geordietrooper
Sr Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
yup sure could
yup sure could
Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th - Lucasfilm vs Andrew Ainsworth
- Thread starter Supa troop
- Start date
Pilot
Sr Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Wait, those things are YOUR fault? Holy ****, you can have them back anytime! :lolGive us back our ugg boots, dammit!
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
This is a problem why? The guy is stealing credit from actual sculptors, Brian Muir and Liz Moore. He could not sculpt his way out of a paper bag, in my opinion. Just watch that video of him "sculpting".
lonepigeon
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
I wouldn't say the entire original trilogy is at stake because it would still only apply to items deemed "industrial design" and might only apply to 1:1 replicas (?). The outcome could still have huge consequences for all sorts of older movies and TV shows.
I wouldn't say the entire original trilogy is at stake because it would still only apply to items deemed "industrial design" and might only apply to 1:1 replicas (?). The outcome could still have huge consequences for all sorts of older movies and TV shows.
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Generally speaking a court can only make decisions about things which happen within their jurisdiction, and can only enforce those decisions against people who are under their jurisdiction.
Here the event happened in the UK but because AA sold in the US Lucasfilm could sue him in US courts. They did and furthermore won, but because AA is not under US jurisdiction, as he is resident in the UK, the US judgment was unenforceable.
As part of their case LFL tried to get the UK courts to enforce it on their behalf, which they will do as long as the subject has a legal presence in the country the judgment was made. Unfortunately for LFL, AA was held not to have a legal presence in the US, as a website and a few magazine ads is not enough to establish one under English law.
Additionally LFL's counsel attempted to get the English courts to enforce US copyright law directly. The court declined as it would potentially allow UK citizens to be sued for doing things which may be perfectly legal in the UK because it is unlawful in the US. As mentioned above this would require some sort of reciprocal arrangement between the nations, which is unlikely.
LFL is hoping this will be changed on appeal, but this also seems unlikely.
Which leaves LFL in the undoubtedly frustrating position whereby they have a decision in their favour they can't enforce (unless AA is stupid enough to do something which has the effect of subjecting himself to the authority of the US courts) and another which seems likely to go against them.
If the court decides against LFL they lose their monopoly on exploiting the likeness of the Stormtrooper in the UK, and will have to bear not only their own costs, but AA's as well (in England the loser in a case bears the winners costs).
Generally speaking a court can only make decisions about things which happen within their jurisdiction, and can only enforce those decisions against people who are under their jurisdiction.
Here the event happened in the UK but because AA sold in the US Lucasfilm could sue him in US courts. They did and furthermore won, but because AA is not under US jurisdiction, as he is resident in the UK, the US judgment was unenforceable.
As part of their case LFL tried to get the UK courts to enforce it on their behalf, which they will do as long as the subject has a legal presence in the country the judgment was made. Unfortunately for LFL, AA was held not to have a legal presence in the US, as a website and a few magazine ads is not enough to establish one under English law.
Additionally LFL's counsel attempted to get the English courts to enforce US copyright law directly. The court declined as it would potentially allow UK citizens to be sued for doing things which may be perfectly legal in the UK because it is unlawful in the US. As mentioned above this would require some sort of reciprocal arrangement between the nations, which is unlikely.
LFL is hoping this will be changed on appeal, but this also seems unlikely.
Which leaves LFL in the undoubtedly frustrating position whereby they have a decision in their favour they can't enforce (unless AA is stupid enough to do something which has the effect of subjecting himself to the authority of the US courts) and another which seems likely to go against them.
If the court decides against LFL they lose their monopoly on exploiting the likeness of the Stormtrooper in the UK, and will have to bear not only their own costs, but AA's as well (in England the loser in a case bears the winners costs).
Vaderman
Sr Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Also repercussions for filmmakers going over to the UK to shoot, which happens a lot.
If they think they will lose the rights to their properties by hiring local talent to work on the production, it will have an effect, especially on large franchises.
I'm not sure how vac forming helmets is considered industrial design, but I am not a Lawyer, nor am I a Barrister.
Seems like, if a movie is considered "art" then the pieces of it would be too, no?
Also repercussions for filmmakers going over to the UK to shoot, which happens a lot.
If they think they will lose the rights to their properties by hiring local talent to work on the production, it will have an effect, especially on large franchises.
I'm not sure how vac forming helmets is considered industrial design, but I am not a Lawyer, nor am I a Barrister.
Seems like, if a movie is considered "art" then the pieces of it would be too, no?
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
While the wider repurcussions remain unknown I think that even if the test is affirmed future cases of this kind will be relatively easy to distinguish from this one as the goalposts will have been set.
In any case it is irrelevant if the original item was made here in the UK or by ILM in California, the law applies to it just the same.
I think the effect this precedent will have is being overstated.
The test is purposive. Questions of aesthetics, artistic merit or mode of manufacture are moot. If the helmets were made to be art at the time, they are art. If they are made to be utilitarian objects they aren't.
Rightly or wrongly the helmets and armour were held to be utilitarian.
Andy Warhol's painting of a Campbell's Soup tin is art, as it was made with the purpose of being art. That doesn't make the soup tip itself art.
While the wider repurcussions remain unknown I think that even if the test is affirmed future cases of this kind will be relatively easy to distinguish from this one as the goalposts will have been set.
In any case it is irrelevant if the original item was made here in the UK or by ILM in California, the law applies to it just the same.
I think the effect this precedent will have is being overstated.
The test is purposive. Questions of aesthetics, artistic merit or mode of manufacture are moot. If the helmets were made to be art at the time, they are art. If they are made to be utilitarian objects they aren't.
Rightly or wrongly the helmets and armour were held to be utilitarian.
Andy Warhol's painting of a Campbell's Soup tin is art, as it was made with the purpose of being art. That doesn't make the soup tip itself art.
cboath
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
I'd have to guess he's doing it for the precedent as opposed to the money. He's already got more money than his grandkids can spend in their lifetimes.
Now, don't take that the wrong way - i'm NOT saying being loaded means it's ok for the AA's of the world to take advantage of you. Dude's way in the wrong.
I'd have to guess he's doing it for the precedent as opposed to the money. He's already got more money than his grandkids can spend in their lifetimes.
Now, don't take that the wrong way - i'm NOT saying being loaded means it's ok for the AA's of the world to take advantage of you. Dude's way in the wrong.
exoray
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
So you have not followed the case? This is all about UK copyright not US copyright, the UK courts have already said they won't reciprocate the US copyright and trademark case that AA defaulted on and LFL hold a judgement against AA for...
This revolves around UK copyright entirely at this point,and what is industrial design and what is art...
So you have not followed the case? This is all about UK copyright not US copyright, the UK courts have already said they won't reciprocate the US copyright and trademark case that AA defaulted on and LFL hold a judgement against AA for...
This revolves around UK copyright entirely at this point,and what is industrial design and what is art...
Larry Young
Master Member
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Since images are blocked here at work, I had to flex my Google. Martyn, can you guys come and take the Uggs back?
Since images are blocked here at work, I had to flex my Google. Martyn, can you guys come and take the Uggs back?
Larry Young
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
You don't know what you're missing.
You don't know what you're missing.
geordietrooper
Sr Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
:love :lol
:love :lol
defstartrooper
Sr Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
........
........
Last edited:
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
She wouldn't be hot anymore if she wasn't wearing stupid shoes?
Larry Young
Master Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Anything that keeps my tootsies so warm and snuggly can't possibly be stupid.
Anything that keeps my tootsies so warm and snuggly can't possibly be stupid.
Cenobyte
Sr Member
re: Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th
Lose their monopoly on exploiting the likeness of the stormtrooper?
Something they created?
Lose their monopoly on exploiting the likeness of the stormtrooper?
Something they created?
Similar threads
