re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Lose their monopoly on exploiting the likeness of the stormtrooper?
Something they created?
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.