love the judge's assessments of the witnesses...it reads like a drama
These UK judges certainly have a way of lending a personal flair to their decisions, entirely partial.
Nice things said about Mr. Muir, welcome Brian!
Not so nice about John Mollo, although that seems to have been the impression those that have spoken to him had all along.And Gary Kurtz seemed to disagree about his contribution.
I'd really would like to have met and spoken with Norman Reynolds if I was at the court...[Kurtz] gave his evidence in a careful and measured fashion, and in the main I can rely on what he said, though he did give some evidence about Mr Mollo's detailed involvement which did not coincide with Mr Mollo's.
I can't believe he changed his witness statements and was caught lying about his contributions to other films.....man. By that I mean I can't believe he could be that stupid.
exoray said:
Many thanks for this information exoray
Cheers Chris
As a Brit, the biggest hoot is Andrew Walter Billy Liar Mitty Ainsworth's claim to have invented the Smash Martians ...
According the USAToday, Ainsworth can still sell his wares in Britain, just not the United States?!?:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...troopers_N.htm
Yeah claiming you made everything in Star Wars is forgivable but claiming the Smash martians a disgraceMiniaturizer Ray said:
As a Brit, the biggest hoot is Andrew Walter Billy Liar Mitty Ainsworth's claim to have invented the Smash Martians ...
When reading that I suddenly thought I would love a replica of a Smash martian
I had a bendy arm Smash martian toy as a kid anyone know of anyone who made anything better.
Sorry for the OT
The key issue with the clay model of the Stormtrooper helmet in court was the colour of the clay.Qui-Gonzalez said:
Liz's boyfriend, John, who witnessed her sculpting the helmet in Holland and had set up a studio for her there, stated in court that she only worked with 'grey' clay.
The judge then questioned the fact as to whether Liz did sculpt the helmet.
Pemberton stated that he worked in 'red' clay which is terracota.
The clay helmet in the photo produced in court is a buff body clay which is light brown in colour, which is used all the time in the film industry.
In my opinion, Liz Moore sculpted the helmet and I do not think Pemberton was capable of sculpting to that standard having seen his portfolio for the court case. I think it's probable that he produced the blue helmet that is shown in the same photo.
Brian
Honestly I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet as the Judge has invited them back to court for further arguments on many of the points of the trial...CGClone said:
What is clear is that now the UK courts have upheld the fact he violated US Copyright, that the Judge ruled upon... He has a lose in both countries now for copyright infringement... The UK 'should' recognize and honor US copyrights...
And even if the UK courts only uphold 10% of the US ruling LFL will have enough hanging over AA to make any further "UK only sales" not real profitable if he was allowed to continue...
Okay, I'm really confused now.
It sounds like it was a weak victory actually for LFL? Damn I hate legal stuff!Lucasfilm Attack on the Clones Struck Down
(thelawyer.com) Litigation boutique SimmonsCooperAndrew has struck down film-maker George Lucas' galactic High Court battle over ownership of the IP rights to the stormtrooper helmets from the Star Wars films.
Justice Mann ruled that the English copyright for the helmets had expired, which means the movie mogul and LucasFilm does not have exclusive rights to replicate the helmets.
As The Lawyer revealed (7 April), SimmonsCooperAndrew was acting for British engineer Andrew Ainsworth, who produced the stormtrooper helmets and armour for the original 1977 Star Wars: A New Hope film, as well as Luke Skywalker's 'X-Wing' helmet.
Lucas had sued for $20m (£10.1m) after Ainsworth started selling replica stormtrooper helmets four years ago. In the US the movie-maker won a default judgment against the prop designer and Lucas sought to enforce $10m (£5m) of the ruling in the UK.
However Mann J refused to enforce the US decision. The judge held that Lucasfilms had adopted a "sledgehammer or steamroller approach" and went on to say "what is quite clear is that Lucas is determined to stop Mr Ainsworth by whatever legitimate legal means are open to it, including the threat of a $10m judgment hanging over him".
Lucas' legal team, led by Harbottle & Lewis, retained one concession, however, as the court ruled that Ainsworth, though permitted to sell replica helmets in the UK, he could not do so in the US. To Ainsworth this is worth £25,000 to £30,000 in sales.
SimmonCooperAndrew partner Seamus Andrew, who led the defence for Ainsworth, said the judgment has shown that David can bring down Goliath.
"This ruling means that it's now harder for film companies to prevent their prop designers one making money out of their own products," said Andrew. "It makes it harder for the film companies to tie up the IP so loosens up the industry."
The High Court's ruling that the copyright had expired meant Ainsworth counterclaim for a cut of profits made from Star Wars since 1977 was dismissed.
Andrew instructed lead counsel Alistair Wilson QC of Hogarth Chambers for Ainsworth. Harbottle & Lewis partner Mark Owen represents the Lucas parties, instructing Michael Bloch QC of Wilberforce Chambers as lead counsel.
Full Press: http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/ite...15&h=417&f=416
I'm sorry, did I read that right: AA asked for a cut of the profits from Star Wars?
In a nutshell, the judge didn't believe that AA could have free-formed the helmets, and that it was unlikely that Mollo didn't show him drawings.
As to the damages, the judge had a clear opinon:
The imperial symbol issue was dropped.In the present action Lucas seeks to enforce that judgment in this jurisdiction to the extent of those damages, but without the trebling element; that is to say it confines its claim on the judgment to $10m. .........And furthermore, as a matter of reality, his clients realised that Mr Ainsworth was not good for $10m and were not looking to bankrupt him on it. What I think all that probably demonstrates is that Lucas is understandably sensitive to the impression that its apparent sledgehammer or steamroller approach might portray to this court, and to others, and is anxious to mitigate that impression, at least as far as this court is concerned. What is quite clear is that Lucas is determined to stop Mr Ainsworth by whatever legitimate legal means are open to it, including the threat of a $10m judgment hanging over him. Whether or not it is entitled to do that is, of course, a matter for this court.
The stormtrooper helmet is not a sculpture:
Yes, based on the 1956 act, the 15 years expired:First, the original Stormtrooper helmet. This has, as its genesis, the McQuarrie drawings. The purpose of the helmet was that it was to be worn as an item of costume in a film, to identify a character, but in addition to portray something about that character – its allegiance, force, menace, purpose and, to some extent, probably its anonymity. It was a mixture of costume and prop. But its primary function is utilitarian. While it was intended to express something, that was for utilitarian purposes. While it has an interest as an object, and while it was intended to express an idea, it was not conceived, or created, with the intention that it should do so other than as part of character portrayal in the film. That, in my view, does not give it the necessary quality of artistic creation inherent in the test suggested by Laddie J. Not everything which has design appeal is necessarily a sculpture. I think that the ordinary perception of what is a sculpture would be over-stretched by including this helmet within it, and when rationalised the reasons are those just given. It is not that it lacks artistic merit; it lacks artistic purpose. I therefore find that the Stormtrooper helmet is not a sculpture.
The claim of copyright infringement was upheld, but the other LFL claims failed....AA didn't claim he had license....That means that the 15 years expired before Mr Ainsworth started his activities, and he can have the benefit of section 52.
He did not claim the items were his own...It will be noted that Lucas did not claim that Mr Ainsworth was actually claiming his work as Lucas's. It is said that he was misrepresenting his work to be licensed by Lucas. It seems to me that such a mis-statement, if made, would be capable of amounting to passing off. However, I do not consider that it was made in the present case. The website makes some wrongful claims. It claims that Mr Ainsworth was the creator of the original helmets and armour (see the extract above, repeated later on the website when it says he "created the original Stormtrooper") when that does not correctly describe the situation. The word "created" in that context suggests design creativity, and he did not contribute that (or not much of it) – he made the Stormtrooper helmet and armour to someone else's design. However, that does not amount to any misrepresentation about licensing. I have looked at the entire website. It certainly puffs the alleged originality of the products (in that they were derived from the same moulds) but the emphasis is on Mr Ainsworth and his acts. Neither the extracts referred to above, nor anything else in the website, expressly or impliedly suggests that what he was doing was with Lucas's consent or licence. The references to authenticity are all references to the fidelity of the product to the original design, having been made on the same moulds or tools as the film's originals. That may or may not be true, but it is not suggestive of any licence (particularly when looked at in the round) and I do not consider that there to have been the misrepresentation alleged. This part of the claim therefore fails.
AA was not under contract nor an employee...
1. Neither that, nor anything else in Bristol Conservatories, describes what Mr Ainsworth has done in the present case. He has not pretended that Lucas's goods are his; nor has he pretended that the goods that he was selling, which were in fact his own, were Lucas's. He says what he is selling are his own, and he is proud of them. What he says is true so far as the origin of the goods is concerned. It might be false so far as the creation of the original design is concerned but that is not misappropriating Lucas's goodwill in the manner required in passing off. What he has done is different – he has described himself as the original creator of the original goods. That may be untrue, and it may amount to one or more other civil wrongs (as to which there was no argument and there is no claim), but it does not amount to passing off. It is a (mis)statement about him, not about the goods he is selling. He does not sell his goods by reference to someone else's goods or someone else's goodwill.
2. Accordingly, the passing off claim fails.
In relation to the contractual obligation:Mr Ainsworth was not an employee of Lucas, so any copyright in his creations would not vest in Lucas via section 11 of the 1988 Act. He was commissioned to produce the props as an independent contractor and he did not enter into any express obligations in relation to the copyright. That does not, however, necessarily mean that he is entitled to the copyright in that which he produces.
The claim about confidentiality was dismissed...1. The conclusion that I have reached applies not only to the Stormtrooper helmet but to all other items created by Mr Ainsworth for Lucas. In the case of the X-wing helmet, there were no prior drawings from which he worked, and for all the items other than the armour the drawings from which he worked were not of the same detail as the McQuarrie drawings. However, he was still working to commission, producing things for which the client had provided clear specifications, and it was implicit in the relationship that he would not retain copyright.
2. There is one quirk in relation to the first batch of Stormtrooper helmets. Apart from that batch, there was a direct contractual relationship between Lucas and Mr Ainsworth into which the necessary implied term can be inserted. However, in relation to the first Stormtrooper helmets Mr Ainsworth was in a contractual relationship with Mr Pemberton and not with Lucas.
The arguement about targeting the US market was shot down...The information is said to have been "imparted" to Mr Ainsworth in the circumstances referred to above, in which Mr Ainsworth was provided with the sketches, armour material and information about the film that Mr Mollo provided him with. It is pleaded that any reasonable person in Mr Ainsworth's shoes would have realised that the designs were confidential, that he was given access to them for the purpose of producing props for the film, that the designs would become valuable in their own right through the success of the film and that Lucas would expect to have the right to control all exploitation of the film, including merchandising and similar activities. Mr Ainsworth is pleaded as infringing these rights by using the confidential information by using the moulds to produce helmets and armour.
204. This analysis, so far as it seeks to bring the case within the principles appearing in the three cited cases, falls short of doing so.
About damages...If Mr Ainsworth were present in the US by means of his internet trading, why is he not present in every country into which he sells goods by means of an internet deal? That would be a very far-reaching conclusion, and one which would not be justified by any underlying principle, or at least not by any principle underpinning Cape.
223. Accordingly the conditions required by Cape are not fulfilled and the US judgment is not enforceable against Mr Ainsworth.
The judge concludes:3. On the Second and Third Claims for unfair competition and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, an additional $10,000,000 to treble the compensatory damages awarded on those claims."
Getting near the end:There is a real sense in which this part of the judgment contains two separate and severable elements – the compensatory and the punitive, or exaggerated (or whatever adjective one chooses to apply to the multiplied damages). The paragraph 2 damages are not barred by the Act; only the paragraph 3 damages are.
Again about jurisdiction:Other than the inevitable factual differences, the only live legal issue seemed to be whether actual items were to be regarded as "functional" or "utilitarian" within the American legal provisions. If and to the extent that they were then copyright or infringement could not be claimed.
In the end, the judge decided that the utilitarian argument was not presented well, and in failing to argue it effectively, the matter of copyright infringement was decided.Mr Ainsworth has committed acts which are said to be an infringement of US copyright. There is a judgment about that in the US which, so far as it goes, and so far as it is useful, will operate there. However, he has chosen not to submit himself to the US jurisdiction, and under present English conflicts rules the US judgment cannot be enforced against him where he currently is (in this jurisdiction).
So he failed on the utilitarian point and thus by default loses his own claim to copyright and therefore copyright rests with LFL. But the issue of whether the damages will be enforced is another issue. And keep in mind:Having heard the evidence, and in the light of those concessions, it seems to me, and I find, that so far as these English courts are concerned the position is clear enough and it is possible to make a clear finding against Mr Ainsworth on the utilitarianism point; that is to say, that Mr Ainsworth cannot successfully raise a utilitarianism point against the copyright asserted in this claim (for the items where the issue is still live). The claimants "having the best of the evidence", with no attempt at analysis or arguing why the defendant might still be right, is a euphemistic concession that the defendant does not have a winning case on the point. Accordingly, on the evidence, I find that the relevant 3D articles were not utilitarian or functional for the purposes of the relevant infringement or subsistence tests, and that therefore copyright exists, or is infringed, as the case may be
So a lot of assumptions here were incorrect, as I duly argued. But the point is AA violated copyright. Everyone expect AA to be fined the entire $20 million, but it seems that won't be the case.. It was not sufficient to establish the enforceability of a foreign judgment that there be trading into that foreign country by those means, no matter how extensive the trading. Internet trading is not materially different for these purposes. It just makes the establishing of contracts easier – advertising is easier, placing an order is easier and quicker, and payment is more easily (and usually more quickly) achieved. It does not make the seller more present in the buyer's country.
Yes he counter-sued for copyright based on his claim of utilitarianism. That was shot down by the judge since the argument wasn't effective.alienscollection.com said:
Reply with Quote
