Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th - Lucasfilm vs Andrew Ainsworth
- Thread starter Supa troop
- Start date
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Absolutely. All IP rights do is create a (usually) time limited monopoly on the exploitation of the work in question.
Copyright has a generous period before it expires, and if the Stormtroopers were ruled to be protected by copyright LFL would still have exclusive rights to exploit them. In the UK the period expires 70 years after the last author of the work dies.
Other IP protection has a much shorter term of protection, and as things currently stand that protection has expired for Stormtroopers.
The reason copyright was developed, and has such a long term of protection is to allow those creative souls who enrich our world with their work (and their immediate families) to benefit from the fruits of their labour during their lifetime. After which point it becomes part of the public domain and belongs to everyone: thus enriching society. We all own the works of Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven and Dickens; to do with as we please. When our great-grandchildren are grown Star Wars will be theirs too: unless of course they change the law to extend the copyright period further the next time Mickey Mouse is at risk of going PD.
It was not developed to allow bodies corporate to maintain ownership of IP in perpetuity: in fact the first modern copyright laws, enshrined in the Statute of Anne, were enacted to protect authors from the exploitative practices of the booksellers.
IP which is inherently commercial in nature (patents being the classic example, but industrial design also qualifies) has a shorter period of protection. The rationale is a company should be able to firmly establish itself in their chosen market in a shorter period, and by limiting this period there is incentive to refine and expand their product base, thus preventing stagnation.
That doesn't mean they can't continue to exploit the IP after the protection period expires, but so can anyone else. This has the added effect of introducing competition, which should bring prices down and drive companies to endeavour to make higher quality products than their competitors to maintain market share.
One only has to look at the pharmaceutical industry to see the importance of allowing competition. Otherwise drugs companies would be able to hold us to ransom forever rather than just for the period of years before generic alternatives can be produced.
This is an interesting case, even apart from its connection to the prop world. Personally I find the legal aspect more interesting than the drama, but I am aware that puts me in a distinct minority here.
The underlying principle is more important than the parties involved, and I am content with the judgment as it stands, even if it puts an AA and his shady practices in the clear. Legally if not morally.
Absolutely. All IP rights do is create a (usually) time limited monopoly on the exploitation of the work in question.
Copyright has a generous period before it expires, and if the Stormtroopers were ruled to be protected by copyright LFL would still have exclusive rights to exploit them. In the UK the period expires 70 years after the last author of the work dies.
Other IP protection has a much shorter term of protection, and as things currently stand that protection has expired for Stormtroopers.
The reason copyright was developed, and has such a long term of protection is to allow those creative souls who enrich our world with their work (and their immediate families) to benefit from the fruits of their labour during their lifetime. After which point it becomes part of the public domain and belongs to everyone: thus enriching society. We all own the works of Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven and Dickens; to do with as we please. When our great-grandchildren are grown Star Wars will be theirs too: unless of course they change the law to extend the copyright period further the next time Mickey Mouse is at risk of going PD.
It was not developed to allow bodies corporate to maintain ownership of IP in perpetuity: in fact the first modern copyright laws, enshrined in the Statute of Anne, were enacted to protect authors from the exploitative practices of the booksellers.
IP which is inherently commercial in nature (patents being the classic example, but industrial design also qualifies) has a shorter period of protection. The rationale is a company should be able to firmly establish itself in their chosen market in a shorter period, and by limiting this period there is incentive to refine and expand their product base, thus preventing stagnation.
That doesn't mean they can't continue to exploit the IP after the protection period expires, but so can anyone else. This has the added effect of introducing competition, which should bring prices down and drive companies to endeavour to make higher quality products than their competitors to maintain market share.
One only has to look at the pharmaceutical industry to see the importance of allowing competition. Otherwise drugs companies would be able to hold us to ransom forever rather than just for the period of years before generic alternatives can be produced.
This is an interesting case, even apart from its connection to the prop world. Personally I find the legal aspect more interesting than the drama, but I am aware that puts me in a distinct minority here.
The underlying principle is more important than the parties involved, and I am content with the judgment as it stands, even if it puts an AA and his shady practices in the clear. Legally if not morally.
Larry Young
Master Member
IndyFanChuck
Sr Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Who are we rooting for in this whole thing anyway?
Who are we rooting for in this whole thing anyway?
Larry Young
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Larry Young
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
I will anyway....thanks! (but the boots are friggin' ugly)
No need to thank me. :lol
Larry Young
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
What boots? :lol
What boots? :lol
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
I followed those legs all the way up, but they started with some ugly ass boots.
I followed those legs all the way up, but they started with some ugly ass boots.
lonepigeon
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
I can't imagine quantity would be a factor.
A sculptor could make 100 bronze copies of a clay model. They're all still art.
It seems to me that an actual protective armor suit would be industrial design and a costume entirely based on aesthetic appearance would be art. The helmet and armor are the likeness of a movie character, form over function.
IMO intent would be the deciding factor.
I can't imagine quantity would be a factor.
A sculptor could make 100 bronze copies of a clay model. They're all still art.
It seems to me that an actual protective armor suit would be industrial design and a costume entirely based on aesthetic appearance would be art. The helmet and armor are the likeness of a movie character, form over function.
IMO intent would be the deciding factor.
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
50 units is the minimum threshold for establishing whether a design has been industrially exploited.
This is important because s52 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act limits the copyright period to 25 years in a design in an artistic work where it has been industrially exploited by making copies. It is important to note that a copy does not have to be an exact copy: a Stormtrooper toy was held to be a copy of the helmet and armour for the purposes of this section.
This was enacted to stop manufacturers sidestepping the exception to copyright which applies to design documents by claiming artistic copyright in the design.
However, the Copyright (Industrial Process and Excluded Articles) (No. 2) Order 1989 excludes works of sculpture which are not intended to be used as as a model for an industrial process. If the judge had decided the helmets were capable of being sculpture this section would not have applied.
Counter intuitive as it may seem, s52 would still have applied to Ralph McQuarrie's paintings and drawings, Liz Moore's helmet sculpt and Brian Muir's armour sculpt, even if they weren't deemed design documents (which they obviously were), even though all of them displayed far more artistic skill. This is why LFL couldn't rely on the copyright in those articles to fight the case.
Both the judgments thus far have been in my opinion (for what that's worth) legally sound, and the test proposed by the trial judge is a vast improvement on what went before. The only point I take minor issue with is his application of the test. The helmets could easily be interpreted as sculpture if he had seen fit to do so.
As this is a matter of judicial discretion it will only be overturned on appeal if it is "Wednesbury unreasonable": that is a decision no reasonable judge could have made. As he gave extensive reasoning for his decision it is not the case, and I can't see it being overturned next week.
50 units is the minimum threshold for establishing whether a design has been industrially exploited.
This is important because s52 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act limits the copyright period to 25 years in a design in an artistic work where it has been industrially exploited by making copies. It is important to note that a copy does not have to be an exact copy: a Stormtrooper toy was held to be a copy of the helmet and armour for the purposes of this section.
This was enacted to stop manufacturers sidestepping the exception to copyright which applies to design documents by claiming artistic copyright in the design.
However, the Copyright (Industrial Process and Excluded Articles) (No. 2) Order 1989 excludes works of sculpture which are not intended to be used as as a model for an industrial process. If the judge had decided the helmets were capable of being sculpture this section would not have applied.
Counter intuitive as it may seem, s52 would still have applied to Ralph McQuarrie's paintings and drawings, Liz Moore's helmet sculpt and Brian Muir's armour sculpt, even if they weren't deemed design documents (which they obviously were), even though all of them displayed far more artistic skill. This is why LFL couldn't rely on the copyright in those articles to fight the case.
Both the judgments thus far have been in my opinion (for what that's worth) legally sound, and the test proposed by the trial judge is a vast improvement on what went before. The only point I take minor issue with is his application of the test. The helmets could easily be interpreted as sculpture if he had seen fit to do so.
As this is a matter of judicial discretion it will only be overturned on appeal if it is "Wednesbury unreasonable": that is a decision no reasonable judge could have made. As he gave extensive reasoning for his decision it is not the case, and I can't see it being overturned next week.
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
If it is not overturned, does that essentially mean stormtrooper replicas, and possibly many of the replicas based on ANH designs, which are made in the UK will be untouchable by LFL?
If it is not overturned, does that essentially mean stormtrooper replicas, and possibly many of the replicas based on ANH designs, which are made in the UK will be untouchable by LFL?
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Not just Troopers, from how I am understanding it.(And I could be wrong)
The way it is reading is that every prop item from television, or cinema in the UK could be seen as industrial design and have those same copyright expirations.
Not just Troopers, from how I am understanding it.(And I could be wrong)
The way it is reading is that every prop item from television, or cinema in the UK could be seen as industrial design and have those same copyright expirations.
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Wow. I really haven't seen the big deal in all of this except for a few outraged fanboys, but I am starting to understand the larger implications...
Wow. I really haven't seen the big deal in all of this except for a few outraged fanboys, but I am starting to understand the larger implications...
Re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
The important word in that sentence is could.
A lot of people understand there is a concept called judicial precedent in common law countries. Some of them have a rough understanding how it works. Where most people (even some law graduates I know) have trouble is separating the bit that is binding law from the rest which is just discussion.
Judicial precedent is based on a very simple idea: that the rulings of a court on a given matter should bind subsequent cases where the facts and/or issues are the same. This is known as the doctrine of "stare decisis". It allows a level of certainty in the legal framework as if you can find a relevant precedent you can be reasonably sure what the outcome of a trial will be.
The precedents before this case were, to be frank, a contradictory mess. What the judge did was take all the contradictory law and formulate a cohesive test, which is much better than the myriad approaches that preceded it.
This test is what is important as it is what is legally binding. It is what is known as the "ratio decidendi" which translates as the reason for the decision, and as I mentioned previously, to those who aren't practised in the art, finding it can be elusive.
The ratio here is not that props are industrial design. The ratio of this case is that to decide whether an object is sculpture or not you have to look at a list of factors, the most important of which is the intent of the maker at the time he made it. This is something to be assessed on a case by case basis.
That is all it is. Any prop could be argued either way, and now that the test is established (should it be upheld) it provides lawyers in future cases a framework to pin their arguments to.
The facts of the case, and even who won or lost are actually of fairly small concern from a legal perspective, all they do is provide context.
The effect this case has had on the prop world (subject to is to appeal) is to place the props involved into the public domain of the UK; not all props over 25 years old.
The important word in that sentence is could.
A lot of people understand there is a concept called judicial precedent in common law countries. Some of them have a rough understanding how it works. Where most people (even some law graduates I know) have trouble is separating the bit that is binding law from the rest which is just discussion.
Judicial precedent is based on a very simple idea: that the rulings of a court on a given matter should bind subsequent cases where the facts and/or issues are the same. This is known as the doctrine of "stare decisis". It allows a level of certainty in the legal framework as if you can find a relevant precedent you can be reasonably sure what the outcome of a trial will be.
The precedents before this case were, to be frank, a contradictory mess. What the judge did was take all the contradictory law and formulate a cohesive test, which is much better than the myriad approaches that preceded it.
This test is what is important as it is what is legally binding. It is what is known as the "ratio decidendi" which translates as the reason for the decision, and as I mentioned previously, to those who aren't practised in the art, finding it can be elusive.
The ratio here is not that props are industrial design. The ratio of this case is that to decide whether an object is sculpture or not you have to look at a list of factors, the most important of which is the intent of the maker at the time he made it. This is something to be assessed on a case by case basis.
That is all it is. Any prop could be argued either way, and now that the test is established (should it be upheld) it provides lawyers in future cases a framework to pin their arguments to.
The facts of the case, and even who won or lost are actually of fairly small concern from a legal perspective, all they do is provide context.
The effect this case has had on the prop world (subject to is to appeal) is to place the props involved into the public domain of the UK; not all props over 25 years old.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
........
........
Last edited:
exoray
Master Member
Re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Actually it goes deeper than just a 'could', a ruling against LFL almost certainly puts the validity of existing Copyright in question for any such similar items, and opens them to challenge with a valid precedent behind being able to shorten the assumed Copyright... That isn't a 'could' but a 'will'...
For example an open challenge to say the Dr. Who Cyberman or Dalek (or other vintage UK creature/monster/robot) design is certainly wide open for interpretation if this goes against LFL...
Truth is that until further litigation and challenges the full implications will not be known, but what is known is that it will open a door to void long assumed Copyrights...
Actually it goes deeper than just a 'could', a ruling against LFL almost certainly puts the validity of existing Copyright in question for any such similar items, and opens them to challenge with a valid precedent behind being able to shorten the assumed Copyright... That isn't a 'could' but a 'will'...
For example an open challenge to say the Dr. Who Cyberman or Dalek (or other vintage UK creature/monster/robot) design is certainly wide open for interpretation if this goes against LFL...
Truth is that until further litigation and challenges the full implications will not be known, but what is known is that it will open a door to void long assumed Copyrights...
jedimaster
Sr Member
Re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Larry.... You da man!
Larry.... You da man!
Similar threads
