AA/SDS recasting issue...
- Thread starter Gytheran
- Start date
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
These discussions aren't getting anyone anywhere. Both sides are firmly entrenched and those that aren't will end up going around and around with those that are.
22 pages of this, combined with all the others, probably makes this LONGER than the Hatfields and McCoys feud.
If the case keeps going then we'll have answers to nearly all the questions, concerns, speculations, assumptions, prayers, etc.
If not is this thread going to become a perpetual motion machine?
Darbycrash
Well-Known Member
LFL owns the registered copyright.
Darbycrash
Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 16 2006, 08:36 AM
These discussions aren't getting anyone anywhere. Both sides are firmly entrenched and those that aren't will end up going around and around with those that are.
22 pages of this, combined with all the others, probably makes this LONGER than the Hatfields and McCoys feud.
If the case keeps going then we'll have answers to nearly all the questions, concerns, speculations, assumptions, prayers, etc.
If not is this thread going to become a perpetual motion machine?Â
[snapback]1160357[/snapback]
Well Mike maybe if you address the point I was making by answering the question. You were throwing out misinformation earlier when you were claiming that we don't even know if AA got paid when in that interview he states that he sold the first 50 helmets for 30 pounds a piece. Maybe the Merry go round would end if you would start reading the facts that we have available.
Originally posted by isd804@Jan 16 2006, 12:36 AM
Gav,
Not sure I disagree with you, the fellow RPF member asking my permission, that is.Â
However, (in addition to seeking permission seeming the most courteous course of action :$ ) since the CoC reads:
7. Selling/trading of recast items:
Deliberately recasting another memberÂ’s creation without permission is something this community does not support. A member found selling/trading items recast from another member without permission will face possible disciplinary action.
...I resolved my outline where both parties are members by paying attention to the word "creation" in #7, above. No mention is made of ownership, so my position is that #7 applies. I created it. The studio acknowledges that I created it and they paid me for it and they own it.
What's your take on the word "creation" in CoC #7?
Interesting point, though. Regardless, the member is only subject to "possible" disciplinary action, so it might be worth the gamble for him or her.Â
The interesting thing is that the COUBSC is designed for the infringing behavior of underground prop collecting.
If "Joe" wanted to make copies of a screen used prop that he obtained from a Studio Rep that you made he could as you were not the one who "created" the piece. Studio X created the piece. You were the means to that creation. As it is a piece created by Studio X, then Joe is free and clear to make copies of it as stated by the COUBSC.
Now, if you had created that piece while not in the employ of Studio X that matches to a T the original prop creation that Studio X had built and made copies of it, you wouldn't have to ask the permission of the Studio either as we go into that infringing nature that the COUBSC is designed to protect.
Joe buys your exact 1:1 replica creation of the Studio prop. He decides he wants to change a few things here or there and sell it as his own. Then he would have to ask your permission before doing it as you created the original base of the prop.
AnsonJames
Sr Member
Wouldn't the intellectual property rights belong to the registered owner of the Stormtrooper?
One of the main points that LFL is making in the lawsuit against AA is that his helmets are NOT exact replicas of their screen used counterparts...
Darbycrash
Well-Known Member
They are making that point because AA/SDS claims they are using the original molds in their advertising. To drive home that point they are stating they are not an exact copy.
exoray
Master Member
Exactly they are painting a picture to the courts that AA is trying to gain credibility and appear to be legit (thus the unfair competition violations) by his claims, use of the trademarks and the wording on his site... They are also trying to discredit AA's word and/or claims (both past and future) by painting a picture that it's not beyond him to lie thus his word should not be taken at value... And so far AA's history and his legal replies have only excelerated the creation of this picture...
BTW original molds or not there is not difference in this case, the whole smoke screen that AA tossed up in regards to the orignal molds was just that a smoke and mirrors game...
Darbycrash
Well-Known Member
So by everyones silence I guess we are finally all in agreement so lets summarize the facts as we know them.
LFL did in fact have the concept for the Troopers 2 years earlier as well as owned the rights.
AA in fact was paid 35 pounds per helmet at the time as a contractor or as in the exact quote "The first 50 helmets I sold to him for 35 pounds each."
Whats also interesting in that same interview he also states "It was 30 years ago and an artist friend of mine who Lucas had found took the opportunity to say he could do them (moulds) and what he really meant was, `I know a man that can do them.' I'm the man, so I created them for him."
Its funny how he states that he created them for Lucas, but is now using supposedly those same moulds for himself.
AA did in fact use a recast of the MR stand for his original run of helmets.
Strong evidence has shown that AA/SDS has even recasted the armor as well.
AA/SDS did in fact claim that the helmets were made from the original moulds with no alterations done to them. However did change his tune in a letter presented to the RPF. A fact that LFL as well has stated in their suit against AA/SDS
Once again I bring up the point when you are contracted to work on someones project. Is it ethical to make money off their ideas? And should such a contractor expect to be respected as a businessman.
LFL did in fact have the concept for the Troopers 2 years earlier as well as owned the rights.
AA in fact was paid 35 pounds per helmet at the time as a contractor or as in the exact quote "The first 50 helmets I sold to him for 35 pounds each."
Whats also interesting in that same interview he also states "It was 30 years ago and an artist friend of mine who Lucas had found took the opportunity to say he could do them (moulds) and what he really meant was, `I know a man that can do them.' I'm the man, so I created them for him."
Its funny how he states that he created them for Lucas, but is now using supposedly those same moulds for himself.
AA did in fact use a recast of the MR stand for his original run of helmets.
Strong evidence has shown that AA/SDS has even recasted the armor as well.
AA/SDS did in fact claim that the helmets were made from the original moulds with no alterations done to them. However did change his tune in a letter presented to the RPF. A fact that LFL as well has stated in their suit against AA/SDS
Once again I bring up the point when you are contracted to work on someones project. Is it ethical to make money off their ideas? And should such a contractor expect to be respected as a businessman.
There was a time when AA/SDS threads were worth hitting.
But now it seems everyone has said everything there is to be said - at least three times over.
SDS threads make very little progress about he subject itself and end up spiralling into petty little arguments between RPF major players.
What follows are PAGES and PAGES of 'he said, she said' babble.
It's so dull, I think I'm about to drop off to sleep.
Can't you think of something else to do with your evenings?
But now it seems everyone has said everything there is to be said - at least three times over.
SDS threads make very little progress about he subject itself and end up spiralling into petty little arguments between RPF major players.
What follows are PAGES and PAGES of 'he said, she said' babble.
It's so dull, I think I'm about to drop off to sleep.
Can't you think of something else to do with your evenings?
jeezycreezy
Well-Known Member
I can. Which is why I usually post during the day.
Seriously, which one of you guys pointed a gun to Helmetman's head and made him read this thread? Fess up.
Not to get into details but if you guys think it's BS then so be it....
Here we go....
AA worked on the stormtrooper molds from February 1976 to June 1976.
LFL's only evidence to rights are McQuarries drawings and photos of stormtroopers and TIE pilots in SW:ANH. As per the complaint: "The United States Register of Copright issued Registration Certificate No. LP 477760 for the copyright in the 1977 motion pictures Star Wars: Episode IV- A New Hope". They also cite registration of all the material in the Art of Star Wars.
Let's have a look at these:
Registration Number: PA-28-102
Title: Star wars / a aLucasfilm, Ltd. production ; producer, Gary Kurtz
; director, George Lucas.
Imprint: [s.l. : s.n.], c1977.
Description: 6 film reels (121 min.) : sd., col., Panavision ; 35 mm.
Note: Deposit includes synopsis (1 p.)
Motion pictures, major cast members: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher et al.
Motion pictures, credits: Music by John Williams; written by George Lucas.
Claimant: acTwentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation
Created: 1978
Published: 5Jun78
Registered: 16Feb79
Author on © Application: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1977, LP47760.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: English subtitles for the deaf.
Special Codes: 4/X/L
Cross Reference: ac20th Century Fox. SEE Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation.
So the movie Star Wars was registered in 1977.
The title "Star Wars" was registered Dec 1, 1976:
Registration Number: RE-905-921
Title: Star wars. By the aStar Wars Corporation.
Claimant: Lucasfilm, Ltd. (PWH)
Effective Registration Date: 20Dec04
Original Registration Date: 1Dec76;
Original Registration Number: K125787.
Original Class: K
The stormtrooper action figure was registered in 1978:
Registration Number: VA-3-535
Title: Star Wars, Stormtrooper.
Description: Figurine.
Note: Human-shaped being in body covering, holding weapon.
Based on character from photoplay Star Wars.
Claimant: G. M. F. G. I. a.a.d.o. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.
Created: 1978
Published: 30Jan78
Registered: 15Jun78
Date in © Notice: notice: 1977
Author on © Application: General Mills Fun Group, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Photoplay prev. reg. 1977, LP47760.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: sculptural adaptation.
Special Codes: 5/G//3
Since the stormtrooper figure was based on the motion picture, not McQuarries sketches, LFL could not base the stormtrooper figure on the McQuarrie sketches. If the McQuarrie sketches are similar enough to the stormtroopers AA created, then why would the stormtrooper action figure be based on the movie stormtrooper rather than the McQuarrie stormtrooper?
Note that Star Wars Corporation held the original copywrite which was assigned to Lucasfilm Ltd. In 1979:
V1759 P233 THRU 235 (COHD)
Date Recorded: 21Dec79
Date Executed: 19Dec79
Party 1: Star Wars Corporation.
Party 2: Lucasfilm, Ltd.
Note: Assignment of copyright.
The Art of Star Wars was copywrite by registration certificate No. TX 984-752 which was issued in 1979, three years after AA created the stormtrooper molds:
Registration Number: TX-984-752
Title: The Art of Star wars / edited by Carol Titelman [i.e. Carol Wikarska
Titelman] ; art direction & design, Mike Salisbury ; assistant editor, Valerie Hoffman.
Edition: 1st ed.
Imprint: New York : Ballantine Books, 1979.
Description: 175 p.
Note: Including the complete script of the film, by George Lucas.
Claimant: acStar Wars Corporation
Created: 1979
Published: 31Oct79
Registered: 24Sep82
Author on © Application: editing & compilation: Star Wars Corporation, employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Preexisting material: all photos., ill., artwork, posters & cartoons.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "editing and compilation."
Special Codes: 1/B/L
Finallye, the artwork including McQuarries sketches were copywrite Dec 24, 1975 (Reg. Cert. No. GU 59-037).
BUT:
Copyright definition:
The legal ownership of a "work," which can take any of the following forms: written text, program source code, graphics images, sculpture, music, sound recording, motion picture, pantomime, choreograph and architecture. Before January 1, 1978, a work had to be published to be copyrighted. After that date, any work expressed in paper or electronic form is automatically copyrighted for the life of the author plus 70 years. Registration with the Copyright Office is not required, although it is beneficial if there are disputes later on. In the U.S., a copyright symbol is not mandatory, but recommended.
Therefore, since the McQuarrie sketches were not published in 1975, but rather in 1979, after AA completed the work on the original stormtrooper molds, those sketches are not valid, nor were they used for reference for the stormtrooper action figure, which instead was based on the movie version of the stormtrooper which is based on AA's work.
Thus, for the original sketches (1975 but not published), the motion picture (1977), and the Art of Star Wars (1979), registration for copywrite was attained AFTER AA made the molds.
A note about international copywrite:
"INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
There is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. For further information and a list of countries that maintain copyright relations with the United States, request Circular 38a, "International Copyright Relations of the United States."
Works that are published in the United States are subject to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. So unless the McQuarrie sketches were submitted to the Library of Congress they would not be considered copyright.
Based on Circular 38a, the United Kingdom was subject to UCC Paris and UCC Geneva.
"The Universal Copyright Convention was originally written in 1952 in
Geneva. It became effective in 1955. Like the Berne Convention, the
text has been revised. As with the Berne Convention, the most recent
revision was in Paris in 1971. The United States is party to both the
1952 Geneva text and the 1971 Paris text. The U.C.C. is administered by
UNESCO, a United Nations agency."
"The two major treaties governing copyright are the Berne Convention (U.S.
Senate Treaty Doc. 99-27, KAV 2245, 1 B.D.I.E.L. 715; also reprinted at
17 U.S.C.A. 104). and the Universal Copyright Convention (U.C.C.), (25
U.S.T. 1341, T.I.A.S. 7868, 1 B.D.I.E.L. 813 (1971 Paris text); and 6
U.S.T. 2731, T.I.A.S. 3324, 216 U.N.T.S. 132 (1952 Geneva text)). (Note:
the abbreviation U.C.C. to denote the Universal Copyright Convention
should not be confused with the same abbreviation to denote the Uniform
Commercial Code.)
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
was established in 1886 in Berne, Switzerland. The text has been
revised, and the current edition (and the one to which the United States
and most other nations are a signatory) is the 1971 Paris text. The
treaty is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO), an international organization headquartered in Geneva,
Switzerland.
The Berne Convention has four main points: National treatment,
preclusion of formalities, minimum terms of protection, and minimum
exclusive rights.
National treatment: Under Berne, an author's rights are respected in
another country as though the author were a national (citizen) of that
country (Art. 5(1)). For example, works by U.S. authors are protected by
French copyright in France, and vice versa, because both the U.S. and
France are signatories to Berne.
Preclusion of formalities: Under Berne, copyright cannot be dependent on
formalities such as registration or copyright notice (Art. 5(2)).
However, as noted in sections 2.5 and 2.7, this provision apparently does
not prevent a member nation from taking adherence to formalities into
account when determining what remedies apply."
January 1, 1978 is the date on which the Copyright Act of 1976 took
effect. If the work was created but not published prior to 1978, its copyright duration is calculated as if it had been created on January 1, 1978, and lasts as long as that calculation specifies, or through 2002, whichever is later." Copyright 1994 Terry Carroll
I believe the misconception that you have to "do something" to "get" copyright persists because the US didn't become a party to the Berne Convention until 1989 (Canada has been a party since 1928). Prior to that, the US only belonged to the UCC, and that treaty requires notice with the © symbol in order for copyright to be secured, e.g. © 1946 Madeleine L'Engle or Copyright 1932 The New York Times. If you didn't place a copyright notice on all copies of your work, you risked losing your copyright. By Theryn Fleming (Beaver)
And, based on UK copywrite law:
"Who owns a piece of work
Normally the individual or collective who authored the work will exclusively own the work. However, if a work is produced as part of employment then it will normally belong to the person/company who hired the individual.
Freelance or commissioned work will usually belong to the author of the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, (i.e. in a contract for service).
Rights cannot be claimed for any part of a work which is a copy taken from a previous work. For example, in a piece of music featuring samples from a previous work, the copyright of the samples would still remain with the original author.
Only the owner, or his exclusive licensee can bring proceedings in the courts."
If AA is the author of the original molds, then, based on the Berne Convention, "an author's rights are respected in another country as though the author were a national (citizen) of that country (Art. 5(1))". Since UK law required a contract by LFL, and there was none, the rights would belong to AA.
Also, "rights cannot be claimed for any part of a work which is a copy taken from a previous work." Therefore, TE and GF have no rights to their copied armor pieces regardless of what they did to modify them.
So even IF LFL has Reg. Cert. No. GU 59-037 (1975) and IF the Mcquarrie sketches or paintings were published and IF they were submitted to the Library of Congress, AA still has the rights to the work based on UK Law and the Berne Convention which the USA is signatory to. I checked the Library of Congress and could not find the sketches or paintings.
Also:
"Under the United States' copyright law, new works created using existing works are referred to as “derivative works.” The United States copyright law requires creativity in order to obtain copyright protection. In the United States mere skill and labour, without a minimal degree of creativity, is not sufficient to attract copyright protection."
If the stormtrooper molds required more than mere skill and labor to create then they would not be derivative works.
"In 1989 the United States Supreme Court resolved much of the confusion surrounding the issue of who was an "employee" and who was an "independent contractor."" "Â…if the creator of the work is not an employee, but instead a freelancer, than the "work made for hire" requirements of the independent contractor prong must be satisfied. This means that the work must be specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher, the work must fall into one of the nine enumerated categories of work, and there must be a signed writing between the parties where they agree that the work will be considered a "work made for hire."
"A freelancer's creative work in order to qualify as a "work made for hire" must satisfy the exact requirements of the Copyright Act. (1) The work must have been specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher. (2) The work must "fit" into one of nine narrow statutorily enumerated categories of work: (i) contribution to a collective work, (ii) part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (iii) translation, (iv) supplementary work (i.e., prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to another author's work such as an index or forward), (v) compilation, (vi) instructional text, (vii) test, (viii) answer material for a test, or (ix) atlas. (3) The parties must agree in a written and signed document that the work shall be considered a "work made for hire." In addition, although it is not stated in the Copyright Act, the "work made for hire" document must be signed by both parties prior to the commencement of the work. If the publisher fails to satisfy any of these requirements the work will not qualify as a "work made for hire" and the publisher could lose copyright ownership of the work."
© Copyright 1995 Lloyd L. Rich
For statutory protection on such a work to be secured under the old Act, it still had to be published (in the traditional sense) with notice. SINCE THE SKETCHES WERE UNPUBLISHED THEY FELL UNDER STATE LAW AT THE TIME. It wasn't until they appeared in the Art of Star Wars that they became published and fell under the new 1976(78 ) law or became published material which was then re-registered.
Since they were under state law, AA would not be subject to state law. Also any copies he received for reference would have to have the copyright mark on them along with the name and year of creation for them to be valid copies. The burden of proof would be on LFL to prove they gave AA such copies.
"Under the United States' copyright law, new works created using existing works are referred to as “derivative works.” The United States copyright law requires creativity in order to obtain copyright protection. In the United States mere skill and labour, without a minimal degree of creativity, is not sufficient to attract copyright protection."
Ralph McQuarrie himself was not happy with the stormtrooper design. From Star Wars Insider #76, page 54: "I liked my refinded drawing of the stormtrooer's helmet, and it's somewhat grotesque in the film. The people who made the costumes took my helmet, hyped up certain aspects, and made sort of a cartoon of it."
Ralph McQuarrie in an interview quoted George Lucas as saying (regarding McQuarries paintings): "This is not the final thing, this is just giving them what we think is the general impression that we can come up with in a reasonable time that's going to work for anything and it's not going to be the final thing in the film. We are going to hire costume designers, we are going to hire production designers, and so forth." Plus, C3PO was clearly derivative of the Metropolis robot.
(1909 Copyright Act)
"Foreign Copyright.—Americans, to obtain a copyright in Great Britain, must have title entered at Stationer's Hall, London, the fee for which is five shillings sterling, and five shillings additional if a certified copy of entry is required.
The work must be published in Great Britain or in her dominions simultaneously with its publication in the United States, and five copies of the publication are required, one for the British Museum and four on demand of the Company of Stationers for four other libraries."
So even if AA saw the paintings with the copyright symbol on them, unless LFL copyright AA's work in the UK while they were there, they cannot claim it as their own. Also, take out your paintings of McQuarrie...the ones from 1977. They are copyright 1977. Where are they in the Library of Congress? Why are they not copyright 1975?
To reiterate....
TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts. The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA.
And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches. Because those sketches were copyright 1979 and the paintings were not published until 1977. Nor do they appear to be in the Library of Congress as copyright 1975. And even if they were submitted to the Library of Congress, they represent the final movie suit no more than C3PO represents the Metropolis robot. Because the suit has to be molded to a man, of course there will have to be some similarity, but that cannot be used as an argument for derivation in this case. And based on UK law, AA is the author of the work if there is no contract releasing rights from him, and based on the international treaty, LFL has to respect those rights.
:cheers,
Thomas
Here we go....
AA worked on the stormtrooper molds from February 1976 to June 1976.
LFL's only evidence to rights are McQuarries drawings and photos of stormtroopers and TIE pilots in SW:ANH. As per the complaint: "The United States Register of Copright issued Registration Certificate No. LP 477760 for the copyright in the 1977 motion pictures Star Wars: Episode IV- A New Hope". They also cite registration of all the material in the Art of Star Wars.
Let's have a look at these:
Registration Number: PA-28-102
Title: Star wars / a aLucasfilm, Ltd. production ; producer, Gary Kurtz
; director, George Lucas.
Imprint: [s.l. : s.n.], c1977.
Description: 6 film reels (121 min.) : sd., col., Panavision ; 35 mm.
Note: Deposit includes synopsis (1 p.)
Motion pictures, major cast members: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher et al.
Motion pictures, credits: Music by John Williams; written by George Lucas.
Claimant: acTwentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation
Created: 1978
Published: 5Jun78
Registered: 16Feb79
Author on © Application: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1977, LP47760.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: English subtitles for the deaf.
Special Codes: 4/X/L
Cross Reference: ac20th Century Fox. SEE Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation.
So the movie Star Wars was registered in 1977.
The title "Star Wars" was registered Dec 1, 1976:
Registration Number: RE-905-921
Title: Star wars. By the aStar Wars Corporation.
Claimant: Lucasfilm, Ltd. (PWH)
Effective Registration Date: 20Dec04
Original Registration Date: 1Dec76;
Original Registration Number: K125787.
Original Class: K
The stormtrooper action figure was registered in 1978:
Registration Number: VA-3-535
Title: Star Wars, Stormtrooper.
Description: Figurine.
Note: Human-shaped being in body covering, holding weapon.
Based on character from photoplay Star Wars.
Claimant: G. M. F. G. I. a.a.d.o. General Mills Fun Group, Inc.
Created: 1978
Published: 30Jan78
Registered: 15Jun78
Date in © Notice: notice: 1977
Author on © Application: General Mills Fun Group, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Photoplay prev. reg. 1977, LP47760.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: sculptural adaptation.
Special Codes: 5/G//3
Since the stormtrooper figure was based on the motion picture, not McQuarries sketches, LFL could not base the stormtrooper figure on the McQuarrie sketches. If the McQuarrie sketches are similar enough to the stormtroopers AA created, then why would the stormtrooper action figure be based on the movie stormtrooper rather than the McQuarrie stormtrooper?
Note that Star Wars Corporation held the original copywrite which was assigned to Lucasfilm Ltd. In 1979:
V1759 P233 THRU 235 (COHD)
Date Recorded: 21Dec79
Date Executed: 19Dec79
Party 1: Star Wars Corporation.
Party 2: Lucasfilm, Ltd.
Note: Assignment of copyright.
The Art of Star Wars was copywrite by registration certificate No. TX 984-752 which was issued in 1979, three years after AA created the stormtrooper molds:
Registration Number: TX-984-752
Title: The Art of Star wars / edited by Carol Titelman [i.e. Carol Wikarska
Titelman] ; art direction & design, Mike Salisbury ; assistant editor, Valerie Hoffman.
Edition: 1st ed.
Imprint: New York : Ballantine Books, 1979.
Description: 175 p.
Note: Including the complete script of the film, by George Lucas.
Claimant: acStar Wars Corporation
Created: 1979
Published: 31Oct79
Registered: 24Sep82
Author on © Application: editing & compilation: Star Wars Corporation, employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Preexisting material: all photos., ill., artwork, posters & cartoons.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: "editing and compilation."
Special Codes: 1/B/L
Finallye, the artwork including McQuarries sketches were copywrite Dec 24, 1975 (Reg. Cert. No. GU 59-037).
BUT:
Copyright definition:
The legal ownership of a "work," which can take any of the following forms: written text, program source code, graphics images, sculpture, music, sound recording, motion picture, pantomime, choreograph and architecture. Before January 1, 1978, a work had to be published to be copyrighted. After that date, any work expressed in paper or electronic form is automatically copyrighted for the life of the author plus 70 years. Registration with the Copyright Office is not required, although it is beneficial if there are disputes later on. In the U.S., a copyright symbol is not mandatory, but recommended.
Therefore, since the McQuarrie sketches were not published in 1975, but rather in 1979, after AA completed the work on the original stormtrooper molds, those sketches are not valid, nor were they used for reference for the stormtrooper action figure, which instead was based on the movie version of the stormtrooper which is based on AA's work.
Thus, for the original sketches (1975 but not published), the motion picture (1977), and the Art of Star Wars (1979), registration for copywrite was attained AFTER AA made the molds.
A note about international copywrite:
"INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
There is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. For further information and a list of countries that maintain copyright relations with the United States, request Circular 38a, "International Copyright Relations of the United States."
Works that are published in the United States are subject to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. So unless the McQuarrie sketches were submitted to the Library of Congress they would not be considered copyright.
Based on Circular 38a, the United Kingdom was subject to UCC Paris and UCC Geneva.
"The Universal Copyright Convention was originally written in 1952 in
Geneva. It became effective in 1955. Like the Berne Convention, the
text has been revised. As with the Berne Convention, the most recent
revision was in Paris in 1971. The United States is party to both the
1952 Geneva text and the 1971 Paris text. The U.C.C. is administered by
UNESCO, a United Nations agency."
"The two major treaties governing copyright are the Berne Convention (U.S.
Senate Treaty Doc. 99-27, KAV 2245, 1 B.D.I.E.L. 715; also reprinted at
17 U.S.C.A. 104). and the Universal Copyright Convention (U.C.C.), (25
U.S.T. 1341, T.I.A.S. 7868, 1 B.D.I.E.L. 813 (1971 Paris text); and 6
U.S.T. 2731, T.I.A.S. 3324, 216 U.N.T.S. 132 (1952 Geneva text)). (Note:
the abbreviation U.C.C. to denote the Universal Copyright Convention
should not be confused with the same abbreviation to denote the Uniform
Commercial Code.)
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
was established in 1886 in Berne, Switzerland. The text has been
revised, and the current edition (and the one to which the United States
and most other nations are a signatory) is the 1971 Paris text. The
treaty is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO), an international organization headquartered in Geneva,
Switzerland.
The Berne Convention has four main points: National treatment,
preclusion of formalities, minimum terms of protection, and minimum
exclusive rights.
National treatment: Under Berne, an author's rights are respected in
another country as though the author were a national (citizen) of that
country (Art. 5(1)). For example, works by U.S. authors are protected by
French copyright in France, and vice versa, because both the U.S. and
France are signatories to Berne.
Preclusion of formalities: Under Berne, copyright cannot be dependent on
formalities such as registration or copyright notice (Art. 5(2)).
However, as noted in sections 2.5 and 2.7, this provision apparently does
not prevent a member nation from taking adherence to formalities into
account when determining what remedies apply."
January 1, 1978 is the date on which the Copyright Act of 1976 took
effect. If the work was created but not published prior to 1978, its copyright duration is calculated as if it had been created on January 1, 1978, and lasts as long as that calculation specifies, or through 2002, whichever is later." Copyright 1994 Terry Carroll
I believe the misconception that you have to "do something" to "get" copyright persists because the US didn't become a party to the Berne Convention until 1989 (Canada has been a party since 1928). Prior to that, the US only belonged to the UCC, and that treaty requires notice with the © symbol in order for copyright to be secured, e.g. © 1946 Madeleine L'Engle or Copyright 1932 The New York Times. If you didn't place a copyright notice on all copies of your work, you risked losing your copyright. By Theryn Fleming (Beaver)
And, based on UK copywrite law:
"Who owns a piece of work
Normally the individual or collective who authored the work will exclusively own the work. However, if a work is produced as part of employment then it will normally belong to the person/company who hired the individual.
Freelance or commissioned work will usually belong to the author of the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, (i.e. in a contract for service).
Rights cannot be claimed for any part of a work which is a copy taken from a previous work. For example, in a piece of music featuring samples from a previous work, the copyright of the samples would still remain with the original author.
Only the owner, or his exclusive licensee can bring proceedings in the courts."
If AA is the author of the original molds, then, based on the Berne Convention, "an author's rights are respected in another country as though the author were a national (citizen) of that country (Art. 5(1))". Since UK law required a contract by LFL, and there was none, the rights would belong to AA.
Also, "rights cannot be claimed for any part of a work which is a copy taken from a previous work." Therefore, TE and GF have no rights to their copied armor pieces regardless of what they did to modify them.
So even IF LFL has Reg. Cert. No. GU 59-037 (1975) and IF the Mcquarrie sketches or paintings were published and IF they were submitted to the Library of Congress, AA still has the rights to the work based on UK Law and the Berne Convention which the USA is signatory to. I checked the Library of Congress and could not find the sketches or paintings.
Also:
"Under the United States' copyright law, new works created using existing works are referred to as “derivative works.” The United States copyright law requires creativity in order to obtain copyright protection. In the United States mere skill and labour, without a minimal degree of creativity, is not sufficient to attract copyright protection."
If the stormtrooper molds required more than mere skill and labor to create then they would not be derivative works.
"In 1989 the United States Supreme Court resolved much of the confusion surrounding the issue of who was an "employee" and who was an "independent contractor."" "Â…if the creator of the work is not an employee, but instead a freelancer, than the "work made for hire" requirements of the independent contractor prong must be satisfied. This means that the work must be specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher, the work must fall into one of the nine enumerated categories of work, and there must be a signed writing between the parties where they agree that the work will be considered a "work made for hire."
"A freelancer's creative work in order to qualify as a "work made for hire" must satisfy the exact requirements of the Copyright Act. (1) The work must have been specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher. (2) The work must "fit" into one of nine narrow statutorily enumerated categories of work: (i) contribution to a collective work, (ii) part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (iii) translation, (iv) supplementary work (i.e., prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to another author's work such as an index or forward), (v) compilation, (vi) instructional text, (vii) test, (viii) answer material for a test, or (ix) atlas. (3) The parties must agree in a written and signed document that the work shall be considered a "work made for hire." In addition, although it is not stated in the Copyright Act, the "work made for hire" document must be signed by both parties prior to the commencement of the work. If the publisher fails to satisfy any of these requirements the work will not qualify as a "work made for hire" and the publisher could lose copyright ownership of the work."
© Copyright 1995 Lloyd L. Rich
For statutory protection on such a work to be secured under the old Act, it still had to be published (in the traditional sense) with notice. SINCE THE SKETCHES WERE UNPUBLISHED THEY FELL UNDER STATE LAW AT THE TIME. It wasn't until they appeared in the Art of Star Wars that they became published and fell under the new 1976(78 ) law or became published material which was then re-registered.
Since they were under state law, AA would not be subject to state law. Also any copies he received for reference would have to have the copyright mark on them along with the name and year of creation for them to be valid copies. The burden of proof would be on LFL to prove they gave AA such copies.
"Under the United States' copyright law, new works created using existing works are referred to as “derivative works.” The United States copyright law requires creativity in order to obtain copyright protection. In the United States mere skill and labour, without a minimal degree of creativity, is not sufficient to attract copyright protection."
Ralph McQuarrie himself was not happy with the stormtrooper design. From Star Wars Insider #76, page 54: "I liked my refinded drawing of the stormtrooer's helmet, and it's somewhat grotesque in the film. The people who made the costumes took my helmet, hyped up certain aspects, and made sort of a cartoon of it."
Ralph McQuarrie in an interview quoted George Lucas as saying (regarding McQuarries paintings): "This is not the final thing, this is just giving them what we think is the general impression that we can come up with in a reasonable time that's going to work for anything and it's not going to be the final thing in the film. We are going to hire costume designers, we are going to hire production designers, and so forth." Plus, C3PO was clearly derivative of the Metropolis robot.
(1909 Copyright Act)
"Foreign Copyright.—Americans, to obtain a copyright in Great Britain, must have title entered at Stationer's Hall, London, the fee for which is five shillings sterling, and five shillings additional if a certified copy of entry is required.
The work must be published in Great Britain or in her dominions simultaneously with its publication in the United States, and five copies of the publication are required, one for the British Museum and four on demand of the Company of Stationers for four other libraries."
So even if AA saw the paintings with the copyright symbol on them, unless LFL copyright AA's work in the UK while they were there, they cannot claim it as their own. Also, take out your paintings of McQuarrie...the ones from 1977. They are copyright 1977. Where are they in the Library of Congress? Why are they not copyright 1975?
To reiterate....
TE and GF have NO rights to their armor, regardless of what modifications they made to the parts. The rights belong to the original author of the pieces, which is AA.
And those rights have nothing to do with LFL copyright of those TK sketches. Because those sketches were copyright 1979 and the paintings were not published until 1977. Nor do they appear to be in the Library of Congress as copyright 1975. And even if they were submitted to the Library of Congress, they represent the final movie suit no more than C3PO represents the Metropolis robot. Because the suit has to be molded to a man, of course there will have to be some similarity, but that cannot be used as an argument for derivation in this case. And based on UK law, AA is the author of the work if there is no contract releasing rights from him, and based on the international treaty, LFL has to respect those rights.
:cheers,
Thomas
exoray
Master Member
Thomas there are so many holes in what you just posted, I am not even going to go over them... I will leave that for the courts to go over and tell the facts how they are, but if they are as you state AA's attorneys will have an easy win :lol
And there in lies the pivotal point of errors, you are stating things as fact that are now in dispute...
UK law is void in this suit... Only US laws will apply in this case...
And there in lies the pivotal point of errors, you are stating things as fact that are now in dispute...
UK law is void in this suit... Only US laws will apply in this case...
