AA/SDS recasting issue...

[TKBIG]

With all this great info in the postings today I hate to say this but I want to see this case go all the way and not be settled quietly out of court. Too many questions without satisfactory answers so far.

One question I have asked that goes unanswered is what other artists name is poping up as the creator for the vac-forming bucks?

Seriously, the argument that AA didn't actually make them is always followed with a "we'll see the real story in court" or "it is only assumed that AA made them".

This seems to be some big, top secret that LFL will pounce out with in court.
For months now I keep hearing this question answered with cryptic statements.
Come on...
Is someone afraid it would help AA's lawyers out if that "Ace in the Hole" is spilled before it's time? Yes/No/Maybe?

 

[exoray]

Starkids the case is just starting and needs to follow the rules, right now LFL is just tossing enough on the table to keep it going forward... If they didn't toss anything of substance on the table right away then AA could ask for a summary judgement based on the fact LFL has nothing... So LFL will add stuff as necessary to show they have a case...

As (if) the case continues, to full Discovery an then trial many more answers and facts will be shown to the court...

What I find very odd about the AA defense is the lack of denial of most of LFL claims, denial of claims is standard procedure at this point of the case, as well as the rest of the case... But, for one reason or another AA isn't denying several LFL claims, including the sculpting issue... This is even more odd when you take into consideration that if you don't deny the claims of the other party, then the claims become true in the courts eyes...

 

[imaginager]

According to the interviews I've read, AA clearly understood that he was performing work for pay for a movie. For GL's movie. Does anyone dispute that?

It's curious that someone would allow GL/LFL to infringe on his rights for 27 years. For that matter, allow GL to make a movie in 1976 with his intellectual property, in the first place...

Perhaps, someone missed out on the Star Wars phenomenon. :angel

Thomas, I applaud your fervor. I just don't see a quarter century of motion picture history being rewritten via this case.

 

[SithLord]

Nope didn't forget about treaties, what International treaty are you refering to that both the US and UK are parties to, thus would be enforceable?

UCC and Berne. The Berne usually takes precedence in most matters.

Nope, wrong this if it exist will come out in the Discovery stage like the majority of the supporting evidence...

Please review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as to how this case will proceed... At this time they are in section 3, most of the evidence won't be presented to the courts until the later part of section 5...

Well documentation as to a contract would come out in the Discovery stage otherwise why show the McQuarrie prints? Those are secondary to a contract. And even if it wasn't shown, LFL would state it in the complaint that there was a contract.

Wait I thought my reply was in regards to UK law, now you are stating US law as being the deciding factor in UK desisions???

I'm saying that even under US law the same definition of employee applies. And AA doesn't fall under that definition.

Well at least you now state you don't know, and that AA could have very well been under contract, in truth freelance is a very lose term, but add into the equation that AA was at least shown conceptual artwork, and I wouldn't be so quick to claim he owns the rights...

I will admit that it is a valid assumption that AA saw some kind of reference material provided by LFL to make the helmets/armor (although we know there was none for the front of the TIE helmet). However it is immaterial to the UK law stipulating that without a contract, the hired author would retain rights to his work. Thus, under the Berne Convention:

"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)). ..... Preclusion of formalities: Under Berne, copyright cannot be dependent on
formalities such as registration or copyright notice (Art. 5(2)).
."

And under the Copyright Act of 1909:

"§ 29. Same; executed in foreign country; acknowledgment and certificate

Every assignment of copyright executed in a foreign country shall be acknowledged by the assignor before a consular officer or secretary of legation of the United States authorized by law to administer oaths or perform notarial acts. The certificate of such acknowledgment under the hand and official seal of such consular officer or secretary of legation shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument. July 30, 1947, c. 391, 61 Stat. 660.

§ 30. Same; record

Every assignment of copyright shall be recorded in the copyright office within three calendar months after its execution in the United States or within six calendar months after its execution without the limits of the United States, in default of which it shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, whose assignment has been duly recorded. July 30, 1947, c. 391, 61 Stat. 660."

Was there assignment of copyright to AA's work in the UK by LFL?

Also...

"§ 12. Works not reproduced for sale

Copyright may also be had of the works of an author, of which copies are not reproduced for sale, by the deposit, with claim of copyright, of one complete copy of such work if it be a lecture or similar production or a dramatic, musical, or dramatico-musical composition; of a title and description, with one print taken from each scene or act, if the work be a motion-picture photoplay; of a photographic print if the work be a photograph; of a title and description, with not less than two prints taken from different sections of a complete motion picture, if the work be a motion picture other than a photoplay; or of a photograph or other identifying reproduction thereof, if it be a work of art or a plastic work or drawing. But the privilege of registration of copyright secured hereunder shall not exempt the copyright proprietor from the deposit of copies, under sections 13 and 14 of this title, where the work is later reproduced in copies for sale. July 30, 1947, c. 391, 61 Stat. 656."

If AA has the original molds, then LFL would not be able to photograph them and therefore submit them as copyright material. It is possible LFL had the photos that AA has...the ones showing each finished helmet...but those are derivative works. LFL in all likelihood does not have photos of the original molds and therefore could not submit copies of them for copyright protection as they are original works, OR since AA took the photos...presumably...then they would be his copies of his work. The screen armor and helmets are derivative of the molds and therefore cannot be copyright.

Also, molds under U.S. law can be considered designs in and of themselves as part of a trade:

"
Copyright Law of the United States of America

and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

Circular 92

§ 1301. Designs protected2

(a) Designs protected. -

(6) A "mold" means a matrix or form in which a substance for material is used, regardless of whether the matrix or form has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not only to portray the appearance of the product or to convey information.

§ 1302. Designs not subject to protection3

Protection under this chapter shall not be available for a design that is -

(1) not original;

(2) staple or commonplace, such as a standard geometric figure, a familiar symbol, an emblem, or a motif, or another shape, pattern, or configuration which has become standard, common, prevalent, or ordinary;

(3) different from a design excluded by paragraph (2) only in insignificant details or in elements which are variants commonly used in the relevant trades;

(4) dictated solely by a utilitarian function of the article that embodies it; or

(5) embodied in a useful article that was made public by the designer or owner in the United States or a foreign country more than 2 years before the date of the application for registration under this chapter."

Now whether the molds constitute a design or not is open to argument. Whether the molds differ from the McQuarrie paintings in more than "insignificant details" is also open to argument. However, McQuarrie seems to think there is more than an insignificant difference between his original design and the final product in the film....and he would be the best judge of that.

In the U.S., freelance could be defined as:

Main Entry: 1free�lance
Pronunciation: 'frE-"lan(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 1820
1 a usually free lance : a mercenary soldier especially of the Middle Ages : CONDOTTIERE b : a person who acts independently without being affiliated with or authorized by an organization
2 : a person who pursues a profession without a long-term commitment to any one employer

In the UK, freelance is defined as:

"There is no �legal� definition of a freelancer � it�s basically just a type of self-employment and tends to refer to the provision of services to various people or organisations."

And from the IRS website:

Who is an Independent Contractor?
A general rule is that you, the payer, have the right to control or direct only the result of the work done by an independent contractor, and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result.

Work & Career home
Freelance work: tax and the law
by Work Rights Expert, Rachel Lewis

Looking at the legal side – if you’re an employee, you make a contract with your employer. You have a number of legal rights such as in unfair dismissal and redundancy, maternity and parental leave benefits and notice payment. If you’re self-employed, you’re essentially your own boss – whether you’re setting up in business in your own right or you’re offering your services to a number of potential contractors, like a journalist writing for several different newspapers. In the latter case you’d probably call yourself a freelancer, but in practice, it’s the same thing as being self-employed. There is no ‘legal’ definition of a freelancer – it’s basically just a type of self-employment and tends to refer to the provision of services to various people or organisations.

So I used the term freelancer loosely, but what I meant is that AA was self-employed in that he was contracted by LFL...although there doesn't seem to be a contract involved.

From Skillset.org:

If you are a technical worker, it is unlikely that you will have any copyright in the products of your services unless there is a creative element to what you produce. For example, if you are a writer then copyright will exist in your screenplay, if you are a production designer, copyright will exist in your designs and the models built as a result of your designs etc.

According to the BBC (in the UK), freelancing is:

What is a freelance engagement?

‘Freelance’ is not a term that has a particular legal definition. Freelance engagements, as considered on this site, are contracts for services which do not attract tax on a PAYE basis and which do not give employee status. This means the individual is not eligible for 'staff' conditions on matters such as sick pay or maternity benefits.

In the BBC a freelancer typically:

* In a production context, works behind, rather than in front of, the camera or microphone (e.g. camera operator, make-up artist, production buyer).
* Is hired for specific jobs or projects on an ad hoc basis.
* Sells his/her services to other organisations in addition to the BBC.
* Manages his/her own tax affairs.
* Negotiates a rate for the job with his/her BBC contact.
* Invoices the BBC for work done.
* Supplies/brings his/her own tools of trade.

AA was responsible for supplying materials and would have had to make decisions regarding the execution of the product he was delivering. He was employed, but not technically an employee.


:cheers,

Thomas

PS Why the quotes don't work I have no idea.....

 

[exoray]

Thomas it's nice that you gave so many definitions of freelance, but you do realize that the word freelance does not exist in the actuall law, only in the summary you quoted?

 11.—(1) The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions.

    (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.

    (3) This section does not apply to Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright (see sections 163 and 165) or to copyright which subsists by virtue of section 168 (copyright of certain international organisations).

That is the wording in regards to ownership under UK law...

The Berne convention is void as the US was not a member in 1976

Well documentation as to a contract would come out in the Discovery stage otherwise why show the McQuarrie prints? Those are secondary to a contract. And even if it wasn't shown, LFL would state it in the complaint that there was a contract.

The prints were shown to astablish a time reference to the creation and copyright of the trooper likeness... As for stating there was a contract in the original complaint, why? The complaint is just that a complaint it's not supposed to be cluttered with evidence, that is what Discovery is for... It's just like saying why didn't AA provide photos of the "original molds" in his answer to the complaint... The answer is simple there is a time and place to present evidence...

And you keep quoting copyright code, why? Does AA have a registered US copyright on any of the items in question? Does he have any real valid claim to any US rights to the items? All we really know is LFL does, and it's never been contested...

The only real question people need to ask about this case is

"Is it more likely (51%) LFL or AA owns the US rights to the Imperial Cog, Stormtrooper likeness and TIE fighter likeness?"

 

[SithLord]

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

Thus the Berne Convention is void prior to 1989 (that includes 1976) as far as to the US goes...


****Therefore the UCC applied, and it has the same stipulations.

Thomas you do realize that this is a summary of the current UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988? This was not the UK law in effect in 1976, and again void in regards to the year 1976...

****It fell under the Copyright Act of 1956:

Copyright Act 1956
Several amendments were made to the 1956 Act prior to the introduction of the current legislation Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which came into force on 1st August 1989. The 1988 Act provided another major overhaul and updating of copyright law but the process has continued since then with a number of amendments, many implementing various European Directives. It is an ongoing process.

****From UK copyright law prior to 1989 (© Henry Lydiate)...

Copyright does not give you a legal right to copy your work: it gives you the right to stop someone else copying it without your permission. This protection is given by the Copyright Act 1956 and applies to 'artistic works' (not ideas) which means paintings, sculptures (includes any cast or mound made for the purposes of sculpture), drawings, engravings (includes any etching, lithograph, wood-cut, print or similar work not being a photograph) and photographs (means any product of photography, but not cinematograph film): and works of 'artistic craftsmanship' - what works of craft are to be regarded as 'artistic' depends on the author's aim when creating the work, rather than on any objective test, (a dress or cake may well not be 'artistic' for these purposes).

If your work is an 'artistic work', copyright protection will only be given if it is 'original' - the product of your own skill and labour and not substantially derived from an existing work so that it 'comes so near to the original as to suggest that original to the mind of every person seeing if, Keating's copies of existing Palmer's are not 'originals', despite the considerable skill and labour involved in their execution, (but they do not infringe copyright because Palmer's copyright has expired); and the painting based on the film-star's photograph (see issue 2) is probably not an 'original' (and may well infringe someone's copyright). There are also special rules about 'qualified persons' and 'published works' which ensure that an alien, resident in a country not having copyright laws similar to ours, who first publishes work in that country, does not gain copyright protection in the United Kingdom.

Who owns the copyright?
The author of the work is the first owner of the copyright, unless the work is made under a contract of employment or apprenticeship in which case the employer or master owns it. The copyright in commissioned photographs, portrait paintings, portrait drawings and engravings is owned by the commissioner - the person offering the author something of economic value to make the work. The first owner is free to enter into any contract with any person in order to vary the above rules.

****So based on the UK law before 1989, the same holds true....hired work without a contract means the work is owned by the author of it.

So what you are saying is AA didn't and could copyright his claimed creation because it was never published? I guess LFL beat him the punch, funny he never disputed ownership back then...

****The molds were not published. The helmets/armor are derivative of the molds. The molds are original designs. He didn't need to dispute ownership back then because he owned the molds then and preportedly owns the molds now. AA didn't need to formally copyright his work because it was copyright upon creation.

Thomas, you can copyright an unplublished work even before, 1979 read the actuall copyright papers on the trooper sketches included in the court paperwork, in gives specific directions on doing so... There is unpublished and published copyrights... The fact that the trooper sketches were not published until 1979 has no bearing on the ("unpublished) 1975 copyright of them, they would have obtained a new ("published") copyright at that time...

Do you actually believe LFL went through the trouble of filling out the paper work, paying the fee, but forgot to send in a copy of the sketch they were copyrighting???

****It's a question of derivation or originality. If the 1975 papers hold up on all accounts, then the question of creativity bears on the creation of the molds by AA.

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.

In 1976 there were not...

****In 1976 the USA and the UK _were_ signatories to the UCC.

You actually went to the library of Congress and requested to look at them, or you browsed what was more then likely an incomplete database you found?

****It's easy to say the database is incomplete. The LofC has listings going back much earlier than 1975. To say that it is incomplete is absurd.

Well that's pretty clear that if there was anything in writing, then the creation of the ST was "a work for hire" as it clearly meets all three the requirements... Also note the last line, "could lose" it's not a written in stone loss because a requirment wasn't met...

****You forgot this part:
"...and there must be a signed writing between the parties where they agree that the work will be considered a "work made for hire." Failing that, then the requirements would not be met. They ALL have to be met if you read it correctly.

SINCE THE SKETCHES WERE UNPUBLISHED THEY FELL UNDER STATE LAW AT THE TIME.

Again there were previsions to get a copyright on unpublished work, at the time they were copyrighted...

****Agreed, but that is secondary to the UK law and the UCC and the fact that the molds are original design and the movie pieces are derivative of that design.

Since they were under state law, AA would not be subject to state law.

Sorry since he is being sued in California he damn well is subject to California law, as well as Federal...

****It's irrelevant because LFL first has to establish rights to the original design (note...not equal to the McQuarrie paintings). If LFL had the rights, then it could pursue the case in CA. But first it has to establish it's rights. It's putting the cart before the horse.

In the end LFL copyrighted the movie ANH as a whole, including the ST we have come to love, AA has no copyright on file before then and has never disputed LFL copyright... So exactly what rights does he have?

****The movie was copyright after AA did his work. He has the right that no one copy his work.

WHO OWNS COPYRIGHT?
A. Current Law
Normally, the creator is the first owner of copyright in the work; but there are exceptions.

3. Employees
Employers own the copyright of the works of employees made during the course of their employment - unless there is a prior agreement to the contrary.
3. Employees
It would help to avoid unnecessary and very prevalent problems, created by the current rule, if employers were required to furnish a statement of the copyright position of their employees in the Contract of Employment which they must supply (by law) in any event. Most employees and employers are ignorant of the law as it stands, and this measure would draw it to their attention.

© Henry Lydiate 1984

So there must be a contract of employment for the employer to have rights to the work. No contract, no rights. This is UK law before 1989.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 18 2006, 12:15 AM

What I find very odd about the AA defense is the lack of denial of most of LFL claims, denial of claims is standard procedure at this point of the case, as well as the rest of the case...  But, for one reason or another AA isn't denying several LFL claims, including the sculpting issue...  This is even more odd when you take into consideration that if you don't deny the claims of the other party, then the claims become true in the courts eyes...

[snapback]1161781[/snapback]​

That's because his lawyers are addressing the juristiction, not the claims of the complaint itself. AA isn't denying he did the sculpts but he didn't state he did them either.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 18 2006, 01:49 AM
Thomas it's nice that you gave so many definitions of freelance, but you do realize that the word freelance does not exist in the actuall law, only in the summary you quoted?

The prints were shown to astablish a time reference to the creation and copyright of the trooper likeness...  As for stating there was a contract in the original complaint, why?  The complaint is just that a complaint it's not supposed to be cluttered with evidence, that is what Discovery is for...  It's just like saying why didn't AA provide photos of the "original molds" in his answer to the complaint...  The answer is simple there is a time and place to present evidence...

And you keep quoting copyright code, why?  Does AA have a registered US copyright on any of the items in question?  Does he have any real valid claim to any US rights to the items?  All we really know is LFL does, and it's never been contested...

The only real question people need to ask about this case is

The point is that it's irrelevant what the definition, if any, there is of freelance. The point is that AA does not appear to have been a bona fide employee and therefore without an employment contract, nor terms in regard to the rights of his work, the rights automatically go to AA. If a complaint is not to be cluttered with evidence, then it's a waste of time and money to exclude the one thing that would show that LFL has the rights. It just doesn't make sense that they would wait until "the right time".

And AA doesn't need registered US copywrite because he created the works in the UK.
"All we really know is LFL does..." Well if we really know that then why haven't they been able to stop AA from selling helmets and armor?

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Trallis@Jan 17 2006, 11:24 PM
i just want to say SithLord, while I don't agree on your stances on any of this, thanks for that post. 

Feel free to jump in and comment on why you don't agree on any of this...it's nice to have new points of view....

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[Darbycrash]

Thomas while its nice that you can provide these definitions. My job is to work with litigation during discovery. I happen to be working on 3 trade secret cases right now. And I can say that that what Exoray states is correct. I can at least say I am speaking from experience.

 

[exoray]

Well Tom since you have it all figured out and it's a sure win for AA, forward you claims to his legal team... After all if they are true and AA follows your advice, then I would expect the counter suit to be the next move...

But be advised that IMO your claims are riddled with holes and inaccuracies... Not to mention your whole argument is based around to very large assumptions 1. AA actually sculpted the model and 2. There was no contract between AA and LFL...

 

[Darbycrash]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 18 2006, 01:09 AM
Well Tom since you have it all figured out and it's a sure win for AA, forward you claims to his legal team...  After all if they are true and AA follows your advice, then I would expect the counter suit to be the next move...

But be advised that IMO your claims are riddled with holes and inaccuracies...  Not to mention your whole argument is based around to very large assumptions  1.  AA actually sculpted the model and 2. There was no contract between AA and LFL...

[snapback]1161885[/snapback]​

Well if Thomas has the power to rewrite history and confuse things in the court room I think he would be an asset to AA's legal team.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Darbycrash@Jan 18 2006, 03:08 AM
Thomas while its nice that you can provide these definitions. My job is to work with litigation during discovery. I happen to be working on 3 trade secret cases right now. And I can say that that what Exoray states is correct.

[snapback]1161884[/snapback]​

Then either he knows what LFL is excluding from their body of evidence, or anticipates what he hopes they will have in the way of contractual evidence. It may certainly be true LFL hasn't presented all it's evidence. But two things go against them having the contract. One is that AA has proceeded as if he has copyright and that would require the absence of a contract. Two is that LFL has not even hinted that there was indeed a contract even though they state that AA was hired.

So even if Exoray is correct on that concept, that doesn't make the presence or absence of a contract true either by his or my own account.

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by exoray@Jan 18 2006, 03:09 AM
But be advised that IMO your claims are riddled with holes and inaccuracies...  Not to mention your whole argument is based around to very large assumptions  1.  AA actually sculpted the model and 2. There was no contract between AA and LFL...

[snapback]1161885[/snapback]​

Well, I always like a good argument .

Guys, I don't know what will happen, I just wanted to highlight that we can't naturally assume AA will lose....yes there are assumptions here that we are going on. Sadly we are back to where we started :confused :eek :lol

:cheers,

Thomas

EDIT: I am pursuing a career in patent law

 

[Trallis]

Originally posted by SithLord@Jan 18 2006, 01:47 AM
AA isn't denying he did the sculpts but he didn't state he did them either.

When you say this, are you talking about only in the lawsuit, or do you mean in general.. because i know he claims right on his site that he did the sculpts

 

[DARKSIDE72]

Well since "original" molds are not being used AA's case will blow up on him. If they were at some point original, all the modifications he's done to them rendered them to now have far to many discrepancies from the screen used pieces. LFL's stance of "they do not match the screen used helmets" can easily be substantiated and proven.

 

[gavidoc]

Thomas,

That was a good post about copyright laws and such.

In a nutshell, The Star Wars Corp. placed a register on all works involved in SW: ANH in 1978 for work done in 1977.

When was the copyright for Star Wars: ANH made by The Star Wars Corporation? Obviously prior to 1979 when TSWC changed to LFL Ltd. More then likely prior to the release of the movie in 1977 which means sometime in 1976.

Now in regards to the McQuarrie sketches not being published in 1975, you would have to look at how the law views the publishing of the works in question.

Lucas used those sketches in his bids to the various Studios to obtain funding for his work. When 20th Century Fox provided the funding for the filming of Star Wars it was based on those sketches as well as Lucas' description of the movie. So in essence, those sketches were made "public" in the presentation to 20th Century Fox who acknowledged their existence by funding. Correct?

If that is the case then TSWC did in fact "publish" the work in question plus the initial script which describes the Stormtroopers prior to Feb. 1976 which would make TSWC owners of the "Stormtrooper" design and concept which would then have to honored under the UCC Geneva and UCC Paris which both the US and UK are members of.

What this in turn would mean is that AA has no rights to the design of the Stormtrooper even if he "sculpted" the final movie version as it was nothing more then derivative work based on the original idea which TSWC already had legal rights to in published artwork and published print as required by US Law at the time.

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by Trallis@Jan 18 2006, 03:46 AM
When you say this, are you talking about only in the lawsuit, or do you mean in general.. because i know he claims right on his site that he did the sculpts

[snapback]1161900[/snapback]​

Just the lawsuit...he did the molds but does he mention sculpts on his website?

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by DARKSIDE72@Jan 18 2006, 06:27 AM
Well since "original" molds are not being used AA's case will blow up on him. If they were at some point original, all the modifications he's done to them rendered them to now have far to many discrepancies from the screen used pieces. LFL's stance of "they do not match the screen used helmets" can easily be substantiated and proven.

[snapback]1161935[/snapback]​

It doesn't matter what he did afterward to them because if he made the originals then the rights are his. He could do all the modifications he wanted and you still wouldn't know if he had the original molds or not...or at least some of them. Even if he doesn't have all of them now, if he can prove he made all of them, and it makes sense that he did otherwise where did the screen armor/helmets come from...then he's got the rights. Remember this:

"An artist can take another work and embellish it. His new work will be considered a derivative work, and his protection will extend only to the part of the work that is original with him and not to the pre-existing part of the work. Naturally, if another person owned a copyright in the pre-existing work and the artist prepared a derivative work without permission, he would be a copyright infringer, but this wouldn't affect his copyright in the part of the new work that he alone created."

If the change reflects the original, then it's still AA's design. If GF or TE change something to reflect the original, then it's still AA's design. If they make subtle differences in the original design, then that _might_ be their claim, but then their suits are not accurate .

:cheers,

Thomas

 

[SithLord]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Jan 18 2006, 10:06 AM
When was the copyright for Star Wars: ANH made by The Star Wars Corporation? Obviously prior to 1979 when TSWC changed to LFL Ltd. More then likely prior to the release of the movie in 1977 which means sometime in 1976.

Now in regards to the McQuarrie sketches not being published in 1975, you would have to look at how the law views the publishing of the works in question.

Lucas used those sketches in his bids to the various Studios to obtain funding for his work. When 20th Century Fox provided the funding for the filming of Star Wars it was based on those sketches as well as Lucas' description of the movie. So in essence, those sketches were made "public" in the presentation to 20th Century Fox who acknowledged their existence by funding. Correct?

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.

I already checked all reference for the Star Wars Corporation, there is nothing before this regarding the motion picture. It has to be published first. I couldn't find the LF47760 which was registered in 1977 because this one refers to adding subtitles which changes the original slightly and therefore has to be re-registered. If there are earlier versions of registration LFL would have cited them in the complaint...this is from the complaint itself by LFL:

"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".

Showing the artwork to a few studio executives is not publishing. It has to be published, not simply made public knowledge, which at the time of showing the executives the artwork it was not public knowledge.

:cheers,

Thomas