AA case begins

Okay, good grief there's a lot, let me see if I can summarize this.

1) AA did not have a contract with LFL.
2) AA did not sculpt the helmets.
3) Prembenton did sculpt the helmets.
4) AA did make the actual helmets and assemble them.
5) Whatever rights LFL had to the helmets expired after 15 years (UK law).
6) AA does not own the copyright to the helmets.

So...

1) LFL had no contract so can't carry through in the full suit ($10M).
2) LFL has no claim against AA in regards to his sales due to the 15 expiration.
3) AA can make helmets in the UK and sell them because of the above.
4) AA cannot sell overseas, but will not be penalized for previous sales because of "how the Internet is."
5) LFL made the mistake of a sledgehammer judgement in the USA that will not be enforced in the UK.

So finally....

1) AA won in that he can keep making helmets.
2) LFL won in that they own the image rights.
3) AA lost in he did violate copyright.
4) LFL lost in that they didn't have a true contract under UK law.

And maybe...

1) LFL will get some settlement against AA, but likely not $10M.
2) AA will be able to keep selling helmets as long as he never references SW (as he has not done and worked for him).

Is that about right? (my head is spinning...)

Lord Abaddon said:

---

Okay, good grief there's a lot, let me see if I can summarize this.

1) AA did not have a contract with LFL.
2) AA did not sculpt the helmets.
3) Prembenton did sculpt the helmets.

Liz Moore did the TK helmet, Brian Muir the armor. The other helmets weren't sculpted.

4) AA did make the actual helmets and assemble them.
5) Whatever rights LFL had to the helmets expired after 15 years (UK law).

But in terms of US law which the court recognizes, copyright was infringed.

6) AA does not own the copyright to the helmets.

So...

1) LFL had no contract so can't carry through in the full suit ($10M).

No that relates to "Restriction on enforcement of certain overseas judgments", not the absence of a contract.

2) LFL has no claim against AA in regards to his sales due to the 15 expiration.

Well the judge still decided there was infringement of copyright because the court is recognizing US law but on its own terms based on international precedents.

3) AA can make helmets in the UK and sell them because of the above.


We don't know yet. That will depend on the relief decided upon.

But his website is still open.

4) AA cannot sell overseas, but will not be penalized for previous sales because of "how the Internet is."

Well no, he cannot sell in the USA because of the US case being won by LFL. Nothing yet has been spelled out on the basis of this win by LFL.

5) LFL made the mistake of a sledgehammer judgement in the USA that will not be enforced in the UK.

Well no, it will probably be enforced in part, but not to the extent that LFL demands. The sale in the US do not justify that nor was the US targeted specifically for sales.

So finally....

1) AA won in that he can keep making helmets.


We don't know this yet for certain.

2) LFL won in that they own the image rights.

LFL owns copyright to the McQuarrie design and anything that looks like it.

3) AA lost in he did violate copyright.

Yes he could not adequately defend the utilitarian principle behind his work.

4) LFL lost in that they didn't have a true contract under UK law.

That's not important since they still own the design since AA derived something from it.

And maybe...

1) LFL will get some settlement against AA, but likely not $10M.
2) AA will be able to keep selling helmets as long as he never references SW (as he has not done and worked for him).

Is that about right? (my head is spinning...)

Well it is never that simple, unfortunately.

I don't understand how a British judge can throw out the ruling of an American Court, but ban AA, a UK company, from doing business in the US. Am I missing something?

Im still trying to sort it all myself. What is obvious is that Mann has ZERO respect for Ainsworth and as much said he is delusional. AA didnt impress anyone and would literally change his story on the run. Ainsworth is a tool of tools and the court transcripts show him for the reprehensible con man he truly is.

PodRacer X said:

---

I don't understand how a British judge can throw out the ruling of an American Court, but ban AA, a UK company, from doing business in the US. Am I missing something?

The final decision is as confusing as all our arguments over the past few years!

But boy what an education we're all getting into how all this stuff works! Production, IP legalities, international court systems, licensing....and it's all been way more entertaining than in a stuffy classroom!

This is tangential and academic, but the judge's definition of sculpture blows my mind. Since when does something have to have artistic purpose to be a sculpture? You mush around clay or chisel at some marble and boom, you're sculpting. Any ashtray made by a kindergardner is a sculpture.

But to the meat of things, I agree with everything the judge said in these posted excerpts (I haven't read the entire judgement yet).

FOUL! Use of big words! First Warning!!!!

Treadwell said:

---

This is tangential and academic, but the judge's definition of sculpture blows my mind. Since when does something have to have artistic purpose to be a sculpture? You mush around clay or chisel at some marble and boom, you're sculpting. Any ashtray made by a kindergardner is a sculpture.

But to the meat of things, I agree with everything the judge said in these posted excerpts (I haven't read the entire judgement yet).

I found it surprising too.

More:

Before the 20th century, sculpture was considered a representational art; but its scope has now been extended to include non-representational forms. It has long been accepted that the forms of such functional three-dimensional objects as furniture, props and buildings may be expressive and beautiful without being in any way representational, but it is only in the 20th century that non-functional, non-representational, three-dimensional works of art have been produced.

1. With those authorities in mind, I turn to the question of whether the Stormtrooper helmets and armour are works of artistic craftsmanship. I am prepared to assume that the ultimate production of these articles was an act of craftsmanship. Mr Ainsworth can fairly be called a craftsman – he produces high quality products and has a justifiable pride in his work. He is not a slavish copier, or a jobbing tradesman. The production of the helmets and armour required the activity of a craftsman to realise the vision of the creators of the film in this respect.
2. However, I do not consider that they are works of artistic craftsmanship. So far as their conception is concerned, they plainly were not. Their purpose was not to appeal to the aesthetic at all. It was to give a particular impression in a film. That was what Mr Lucas and Mr McQuarrie set out to do. It was no part of their purpose that it should in any way appeal as a piece of art; or that it should be admired for any aspect of its appearance as such; or that it should do anything more than what was necessary to give the correct impression of the character inside (and perhaps an environment) when used in a film (with all the assistance that the techniques of filming can to do to enhance an impression).

I don't see how one can create something to give an impression on film without it being art? He's equating a work of art in the traditional sense but art is any form of expression. If it gives an impression as a character then the character itself is living art. If you make a wax figure or statue of a character that is considered art. Strange view....

Treadwell said:

---

This is tangential and academic, but the judge's definition of sculpture blows my mind. Since when does something have to have artistic purpose to be a sculpture? You mush around clay or chisel at some marble and boom, you're sculpting. Any ashtray made by a kindergardner is a sculpture.

There are scores of sculptors who make functional pieces who would argue with the judge's definition. I think most people would accept that Frank Lloyd Wright is an artist even though his art functioned in ways that went beyond pure aesthetics or artistic expression.

I'm only about halfway through it, but the judgment is definitely a fascinating read.

PodRacer X said:

---

I don't understand how a British judge can throw out the ruling of an American Court, but ban AA, a UK company, from doing business in the US. Am I missing something?

US law is enforceable in the US. The UK court hasn't banned AA from doing business in the US, the US court did. He has violated copyright and the Berne Convention stipulates that it is up to both the US court and the UK court. AA is in the UK and did the work in the UK. The UK court is not throwing out the US ruling, but LFL had to take action in the jurisdiction where the work was performed when Star Wars was in production. So it is also up to the UK court under UK law what the ruling is and what the penalty will be. The US cannot arbitrarily assign damages to any citizen of the world without the citzen's home country having a say. The exception relates to criminal acts which then leads to extradition.

Treadwell said:

---

This is tangential and academic, but the judge's definition of sculpture blows my mind. Since when does something have to have artistic purpose to be a sculpture? You mush around clay or chisel at some marble and boom, you're sculpting. Any ashtray made by a kindergardner is a sculpture.

This is pretty complicated. You'd need to read through sections 92 to 169 fairly thoroughly to understand the J-man's ruling. It's partly based on what appears to be fairly exhaustive research into past precedents - Frisbees included - and there's a little bit of the widely held notion that English judges are totally ignorant of popular culture ("Next, it is necessary to consider the toy Stormtroopers ... While there is no accounting for taste, it is highly unlikely that they would be placed on display and periodically admired as such").

Whilst it ought to be fairly straightforward for Lucas (used corporately, as by the judge) to show that this last observation is counter-factual, as RPFers, we should hope that this doesn't happen, I think. If Ainsworth can carry on selling trooper armour because the copyright of the "industrial design" has expired, then so can anybody else - including those who actually have accurate looking stuff.

SithLord said:

---

US law is enforceable in the US. The UK court hasn't banned AA from doing business in the US, the US court did. He has violated copyright and the Berne Convention stipulates that it is up to both the US court and the UK court. AA is in the UK and did the work in the UK. The UK court is not throwing out the US ruling, but LFL had to take action in the jurisdiction where the work was performed when Star Wars was in production. So it is also up to the UK court under UK law what the ruling is and what the penalty will be. The US cannot arbitrarily assign damages to any citizen of the world without the citzen's home country having a say. The exception relates to criminal acts which then leads to extradition.

That makes sense. I guess I was mixed up on that penalties the UK court was demanding as opposed the US court. I didn't think either of the two courts had the power to penalize people in other countries in civil matters.

Miniaturizer Ray said:

---

If Ainsworth can carry on selling trooper armour because the copyright of the "industrial design" has expired, then so can anybody else - including those who actually have accurate looking stuff.

Well it applies to Ainsworth in the UK (that he can sell anywhere except the US). The US ruling still stands and LFL still has copyright giving them the opportunity to still go after anyone they wish, except I suppose for people in the UK (?) since it is the UK 15 year limit that has passed.

Wow...that could be a whole new can of worms. Would that mean that someone here in the States could sell trooper armor legally to someone in the UK?

SithLord said:

---

Well it applies to Ainsworth in the UK (that he can sell anywhere except the US). The US ruling still stands and LFL still has copyright giving them the opportunity to still go after anyone they wish, except I suppose for people in the UK (?) since it is the UK 15 year limit that has passed.

Onigiri said:

---

Wow...that could be a whole new can of worms. Would that mean that someone here in the States could sell trooper armor legally to someone in the UK?

No, I would think that LFL could go after that maker of armor in the USA. But anyone could make it in the UK? Heck it sounds like anyone in the UK can make Trooper armor, X-Wing helmets, and anything else that fell outside the 15 year limit!?

From reading those judgement excerpts, I don't think LFL would dare try to claim X-Wing helmets as IP, at least not in the UK with that judge on the bench. 90% of their "design" is just a vacform over a found item.

...which gets us back to the "utilitarian" vs. "artistic purpose" vs. "desired impression" thing. The judge says the trooper helmets are not the first, but also have not the second, but DO have the third which

makes
no
sense.

Treadwell said:

---

I don't think LFL would dare try to claim X-Wing helmets as IP. 90% of their "design" is just a vacform over a found item.

Not entirely true in the US, the "likeness" or paint job and unique traits is very enforceable in the US regardless of it being built on an existing medium...

exoray said:

---

Yep, it sounds like the Judge just stripped the ownership rights to just about any movie prop or costume older then 15 years... I expect that this is far from over, as I said I doubt you will see the BBS just give up the rights to things like the Daleks and Cybermen that arguably fall within the same guidelines...

What disturbs me most about the ruling is that a 2 year old scribbling on a piece of paper with a crayon apparently has more legal rights to their works then a sculptor or artist working in the movie industry...

Wow. Just wow. It blows my mind how this has snowballed.

Are we maybe reading too much into this? I mean I know we're all somewhat speculating, but the judges words seem pretty clear. Is there anything further such as possible appeals? Or is just the "remedies" portion left?

Lord Abaddon said:

---

Is there anything further such as possible appeals? Or is just the "remedies" portion left?

If the preliminary interpretation is correct, I would expect nothing short of several appeals and further legal battles...

The Judge did invite them back for further hearings and unless AA disappears I would expect LFL to take the case further...

exoray said:

---

Not entirely true in the US, the "likeness" or paint job and unique traits is very enforceable in the US regardless of it being built on an existing medium...

"in the UK", I said.

(not that I claim any degree of legal knowledge of any kind, mind you!)

Treadwell said:

---

"in the UK", I said.

(not that I claim any degree of legal knowledge of any kind, mind you!)

Could and probably is true as far as the UK is concerned...

exoray said:

---

If the preliminary interpretation is correct, I would expect nothing short of several appeals and further legal battles...

The Judge did invite them back for further hearings and unless AA disappears I would expect LFL to take the case further...

I agree.

I think it will be a long time before all is said and done.

apollo said:

---

I agree.

I think it will be a long time before all is said and done.

You can say that about everything under the sun.

Heck you can say, "I think it will be a long time before all is said and done" about Alexander crossing the Hellespont.

DrStranglove said:

---

You can say that about everything under the sun.

Heck you can say, "I think it will be a long time before all is said and done" about Alexander crossing the Hellespont.

Ok. I think it will be a long time before all is said and done about Alexander crossing the Hellespont.