AA case begins

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Care to share your qualifications ?

I do believe that AA saw at least some artwork by McQuarrie maybe not the final paintings but sketches but then that's neither here nor there, it really doesn't matter if he saw 5 zillion paintings the argument is whether his design is the same as McQuarries.
Yeah there are similarities but there are also differences i don't think it's clear cut at all.

The court really won't be interested in how he came about the design unless LFL can either show it is a design they already owned or it was designed under contract by AA, we know the 2nd option is out of the question so that leaves LFL with convincing the judge AA's helmet and armour are McQuarries design or the mystery sculpt that nobody has seen yet or been mentioned in the case.

I'd have to disagree and say it does matter that he saw derivative work. It shows the man did not have the idea all on his own.

My thing keeps coming back to the helmets and the McQuarrie work. Where else would he have gotten the idea, had he sculpted this all on his own? So, the way he is selling it, at least to me, that - sight unseen - he sculpted these helmets to market to anyone who would purchase them. Lucas comes along saying "Hey, we need some scary white troops with spooky looking helmets" and Ainsworth said "Oh sure, I have just the thing". It is too far fetched to even remotely believe. Since I can't believe THAT, I also cannot believe he did not base something he allegedly sculpted from some other form of artwork.

 

[SithLord]

As for the copyright issues, Exoray is correct Sithlord. While it is a nice piece of argument, it is based on fundamental misunderstandings of copyright law. And by the way, folks just because there is no copyright marking/statement on a piece of work does not mean it isn't protected.

Well I'm here to learn about the case as much as the next guy, so I appreciate and respect your professional input. I am aware about the copyright marking, but I checked the database and couldn't find the registrations of the two paintings mentioned. Plus they are incomplete as for one thing they do not indicate that the works were created for hire. But if you can point out one or two of the misunderstandings I'd appreciate it.

Also have you considered the UK Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980?

Thusly....

The Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 was a piece of legislation passed by the British Parliament to counter American assertions of extra-territorial jurisdiction.

The Act gives the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the authority to "give to any person in the United Kingdom who carries on business there such directions for prohibiting compliance" with laws of a foreign state which control or regulate international trade in a way which damages British trading interests.

The Act restricts the enforceability of judgments for multiple damages. Section 5 provides that British courts will not enforce a judgment for "an amount arrived at by doubling, trebling or otherwise multiplying a sum assessed as compensation".

So that's another way AA might be able to squeeze out of the unreasonable damages requested.

We all know LFL side, but what to me is more compelling is how AA will fight this and on top of that, countersue LFL?

Keep in mind, these threads about AA were going on for quite a long time and given this is only a prop forum, armchair legal opinions are bound to present themselves.

 

[SithLord]

It is too far fetched to even remotely believe. Since I can't believe THAT, I also cannot believe he did not base something he allegedly sculpted from some other form of artwork.

I have to agree, but that's the big question...to what extent is his design derivative of the McQuarrie artwork and to what extent it is substantially similar. Inspiration is one thing, copying is another. The basis was the artwork and I don't think that's in dispute, but to what extent his work is derivative or novel enough to be in his copyright is.

 

[defstartrooper]

Does being 50% owner in a lawfirm that handles these types of cases on a regular basis qualify? Course if you had bothered to read my earlier posts you'd have known that!:cool

Yes i did but i asked about your qualifications not people you work with as lawyers do tend to specialise in a particular field, just wondered if copyright was your chosen field :thumbsup

I'd have to disagree and say it does matter that he saw derivative work. It shows the man did not have the idea all on his own

The idea is not relevent you can't go to a court and say hey that bloke who designed that billion dollar invention ripped me off i thought of that.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Yes i did but i asked about your qualifications not people you work with as lawyers do tend to specialise in a particular field, just wondered if copyright was your chosen field :thumbsup



The idea is not relevent you can't go to a court and say hey that bloke who designed that billion dollar invention ripped me off i thought of that.

Yet the other guy does not have one bit of evidence to prove he has invented it. Whereas the other fella has his work that the pieces are pretty obviously derived from.

 

[defstartrooper]

Yet the other guy does not have one bit of evidence to prove he has invented it. Whereas the other fella has his work that the pieces are pretty obviously derived from.

Yes but as Sithlord said derived from is different to copied.
Personally i wouldn't even use the word derived that to me intimates the finished work was a realisation of the 2d design which it isn't, there are whole host of differences inspired would be a more apllicable term.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Yes but as Sithlord said derived from is different to copied.
Personally i wouldn't even use the word derived that to me intimates the finished work was a realisation of the 2d design which it isn't, there are whole host of differences inspired would be a more apllicable term.

There are a whole host of differences with the proto Vader as well, but you know exactly what you are looking at when you look at it, right?

 

[SithLord]

True but as McQuarrie recognized the differences between his trooper concepts and the final result, he also recognized what happened to his concept of Vader and apparently sees it as an alternative interpretation of his concept. And he's the original artist. It's recognizable as derivative, or inspired, but IMHO Vader as we see him in his final 3D incarnation is clearly different from the McQuarrie concepts. I'm not an artist, but I think there was definitely artistic contribution and skill rendered to achieve the final look of Vader. Do we consider a concept different from the final creation? But admittedly it's all moot until we see the TK head clay sculpt...and learn who sculpted it...if there's no difference in the final armor as it appears onscreen compared to the original sculptures of the armor, it's not likely the helmet should be any different...what's bothersome is that even once all the details of the case are released we may still never know...

 

[Onigiri]

BREAKING NEWS: (AP World News) Hillary Clinton Claims to Have Created Stormtroopers For Star Wars Saga!
The Junior Senator from New York today broke her silence on the ongoing legal battle between Lucas Films Licensing and Shepperton Design Studios of the United Kingdom. The lawsuit, brought against Shepperton owner Andrew Ainsworth, revolves around the intellectual property rights and ownership of the famous white armored 'stormtroopers'. Ainsworth, who has been selling reproductions he claims are from his 'original molds', has ignored Cease and Desist orders from Lucas Films and has already lost one case in the United States. While campaigning in Pennsylvania Senator Clinton remarked that neither side had cause as it was she that sculpted the original suits based on artwork supplied by LFL. She stated that it was difficult considering that while she was sculpting the iconic armor she was under heavy sniper fire and visibility was poor because it was late at night. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, tried to interject during her statement but was silenced by a stern "STFU" by Senator Clinton accompanied by a smack upside the head. The news came as a shock both to the Shepperton camp and to Lucas himself but neither would comment.

 

[exoray]

You know one interesting thing about this case, now I'm far from an expert in UK law, but...

It's my understanding that LFL sued in UK courts to have the US ruling upheld... This is a formality suit where the merits of the case are not argued again, only the obligation to the judgment is argued...

AA counter sued saying he is the owner of the likeness...

Now, at least in the US when you sue or counter sue you have to prove your case, that means for AA's counter suit he is going to have to prove he is the creator not the other way around... The counter suit in essence has shifted the burden of proof to AA not LFL... This means LFL doesn't have prove who sculpted what they only have to deny AA did it, leaving it up to AA to prove he did it...

Obviously it works both ways and providing facts to support your side is beneficial, but as I see it AA is the one on the line and obligated to provide support for his argument...

 

[CustomCreations]

VERY good point.
Also, even if AA is given a fair result, and he 'designed' them, could it mean he is still NOT allowed to reproduce them ? Licensing rights to Lucas Film may be more secure/watertight, because of the duration of usage, than any of AA's rights as a designer ?

 

[defstartrooper]

You know one interesting thing about this case, now I'm far from an expert in UK law, but...

It's my understanding that LFL sued in UK courts to have the US ruling upheld... This is a formality suit where the merits of the case are not argued again, only the obligation to the judgment is argued...

AA counter sued saying he is the owner of the likeness...

Now, at least in the US when you sue or counter sue you have to prove your case, that means for AA's counter suit he is going to have to prove he is the creator not the other way around... The counter suit in essence has shifted the burden of proof to AA not LFL... This means LFL doesn't have prove who sculpted what they only have to deny AA did it, leaving it up to AA to prove he did it...

Obviously it works both ways and providing facts to support your side is beneficial, but as I see it AA is the one on the line and obligated to provide support for his argument...

No not really the merits of the case were not argued in the US hearing and no evidence was put forward, the case was awarded to LFL because there was nobody contesting it.
Therefore in the UK hearing LFL as the party to file a claim first still have the onus on them to prove they're the rightful owners.

 

[atacpdx]

No not really the merits of the case were not argued in the US hearing and no evidence was put forward, the case was awarded to LFL because there was nobody contesting it.
Therefore in the UK hearing LFL as the party to file a claim first still have the onus on them to prove they're the rightful owners.

Actually, there are really two cases here:

The 1st is LFL asking the UK court to uphold the US decision. For that, they will need to present far less evidence than if they had originally sued in the UK. They will need to argue why the US decision is applicable and enforceable. They will outline briefly their original arguement they had prepared for the US trial. However, their main focus will be on why the judgement is legal under UK law. For instance, certain types of damages awarded in the US judgement may well be ruled inappropriate under UK law, thereby reducing the amount owed by AA.

The 2nd case is AA's countersuit. In that case, the burden of proof is in fact on AA. Obviously LFL will use many of the same arguements and witnesses they had prepared for their original US case against AA. However, they need merely only defend.

 

[defstartrooper]

Actually, there are really two cases here:

The 1st is LFL asking the UK court to uphold the US decision. For that, they will need to present far less evidence than if they had originally sued in the UK. They will need to argue why the US decision is applicable and enforceable. They will outline briefly their original arguement they had prepared for the US trial. However, their main focus will be on why the judgement is legal under UK law. For instance, certain types of damages awarded in the US judgement may well be ruled inappropriate under UK law, thereby reducing the amount owed by AA.

The 2nd case is AA's countersuit. In that case, the burden of proof is in fact on AA. Obviously LFL will use many of the same arguements and witnesses they had prepared for their original US case against AA. However, they need merely only defend.

Yes but the US decision was based on nothing more than LFL filing and that is it.
No case was put forward it didn't have to be because it was not contested, A UK court is not going to award anything based on a case that was never heard, LFL will have to prove ownership.

AA's countersuit will be heard after the case against him, by then a decision will have been made as to who has ownership there will be nothing to prove.
If AA is declared the legal owner the court will decide what if any damages he is entitled to.
If LFL are declared the legal owners then the case will just be thrown out.

 

[Obi Sean Kenobi]

Actually, there are really two cases here:

The 1st is LFL asking the UK court to uphold the US decision. For that, they will need to present far less evidence than if they had originally sued in the UK. They will need to argue why the US decision is applicable and enforceable. They will outline briefly their original arguement they had prepared for the US trial. However, their main focus will be on why the judgement is legal under UK law. For instance, certain types of damages awarded in the US judgement may well be ruled inappropriate under UK law, thereby reducing the amount owed by AA.

The 2nd case is AA's countersuit. In that case, the burden of proof is in fact on AA. Obviously LFL will use many of the same arguements and witnesses they had prepared for their original US case against AA. However, they need merely only defend.

Do you have any knowledge about the UK case or is this all speculation.
I cant see how your enumeration of the issues could be accurate. A default judgment is exactly what it sounds like - a judgment by default. Meaning AA didnt defend the US case.
In order to have res judicata effect, a case has to be litigated on the merits.
The UK Court would not give res judicata to the US case, as there has never been a hearing on the merits. In any event, res judicata would be brought up in pre-trial practice. The mere fact that the matter is proceeding to a hearing belies the fact that the UK Court is not considering the US default.
I would imagine that the UK action involves the litigation of the inherent IP issues in the LFL v AA case, and said action will issue a ruling based on the facts presented, regardless of what happened in the US.

Just for the record, default judgments occur when one party fails to appear, plead or otherwise defend a lawsuit. Applying this to the US case, AA failed to appear, plead or otherwise defend.
Justice abhors a Default Judgment and is reluctant to enter them.
They are, however, easily vacated, if done within a reasonable amount of time and for good cause. So for those that think the LFL "victory" in the US means something, it doesnt. A great analogy would be a huge boxing event, where only one boxer shows up for the fight. He wins because the other guy didnt show. It doesnt mean hes a better fighter.

OSK

 

[exoray]

Just for the record, default judgments occur when one party fails to appear, plead or otherwise defend a lawsuit. Applying this to the US case, AA failed to appear, plead or otherwise defend.

Actually AA acknowledged the US court, started a defense and then walked out in the middle of the case when he didn't get his way... This is entirely different from a default in complete absence...

The whole judgment in default defense would have held a lot more water if it was in total absence and never answered by AA, but that isn't the case...

So back to your boxing analogy it's more along the lines AA showed up for the fight, entered the ring took a few swings and then ran out of the building when his swings didn't connect and end the fight...

 

[Lord Abaddon]

BREAKING NEWS: (AP World News) Hillary Clinton Claims to Have Created Stormtroopers For Star Wars Saga!
The Junior Senator from New York today broke her silence on the ongoing legal battle between Lucas Films Licensing and Shepperton Design Studios of the United Kingdom. The lawsuit, brought against Shepperton owner Andrew Ainsworth, revolves around the intellectual property rights and ownership of the famous white armored 'stormtroopers'. Ainsworth, who has been selling reproductions he claims are from his 'original molds', has ignored Cease and Desist orders from Lucas Films and has already lost one case in the United States. While campaigning in Pennsylvania Senator Clinton remarked that neither side had cause as it was she that sculpted the original suits based on artwork supplied by LFL. She stated that it was difficult considering that while she was sculpting the iconic armor she was under heavy sniper fire and visibility was poor because it was late at night. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, tried to interject during her statement but was silenced by a stern "STFU" by Senator Clinton accompanied by a smack upside the head. The news came as a shock both to the Shepperton camp and to Lucas himself but neither would comment.

And Senator John McCain, citing the need for 100 years of Iraq occupation, has decided to have the Stormtrooper armor sent to Iraq to help supplement the supplies of troops there. "The white color of the armor will help deflect the sunlight to keep the troops cooler than their current armor." When questioned about the fact that US troops would now be easy targets for snipers and terrorists he said "Well...that's nothing new."

Both LFL and AA said that their armor should not be used as safety devices, but the DoD will remove the formerly required labels so there are no legal issues involved.

The UK has refused to wear anything but the AA version of the armor in Iraq citing the need to support their countryman. US troops will wear a variation that LFL will release through their supplier, Rubies.

 

[Obi Sean Kenobi]

Actually AA acknowledged the US court, started a defense and then walked out in the middle of the case when he didn't get his way... This is entirely different from a default in complete absence...

The whole judgment in default defense would have held a lot more water if it was in total absence and never answered by AA, but that isn't the case...

So back to your boxing analogy it's more along the lines AA showed up for the fight, entered the ring took a few swings and then ran out of the building when his swings didn't connect and end the fight...

No, not accurate.
To again use my boxing analogy, what you are describing is the pre-fight press conference where everyone talks smack. It wasnt the actual match.
Entering ones appearance (probably specially on AAs part), and raising affirmative defenses does not equal a "full and final hearing on the merits" which would be required for issue preclusion/res judicata.
I have had the experience where clients choose not to defend a case, for various tactical reasons, and allow a default to be entered. Sometimes after the initial round of pleadings has taken place, sometimes even after discovery.
It in no way means one party has a meritorious claim.

OSK

 

[SithLord]

Actually AA acknowledged the US court, started a defense and then walked out in the middle of the case when he didn't get his way... This is entirely different from a default in complete absence...

The whole judgment in default defense would have held a lot more water if it was in total absence and never answered by AA, but that isn't the case...

So back to your boxing analogy it's more along the lines AA showed up for the fight, entered the ring took a few swings and then ran out of the building when his swings didn't connect and end the fight...

He had to acknowledge the court, but not the claim. His lawyers simply argued the point of jurisdiction. Then intentionally let it default so it would go to the UK. They knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[Vaderman]

Wow, I just found this thread and have to read and catch up! :eek

I am fascinated with it though as obviously others are too.
This could have serious ramifications for other builders who sell their wares...
Certainly beyond trooper armor but that will be the most direct connection (if it has been said that Lucas looked the other way for trooper armor or didn't do all he could to support/protect his trademark on it, etc.)
Above and bbeyond claims of who invented it and work for hire.

This may have been discussed to death. Sorry to chime in late without reading up first. I'll try to read it all in the next few days!:rolleyes