AA case begins

[exoray]

It appears for the forseeable future Stormtrooper armour in the UK is in the public domain.

The Judge is an idiot...

Classic Dr Who is now in the public domain as well, Daleks, Cybermen and blue police boxes for everyone no license required...

Hell there is a whole new world of public domain props to be exploited in the UK now without any licensing...

And AA is still a dirty low life scum of the earth regardless...

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

The Judge is an idiot...

Classic Dr Who is now in the public domain as well, Daleks, Cybermen and blue police boxes for everyone no license required...

Hell there is a whole new world of public domain props to be exploited in the UK now without any licensing...

And AA is still a dirty low life scum of the earth regardless...

Yup, this really did open the floodgates.

 

[voice in the crowd]

Classic Dr Who is now in the public domain as well, Daleks, Cybermen and blue police boxes for everyone no license required...

Blue Police boxes are in the public domain as they still stand in the streets of the UK. There are a few of the Dr Who model still kicking about as well to this day. Even the BBC would have a hard time trying to enforce a licence on that one.

Agreed though the judge is an idiot.

So in the UK AA / SDS has officially won then? Will there be more appeals or is that it?

What exactly has AA / SDS won? Just the right to produce these items or has he gained any right to the ownership of these items in the UK?

The can of worms has opened.

Anyone else expect a SDS Vader next year :unsure


Chris

 

[exoray]

Blue Police boxes are in the public domain as they still stand in the streets of the UK. There are a few of the Dr Who model still kicking about as well to this day. Even the BBC would have a hard time trying to enforce a licence on that one.

You missed the point, things like K-9, the Sonic Screw Driver, the Daleks are no longer owned property of the BBC at least for the older series under this ruling... Under this ruling you could go into full scale production of a slew of replica props from any older movie/TV program and market them in every store without any legal worries...

 

[voice in the crowd]

You missed the point, things like K-9, the Sonic Screw Driver, the Daleks are no longer owned property of the BBC at least for the older series under this ruling... Under this ruling you could go into full scale production of a slew of replica props from any older movie/TV program and market them in every store without any legal worries...

exoray,

Was there anything in the AA/SDS case pertaining to time scale on the products. What would protect the new Dr Who props or and TV film props and if it is purely a matter of time does it mean the modern day props are basically going to be up for grabs 10 years, 20 years down the line under the same court rulings?

Either way this is a test case from hell for TV and film in the UK.

Chris

 

[exoray]

exoray,

Was there anything in the AA/SDS case pertaining to time scale on the products. What would protect the new Dr Who props or and TV film props and if it is purely a matter of time does it mean the modern day props are basically going to be up for grabs 10 years, 20 years down the line under the same court rulings?

Either way this is a test case from hell for TV and film in the UK.

Chris

If as Dpp1978 stated the terms were 15 years and is now 25 for industrial copyright then yes, right now under that ruling any prop/costume from a pre-1985 production is now public domain in the UK...

I personally don't exactly know what the whole long term effect is going ot be as it becomes an interesting tangled mess as the original copyrights have expired, thus the new version of these 'props' as seen in the new series are simply derivative works of what is now a public domain property... In essence anyone can make new derivative works now of vintage Doctor Who props as the BBC can no longer claim ownership to the likeness of these costumes and props any longer because the copyright has expired under this ruling... Same with any other vintage productions in the UK... The Judge opened up a big can of worms and if left to stand will have long lasting repercussions through the entire entertainment industry worldwide since he said they will not uphold and enforce foreign copyrights either...

As you said "this is a test case from hell for TV and film in the UK" the whole UK entertainment industry best be watching and taking action to clarify and/or void this decision if they want any control over their properties... Because as it stands they just lost a big portion of their property rights in one sweeping blow...

 

[anakin]

I'm glad to see people still adding comments to this thread. There's some great facts and opinions presented in 50 some odd pages.

For those who don't want to read all 50 ( but you should)

a link with almost all the headlines and some other additional info

http://www.originalprop.com/blog/category/news-events/lfl-ainsworth-stormtrooper-helmets/


Agreed that the Judge must have been smacked upside the head with his own gavel, when he made his ruling. Industrial design vs works of art....sheesh:rolleyes



all I can say is that the courtroom sketch of the bucket is more accurate than Ainsworth's product lol:lol

thanks to Brian Muir for the above shot of Ainsworth's process

 

[Dpp1978]

The judge in the original case is far from an idiot. The judges at the appeal have to have very keen legal minds to be elevated to the rank of Lord Justice. Any criticism should be aimed at the law itself rather than those who interpret it. I have little doubt the lobbyists are sharpening their pencils as we sit here debating.

The problem of unlicenced replicas will probably not be much more worrysome to the rights holders than it already was.

The fact of the matter is Star Wars, Doctor Who (being the examples given) and any other franchise which may be affected are registered trdemarks. Even if you do make the best replica of any prop, the second you market it using any of the trademarked phrases, logos or names you are in trouble if the holder has a mind to press its rights. Copyright law even where it exists has some wiggle room, trademark law really doesn't.

Then there is the tort of passing off, where a vendor trades on the goodwill of another. In this scenario he allows the buyer to believe the goods are licensed or otherwise endorsed by the rights holder, either expressly or by omitting to inform the buyer when he reasonably ought have.

Very few major retaillers are going to touch unlicensed goods for fear of potential legal issues. Which leads to the only outlet for the unlicensed fare being smaller distributors and private sales; which is pretty much what happens anyway. It'll remain a niche affair and the average punter will still be happy with the licensed version. All it does is remove the already small risk of prosecution.

I get the sneaky suspicion if it was a more reputable vendor in the dock the reaction to this may be slightly different. AA is a braggart who tried to take credit for other people's work. The fact of the matter is whatever the outcome he is still out a considerable chunk in legal fees, and his pretensions of being the creator of the Stormtrooper have been rubbished in court; a record of which will remain on the books forever.

 

[exoray]

The judge in the original case is far from an idiot.

I beg to differ... You will never convince me that the clay sculptures Liz and the other ARTIST did for these costumes or any other costumes is an industrial design and not an artistic work...

Very few major retaillers are going to touch unlicensed goods for fear of potential legal issues.

If this case is held, there are no issues... Yeah you can't market it using trademark or copyright names but that certainly has never stopped and 'knock off' company from getting into retail stores...

The problem of unlicenced replicas will probably not be much more worrysome to the rights holders than it already was.

No ownership rights exist, thus they are not unlicensed any longer...

 

[Dpp1978]

I beg to differ... You will never convince me that the clay sculptures Liz and the other ARTIST did for these costumes or any other costumes is an industrial design and not an artistic work...

I agree. But we are not talking about those; we are talking about the vac-formed plastic helmets mass produced by AA.

They were made to look good on film, not to look good under close scrutiny. The test for sculpture or artistic craftsmanship is a question of intent at the time they were made. Were they designed to be put on a pedestal and admired, or used to make the film and discarded?

While many of us here may do exactly what I described above it is a stretch to infer that was foreseen back in 1976. They were tools to facilitate an end nothing more. If you had told the makers back then such scrutiny and devotion would be placed on their works I suspect it would've evoked equal parts pride and incredulity.

 

[Dpp1978]

No ownership rights exist, thus they are not unlicensed any longer...

There are different types of licence. A licence to use a trademark can be granted to allow use of the brand without claims for breach of mark and/or passing off.

Only the ability to license the form is lost, not the ability to license the brand. And in marketing terms the brand name and that which goes with it is of considerable value.

 

[exoray]

I agree. But we are not talking about those

Can't have one without the other, so yes we are talking about the original artistic clay works and the likeness created...

 

[Dpp1978]

Can't have one without the other, so yes we are talking about the original artistic clay works and the likeness created...

Yes but the helmets are not the clay sculpt or the preceding drawings. Neither are we talking about the forms created to pull the components. At each stage of the process from drawing board to the finished helmet new rights were created (or not as the case may be).

What we are looking at is the finished product in isolation. We are not looking at the process by which it came about. Just because the methods used to make it were sculptural doesn't mean the finished item is sculpture. The judgment makes it very clear to differentiate between "sculpture" the process and "sculpture" the end product.

You may not agree with the decision; I'm not sure I do, but just because the finished item does not qualify as sculpture in no way demeans the capabilities and artistic talent of those involved in its making.

 

[gonk27]

In this case, I think British law is saying that the items used to make Star Wars, such as the plastic suit on the wooden film set were not created initially to be valued in themselves - but that their purpose was only to represent fictional characters in a story. The film itself as a whole would be the work of art, and not the tools-of-the-trade that were used to make it. Once the film is completed, and their reason for being built is over (I think the law is saying) they have no artistic purpose left.


... if I've grasped this correctly then LFL have dropped the ball. They should have pressed home that no matter how British law defines their reason for being built originally, these days stormtrooper helmets have become works of art. They stand in glass cabinets in museums the world over for the purpose of being admired for what they are by people that appreciate the film. Props used to be thrown away when a film was finished, but these days they often take on a new life as objects in collections or displays.

In this case there's no difference in purpose between a stormtrooper helmet on display in a museum, and a piece of sculpture that people who like these things pay money just to go and see. It doesn't matter why either of them was made in the first place. A shark in a tank of formaldahide is accepted as a work of art, but the thing was born as a fish!

 

[exoray]

There are different types of licence. A licence to use a trademark can be granted to allow use of the brand without claims for breach of mark and/or passing off.

Only the ability to license the form is lost, not the ability to license the brand. And in marketing terms the brand name and that which goes with it is of considerable value.

Please stop going to trademarks and other unrelated IPs, I have never said brand it as 'official' or such or use the trademark... Yeah you couldn't brand it as 'The Doctor Who Dalek, as seen on the BBC" as that would infringe upon other rights, but you could simply put it in a box as a 'Robot from the Future' under this ruling, the same way AA is branding and selling his warez, ruled legal...

Before this ruling putting clear 1:1 copy of a Dalek in a box as a 'Robot from the Future' and selling it would have certainly brought you the legal wrath of the BBC, but with this ruling the BBC has no ground to bring any legal wrath as they no longer own any rights to the actual design... This is what I'm saying...

And what is interesting is AA is still using fringe Trademark names to sell his warez... Right off his website...

<meta name="keywords" content="stormtrooper trooper stormtroopers armor armour helmet master star wars replica imperial TIE replicas stunt hero vader rebel darth helmets clones sith revenge empire hope ANH ESB ROTJ ROJ ROS ROTS AOTC TPM">

 

[Dpp1978]

Please stop going to trademarks and other unrelated IPs, I have never said brand it as 'official' or such or use the trademark... Yeah you couldn't brand it as 'The Doctor Who Dalek, as seen on the BBC" as that would infringe upon other rights, but you could simply put it in a box as a 'Robot from the Future' under this ruling, the same way AA is branding and selling his warez, ruled legal...

Before this ruling putting clear 1:1 copy of a Dalek in a box as a 'Robot from the Future' and selling it would have certainly brought you the legal wrath of the BBC, but with this ruling the BBC has no ground to bring any legal wrath as they no longer own any rights to the actual design... This is what I'm saying...

I agree with you, but you can't look at copyright in isolation. Earlier you posted:

Under this ruling you could go into full scale production of a slew of replica props from any older movie/TV program and market them in every store without any legal worries...

I was merely pointing out there are other IP mechanisms to help prevent this. I agree about the metadata being interesting, although I'm unclear whether it is actionable. I wonder if Lucasfilms lawyers know...

On a horribly pedantic note, The BBC no longer hold the IP rights to the Daleks, they have to license them from Terry Nation's estate.

 

[exoray]

On a horribly pedantic note, The BBC no longer hold the IP rights to the Daleks, they have to license them from Terry Nation's estate.

Well the rights to the movie prop likeness of it are expired either way, maybe it's time for the BBC to renegotiate...

 

[Dpp1978]

Well the rights to the movie prop likeness of it are expired either way, maybe it's time for the BBC to renegotiate...

Yeah, I suppose. Still they'd have to pay to call it a Dalek. Else they'd be shouting, "Look! A robot from the future! Run!"

 

[lonepigeon]

Yes but the helmets are not the clay sculpt or the preceding drawings. Neither are we talking about the forms created to pull the components. At each stage of the process from drawing board to the finished helmet new rights were created (or not as the case may be).

If they do see the initial sculpt as a work of art then I don't see how they can say the helmets are not. The helmets are then copies of a work of art and AA's replicas would then be unauthorized copies of a work of art for which he has no right to.

That's like saying a bronze sculpture is not a work of art because it's a copy of an original clay. In fact, the original sculpture is almost less a work of art because it's an ends to a means. The final product/artwork is the helmet.

The helmets were made to be seen on screen. I would interpret that as being art on public display. The term "industrial design" implies functionality and these helmets are designed for form, not function.

I think the law was poorly interpreted.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

In this case, I think British law is saying that the items used to make Star Wars, such as the plastic suit on the wooden film set were not created initially to be valued in themselves - but that their purpose was only to represent fictional characters in a story. The film itself as a whole would be the work of art, and not the tools-of-the-trade that were used to make it. Once the film is completed, and their reason for being built is over (I think the law is saying) they have no artistic purpose left.

... if I've grasped this correctly then LFL have dropped the ball. They should have pressed home that no matter how British law defines their reason for being built originally, these days stormtrooper helmets have become works of art. They stand in glass cabinets in museums the world over for the purpose of being admired for what they are by people that appreciate the film. Props used to be thrown away when a film was finished, but these days they often take on a new life as objects in collections or displays.

In this case there's no difference in purpose between a stormtrooper helmet on display in a museum, and a piece of sculpture that people who like these things pay money just to go and see. It doesn't matter why either of them was made in the first place. A shark in a tank of formaldahide is accepted as a work of art, but the thing was born as a fish!

I think this sums up the UK version better than anything. The way the law (not the judge) took it was that the helmets actually used in the film were nothing more nor less than the boots the actors wore, the clothing they put on, the toolboxes, sterling machine guns or any other item used for the production of a work of art, but are not in themselves pieces of art. Thereby they fall, as Dpp1978 has said, under a completely different legality.

It's the law that is flawed but I think time is also a major factor and societies perceptions of movies and collectibles. 30 years ago who cared about movie props? We saw it all the time with the destruction and deterioration of items that now we (and others) hold as works of art from those films. The Death Star model found in a junk heap, the original TK helmets allowed to fall apart and how many were actively destroyed, and how many other props from ANH especially were allowed to just be junked? So they clearly were not considered something artistic or to be valued or saved but were just purely functional.

The law definitely needs to be changed to protect the movie makers, special effects shops and others who put such hard work into their designs for the films. I would think that LFL and other movie production companies would be very fast in lobbying the UK legislature to do just that after this ruling.