Man...still calling it "Utilitarian" is gonna hurt film makers and prop companies. Comparing something as impractical as a Stromtrooper helmet to an ACTUAL military item is a reach, in my opinion. Those Trooper buckets serve no other purpose than in that film.
The decision was upheld because it was of a type where the judge at the court of first instance (Mann J) had discretion. As his interpretation of the law was sound and his application was reasonable (if unpopular in these parts) the decision had to stand.
It could only be overturned if he erred in law or was wholly unreasonable in his application of it.
this passage from para 47 seems to warn against too wide an interpretation of the scope of the decision, at least to me.
"...a judge, even one very experienced in intellectual property matters, does not have some special power of divination which leads instantly to an infallible conclusion, and no judge would claim to have such a power. The judge reads and hears the evidence (often including expert evidence), reads and listens to the advocates’ submissions, and takes what the Court of Appeal rightly called a multi-factorial approach. Moreover the judge has to give reasons to explain his or her conclusions."
This states that when looking at any case of this type the judge must look at all factors, not just apply a blanket exemption to copyright to all props or costume items. Any decision must not only be reasonable, it must be thoroughly reasoned. If it isn't it can be thrown out on appeal.
Did I read the "Justiciability of Foreign Copyright Claim" part in that he CAN be tried in British court for violating American copyright law now? If that is the case, he is going to get raked over the coals.
That's how it appears. I'll be honest in that I'm no expert on conflict of laws, it is quite a rarified specialism. But it does appear that Lucasfilm or any licensee can take AA back to court and sue him for breach of US copyright, and they have a decided case which they can rely on to show he has in fact done so.
My reading is that they can only sue for acts committed in the US, which would limit their recoverable damages to the £30,000 or so in US sales he made, and limited other damages based on his conduct. They certainly won't get the $20,000,000 they were granted in the US court. In the UK punitive damages are limited in scope and quite rarely granted.
It'd probably be in his best interests to settle out of court ASAP.
Still it should be enough to wipe the smile off his face, for which I'm happy.
