AA case begins

If anything this is a great resource and reference for how the helmets and costumes were made.

I love the judge's assessments of the witnesses...it reads like a drama :lol
These UK judges certainly have a way of lending a personal flair to their decisions, entirely partial.

Nice things said about Mr. Muir, welcome Brian!

Not so nice about John Mollo, although that seems to have been the impression those that have spoken to him had all along. :) And Gary Kurtz seemed to disagree about his contribution.

[Kurtz] gave his evidence in a careful and measured fashion, and in the main I can rely on what he said, though he did give some evidence about Mr Mollo's detailed involvement which did not coincide with Mr Mollo's.
Click to expand...

I'd really would like to have met and spoken with Norman Reynolds if I was at the court...
 
I can't believe he changed his witness statements and was caught lying about his contributions to other films.....man. By that I mean I can't believe he could be that stupid.
 
Miniaturizer Ray said:
As a Brit, the biggest hoot is Andrew Walter Billy Liar Mitty Ainsworth's claim to have invented the Smash Martians ...:lol
Click to expand...

Yeah claiming you made everything in Star Wars is forgivable but claiming the Smash martians a disgrace:lol

When reading that I suddenly thought I would love a replica of a Smash martian :)

I had a bendy arm Smash martian toy as a kid anyone know of anyone who made anything better.

Sorry for the OT
 
Qui-Gonzalez said:
Just glancing over some of it while at work. Is this Judge saying Pemberton did the sculpt for the trooper helmet now, or am I misreading this: "He created a clay model of the Stormtrooper head which ultimately went to Mr Ainsworth"
Click to expand...

The key issue with the clay model of the Stormtrooper helmet in court was the colour of the clay.

Liz's boyfriend, John, who witnessed her sculpting the helmet in Holland and had set up a studio for her there, stated in court that she only worked with 'grey' clay.

The judge then questioned the fact as to whether Liz did sculpt the helmet.

Pemberton stated that he worked in 'red' clay which is terracota.

The clay helmet in the photo produced in court is a buff body clay which is light brown in colour, which is used all the time in the film industry.

In my opinion, Liz Moore sculpted the helmet and I do not think Pemberton was capable of sculpting to that standard having seen his portfolio for the court case. I think it's probable that he produced the blue helmet that is shown in the same photo.

Brian
 
CGClone said:
According the USAToday, Ainsworth can still sell his wares in Britain, just not the United States?!?:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-07-31-stormtroopers_N.htm
Click to expand...

Honestly I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet as the Judge has invited them back to court for further arguments on many of the points of the trial...

What is clear is that now the UK courts have upheld the fact he violated US Copyright, that the Judge ruled upon... He has a lose in both countries now for copyright infringement... The UK 'should' recognize and honor US copyrights...

And even if the UK courts only uphold 10% of the US ruling LFL will have enough hanging over AA to make any further "UK only sales" not real profitable if he was allowed to continue...
 
Okay, I'm really confused now.

Lucasfilm Attack on the Clones Struck Down

(thelawyer.com) Litigation boutique SimmonsCooperAndrew has struck down film-maker George Lucas' galactic High Court battle over ownership of the IP rights to the stormtrooper helmets from the Star Wars films.

Justice Mann ruled that the English copyright for the helmets had expired, which means the movie mogul and LucasFilm does not have exclusive rights to replicate the helmets.

As The Lawyer revealed (7 April), SimmonsCooperAndrew was acting for British engineer Andrew Ainsworth, who produced the stormtrooper helmets and armour for the original 1977 Star Wars: A New Hope film, as well as Luke Skywalker's 'X-Wing' helmet.

Lucas had sued for $20m (£10.1m) after Ainsworth started selling replica stormtrooper helmets four years ago. In the US the movie-maker won a default judgment against the prop designer and Lucas sought to enforce $10m (£5m) of the ruling in the UK.

However Mann J refused to enforce the US decision. The judge held that Lucasfilms had adopted a "sledgehammer or steamroller approach" and went on to say "what is quite clear is that Lucas is determined to stop Mr Ainsworth by whatever legitimate legal means are open to it, including the threat of a $10m judgment hanging over him".

Lucas' legal team, led by Harbottle & Lewis, retained one concession, however, as the court ruled that Ainsworth, though permitted to sell replica helmets in the UK, he could not do so in the US. To Ainsworth this is worth £25,000 to £30,000 in sales.

SimmonCooperAndrew partner Seamus Andrew, who led the defence for Ainsworth, said the judgment has shown that David can bring down Goliath.

"This ruling means that it's now harder for film companies to prevent their prop designers one making money out of their own products," said Andrew. "It makes it harder for the film companies to tie up the IP so loosens up the industry."

The High Court's ruling that the copyright had expired meant Ainsworth counterclaim for a cut of profits made from Star Wars since 1977 was dismissed.

Andrew instructed lead counsel Alistair Wilson QC of Hogarth Chambers for Ainsworth. Harbottle & Lewis partner Mark Owen represents the Lucas parties, instructing Michael Bloch QC of Wilberforce Chambers as lead counsel.

Full Press: http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=134016&d=415&h=417&f=416
Click to expand...

It sounds like it was a weak victory actually for LFL? Damn I hate legal stuff! :p
 
In a nutshell, the judge didn't believe that AA could have free-formed the helmets, and that it was unlikely that Mollo didn't show him drawings.

As to the damages, the judge had a clear opinon:

In the present action Lucas seeks to enforce that judgment in this jurisdiction to the extent of those damages, but without the trebling element; that is to say it confines its claim on the judgment to $10m. .........And furthermore, as a matter of reality, his clients realised that Mr Ainsworth was not good for $10m and were not looking to bankrupt him on it. What I think all that probably demonstrates is that Lucas is understandably sensitive to the impression that its apparent sledgehammer or steamroller approach might portray to this court, and to others, and is anxious to mitigate that impression, at least as far as this court is concerned. What is quite clear is that Lucas is determined to stop Mr Ainsworth by whatever legitimate legal means are open to it, including the threat of a $10m judgment hanging over him. Whether or not it is entitled to do that is, of course, a matter for this court.
Click to expand...
The imperial symbol issue was dropped.

The stormtrooper helmet is not a sculpture:

First, the original Stormtrooper helmet. This has, as its genesis, the McQuarrie drawings. The purpose of the helmet was that it was to be worn as an item of costume in a film, to identify a character, but in addition to portray something about that character – its allegiance, force, menace, purpose and, to some extent, probably its anonymity. It was a mixture of costume and prop. But its primary function is utilitarian. While it was intended to express something, that was for utilitarian purposes. While it has an interest as an object, and while it was intended to express an idea, it was not conceived, or created, with the intention that it should do so other than as part of character portrayal in the film. That, in my view, does not give it the necessary quality of artistic creation inherent in the test suggested by Laddie J. Not everything which has design appeal is necessarily a sculpture. I think that the ordinary perception of what is a sculpture would be over-stretched by including this helmet within it, and when rationalised the reasons are those just given. It is not that it lacks artistic merit; it lacks artistic purpose. I therefore find that the Stormtrooper helmet is not a sculpture.
Click to expand...
Yes, based on the 1956 act, the 15 years expired:

That means that the 15 years expired before Mr Ainsworth started his activities, and he can have the benefit of section 52.
Click to expand...
The claim of copyright infringement was upheld, but the other LFL claims failed....AA didn't claim he had license....

It will be noted that Lucas did not claim that Mr Ainsworth was actually claiming his work as Lucas's. It is said that he was misrepresenting his work to be licensed by Lucas. It seems to me that such a mis-statement, if made, would be capable of amounting to passing off. However, I do not consider that it was made in the present case. The website makes some wrongful claims. It claims that Mr Ainsworth was the creator of the original helmets and armour (see the extract above, repeated later on the website when it says he "created the original Stormtrooper") when that does not correctly describe the situation. The word "created" in that context suggests design creativity, and he did not contribute that (or not much of it) – he made the Stormtrooper helmet and armour to someone else's design. However, that does not amount to any misrepresentation about licensing. I have looked at the entire website. It certainly puffs the alleged originality of the products (in that they were derived from the same moulds) but the emphasis is on Mr Ainsworth and his acts. Neither the extracts referred to above, nor anything else in the website, expressly or impliedly suggests that what he was doing was with Lucas's consent or licence. The references to authenticity are all references to the fidelity of the product to the original design, having been made on the same moulds or tools as the film's originals. That may or may not be true, but it is not suggestive of any licence (particularly when looked at in the round) and I do not consider that there to have been the misrepresentation alleged. This part of the claim therefore fails.
Click to expand...
He did not claim the items were his own...

1. Neither that, nor anything else in Bristol Conservatories, describes what Mr Ainsworth has done in the present case. He has not pretended that Lucas's goods are his; nor has he pretended that the goods that he was selling, which were in fact his own, were Lucas's. He says what he is selling are his own, and he is proud of them. What he says is true so far as the origin of the goods is concerned. It might be false so far as the creation of the original design is concerned but that is not misappropriating Lucas's goodwill in the manner required in passing off. What he has done is different – he has described himself as the original creator of the original goods. That may be untrue, and it may amount to one or more other civil wrongs (as to which there was no argument and there is no claim), but it does not amount to passing off. It is a (mis)statement about him, not about the goods he is selling. He does not sell his goods by reference to someone else's goods or someone else's goodwill.
2. Accordingly, the passing off claim fails.
Click to expand...
AA was not under contract nor an employee...

Mr Ainsworth was not an employee of Lucas, so any copyright in his creations would not vest in Lucas via section 11 of the 1988 Act. He was commissioned to produce the props as an independent contractor and he did not enter into any express obligations in relation to the copyright. That does not, however, necessarily mean that he is entitled to the copyright in that which he produces.
Click to expand...
In relation to the contractual obligation:

1. The conclusion that I have reached applies not only to the Stormtrooper helmet but to all other items created by Mr Ainsworth for Lucas. In the case of the X-wing helmet, there were no prior drawings from which he worked, and for all the items other than the armour the drawings from which he worked were not of the same detail as the McQuarrie drawings. However, he was still working to commission, producing things for which the client had provided clear specifications, and it was implicit in the relationship that he would not retain copyright.
2. There is one quirk in relation to the first batch of Stormtrooper helmets. Apart from that batch, there was a direct contractual relationship between Lucas and Mr Ainsworth into which the necessary implied term can be inserted. However, in relation to the first Stormtrooper helmets Mr Ainsworth was in a contractual relationship with Mr Pemberton and not with Lucas.
Click to expand...
The claim about confidentiality was dismissed...

The information is said to have been "imparted" to Mr Ainsworth in the circumstances referred to above, in which Mr Ainsworth was provided with the sketches, armour material and information about the film that Mr Mollo provided him with. It is pleaded that any reasonable person in Mr Ainsworth's shoes would have realised that the designs were confidential, that he was given access to them for the purpose of producing props for the film, that the designs would become valuable in their own right through the success of the film and that Lucas would expect to have the right to control all exploitation of the film, including merchandising and similar activities. Mr Ainsworth is pleaded as infringing these rights by using the confidential information by using the moulds to produce helmets and armour.

204. This analysis, so far as it seeks to bring the case within the principles appearing in the three cited cases, falls short of doing so.
Click to expand...
The arguement about targeting the US market was shot down...

If Mr Ainsworth were present in the US by means of his internet trading, why is he not present in every country into which he sells goods by means of an internet deal? That would be a very far-reaching conclusion, and one which would not be justified by any underlying principle, or at least not by any principle underpinning Cape.

223. Accordingly the conditions required by Cape are not fulfilled and the US judgment is not enforceable against Mr Ainsworth.
Click to expand...
About damages...

3. On the Second and Third Claims for unfair competition and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, an additional $10,000,000 to treble the compensatory damages awarded on those claims."
Click to expand...
The judge concludes:

There is a real sense in which this part of the judgment contains two separate and severable elements – the compensatory and the punitive, or exaggerated (or whatever adjective one chooses to apply to the multiplied damages). The paragraph 2 damages are not barred by the Act; only the paragraph 3 damages are.
Click to expand...
Getting near the end:

Other than the inevitable factual differences, the only live legal issue seemed to be whether actual items were to be regarded as "functional" or "utilitarian" within the American legal provisions. If and to the extent that they were then copyright or infringement could not be claimed.
Click to expand...
Again about jurisdiction:

Mr Ainsworth has committed acts which are said to be an infringement of US copyright. There is a judgment about that in the US which, so far as it goes, and so far as it is useful, will operate there. However, he has chosen not to submit himself to the US jurisdiction, and under present English conflicts rules the US judgment cannot be enforced against him where he currently is (in this jurisdiction).
Click to expand...
In the end, the judge decided that the utilitarian argument was not presented well, and in failing to argue it effectively, the matter of copyright infringement was decided.

Having heard the evidence, and in the light of those concessions, it seems to me, and I find, that so far as these English courts are concerned the position is clear enough and it is possible to make a clear finding against Mr Ainsworth on the utilitarianism point; that is to say, that Mr Ainsworth cannot successfully raise a utilitarianism point against the copyright asserted in this claim (for the items where the issue is still live). The claimants "having the best of the evidence", with no attempt at analysis or arguing why the defendant might still be right, is a euphemistic concession that the defendant does not have a winning case on the point. Accordingly, on the evidence, I find that the relevant 3D articles were not utilitarian or functional for the purposes of the relevant infringement or subsistence tests, and that therefore copyright exists, or is infringed, as the case may be
Click to expand...
So he failed on the utilitarian point and thus by default loses his own claim to copyright and therefore copyright rests with LFL. But the issue of whether the damages will be enforced is another issue. And keep in mind:

. It was not sufficient to establish the enforceability of a foreign judgment that there be trading into that foreign country by those means, no matter how extensive the trading. Internet trading is not materially different for these purposes. It just makes the establishing of contracts easier – advertising is easier, placing an order is easier and quicker, and payment is more easily (and usually more quickly) achieved. It does not make the seller more present in the buyer's country.
Click to expand...
So a lot of assumptions here were incorrect, as I duly argued. But the point is AA violated copyright. Everyone expect AA to be fined the entire $20 million, but it seems that won't be the case.
 
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. :lol

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...)
Click to expand...


Well it is never that simple, unfortunately. :cry
 
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?
Click to expand...
 
The final decision is as confusing as all our arguments over the past few years! :lol

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! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mara Jade's Father
$600 Buzz Lightyear Robotic Figure
Replies
13
Views
1,428
incrediblefruit
incrediblefruit
COlson
1/35 scale Bandai Batman Begins Tumbler Batmobile
Replies
0
Views
841
COlson
COlson
ed-209
ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE COPSMETIC CASE
Replies
2
Views
271
ed-209
ed-209
DariushSeif
All Things Batman
Replies
5
Views
1,343
HJRodrigo
HJRodrigo
joberg
Producers sue Disney in U.K.
2
Replies
29
Views
3,512
drusselmeyer
drusselmeyer
Back
Top