Lucasfilm to Strike Back March 7th - Lucasfilm vs Andrew Ainsworth
- Thread starter Supa troop
- Start date
exoray
Master Member
Well that is not true, moving to the UK didn't win the case in any respect, if fact it was a total default lose, the UK Judge has now clearly stated that LFL can pursue him for foreign violation in the UK, and yes I said foreign, as no where does it say it's limited to US only violations, just that the lower court was incorrect in stating sovereign immunity from foreign law violations... If LFL goes into other countries like for example Canada and sues AA and wins again, they in theory could then move to UK for collection of his violations there, and so on and so on for countries that will honor the US copyright as valid and infringed upon in their country... AA, can't argue no jurisdiction anymore as the appeals court just laid it down that he is liable for foreign violations... Also I have no idea of the scope of native IP rights LFL might hold in foreign countries that would even up the ante favorably for LFL getting a ruling in that foreign country...
You clearly can't read :wacko the appeals Judge has just overruled the previous ruling where LFL was told by Justice Mann that they couldn't collect on the US judgment, they in fact can, Justice Mann was incorrect... That was the point of the appeal! LFL attempted to collect on the US judgment in the original UK case, Justice Mann ruled, no collection, a lose for LFL, now the appeals court has said Justice Mann was wrong, the lose to collect reversed aka win for LFL...
No, AA gambled on immunity, and with the new appeal ruling he just lost that gamble... The argument by AA that he was outside US jurisdiction and exempt from US law was incorrect, the US courts didn't buy lack of jurisdiction and now the UK appeals Judge didn't buy it either...
Ruled in his favor for what? The appeal was not by AA asking for rights, it was an appeal to the status of copyright... The courts ruled the copyright has lapsed that is not a win for AA as he was not granted copyright or any rights not given the entire UK nation... And the Appeals court DID NOT RULE IN AA'S favor in regards to his claims for immunity from US law, that was overturned, that is a clear lose as just last week he wasn't liable, today he is...
Prepare to be enlightened...
The European Court of Justice...
As a EU member the UK is bound by the EU court in regards to laws that extend to the entire EU nation, that includes any international treaties that the EU is a partner to, and some of those do in fact deal with IP rights and thus might give the EU court jurisdiction... That is to be determined if LFL takes that road...
But, going back to the UK to enlighten you some more... The case if pursued now will be knocked back down to the lower UK courts (not higher silly) to determine AA's liability for violating foreign IP rights, as the appeals court just ruled that Justice Mann was incorrect in his original ruling that the US violations were not enforceable... LFL could very well pursue it in other countries courts as well, getting a judgment in those countries and then moving to the UK for enforcement, for any country AA has ever sold as the Judge just leveled liability for foreign violations on AA... The ball is really in LFL's hands on how far they want to pursue AA, they could drop it now or drag this out for decades...
Big whoop, he isn't the Judge and he certainly won't be the one determining AA's liability or the extent that foreign rights will be enforced and upheld by the UK courts... And if you think he isn't going to put a favorable spin towards his client, I have this big Golden bridge in California to sell you... The extent of liablility is yet to be determined and only if LFL pursues it further...
Until and if LFL pushes the issue back in the lower courts that is only an assumption, and the scope of the sales might very well be limited... You, AA and his lawyer can pretend all day to 'know' what the lower courts will decide in regards to enforcing foreign IP rights, but it's really just chest thumping for the media... That case is not even started let along over... He was selling them without a license all this time, but that was not what the appeal was about, the appeal was about whether the armor was utilitarian or art and if the copyright still existed and could be pursued...
And now AA has extended his line of products, I (and LFL) can go right to AA's page and see the Rebel symbol on the front page of his website, if I remember correctly AA agreed to remove all trademarks in exchange for LFL dropping trademark claims... I now appears AA has broke that promise and thus LFL would nowt be able to again pursue the trademark claims that hey had originally dropped, and they now have the appeals courts ruling that it is in fact actionable in the UK...
Um, yes, yes it does... That was the point of the Appeal to over turn the original and incorrect ruling that LFL could not pursue AA for foreign violations, now LFL most certainly can pursue AA for foreign violations as the previous judge and court ruling was wrong and overruled...
And any new and further litigation could expand beyond the original case as the Appeals Judge as is customarily did not not define what part of the US laws should be enforceable in the UK, that will have to be decided by the lower courts...
Is the enforceability of foreign laws just limited to the it just the enforcement of the US judgment and case, as everyone seems to jump to the as the conclusion? What if LFL sues him again in another venue that favors honoring US rights and finds him liable in that venue? What if the ever so honest AA isn't being truthful about his 100% cease of selling to the US? It's not like he is a man of his word and truth :unsure You, nor I, nor AA and his chest thumping lawyer can claim to know at this time what the final outcome of foreign enforcement will be in the end...
The lower court could very well limit the scope to collection based on the original US court case or they could broaden the scope beyond that, it's truly anyone's guess at this time, to claim otherwise is simply guessing...
See. :rolleyes
blip
Sr Member
"The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control printing,...The Statute of Anne did not apply to the American colonies. The colonies' economy was largely agrarian , hence copyright law was not a priority."
Copyright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
Copyright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
Hey, good point. SWEET! Would anyone like a nice fibreglass Dalek? :lol
exoray
Master Member
Yeah, I see it has driven you to talking/replying to yourself... :rolleyes
Crazy stuff indeed...
Last edited:
The point I was making was that he can only be sued under US copyright law for breaches of it in the US. That is why damages would be largely limited to the value of the sales he made there. I was ambiguous and for that I am sorry
This ruling does indeed open the door to bring actions based on breaches of copyright in other jurisdictions where he has no legal presence, but that would be for breaches of that jurisdictions copyright law and again the damages would be limited to losses accrued there.
As far as sales in the UK are concerned he now appears to have carte blanche to sell as many as he wishes without fear of reprisals; but then again so do I or anyone else in the UK who wishes to do so.
As to your latest, very long and detailed post in response to Sithlord (too long and detailed to do a point by point answer without things getting confusing; not least for me) you seem to be mixing up enforceability with justiciability.
The judgment says nothing about enforceability. The sole issue was justiciability. The US ruling is still unenforceable against AA as he has insufficient legal presence in the US to imply submission to the US court's jurisdiction. That is why he stopped selling there, as it ran the risk of establishing legal presence. That is why he allowed the judment to be granted in default as showing up, or fighting it would amount to submitting to the jurisdiction of the US courts. It also means he can never set foot on US soil lest he be served with a writ ordering him to pay up.
What it does, as mentioned above, state that claims for breaches of copyright laws in foreign jurisdictions are directly justiciable in the UK courts.
This renders the need to obtain judgment in a foreign jurisdiction an unnecessary step. The US judgment serves as unassailable evidence that he is in fact in breach of US copyright, so any case on these breaches would be about quantum of damages not questions of liability. For untried cases from other jurisdictions, expert evidence on the state of that jurisdiction's copyright law would be enough to allow the judge to decide liability and likely success.
The rationale for this decision was an elegant one. I will happily admit I was fairly ignorant of the issues involved which is why this part of the decision came as a bit of a surprise to me.
Having read the judgment it seems a perfectly logical and just solution to a tricky issue. It is a good compromise to the seemingly incompatible rights of a British subject to be protected from foreign interference and the right of a foreign subject to obtain a remedy against a British resident where otherwise they would be denied one.
The trademark point you raise is a good one. I looked and saw he is indeed offering X-Wing helmets with the Rebel crest painted on. I couldn't find a registered trade mark for it on a cursory search of the UK database (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist) but it is certainly valid as an unregistered mark and thus actionable.
The hubris of the man seems to know no end.
jedimaster
Sr Member
Don't upset the Beeb man. They'll get ya through you're Telly.
TK7713Gra30
Active Member
`As a military figure scupltor and painter (awards at world level-of you take Euro x 3 as the definitive-biggest competition in that genre ), I have learnt after some 18 months of sculpting a figure, hand casting it , painting the cast, being awarded, that the market for that MASTER figure rises considerably. I have also learnt that the moment you hand the master over it becomes the BUYERS property.
This subject is very hard as had I been commisioned, then from the start, the master would be the property of the commision and as such he/she can choose what and how they want the finished product to look.
It does strike me that GL did not know the value, although protected commercial copyright. Also, as anyone who is part of a team of builders, ideas, painters, know, it is a joint effort.
To me, the only proof is WHO OWNS THE MOULDS, which you give up in the scuplting world or at least the rights. Perhaps GL should have concentarted of those rather than KENNER !!!!!!
For myself I feel I have given GL enough over the last 40 years of my life and I still have not had the idol I wanted, I for one thank AA for giving me that, at a price that is serious to a collector.
I own others, but the man that wanted us to promote him and to be loyal, basically sold us crap.
If it had not been for AA we would still be paying over the odds, I congratulate him for standing his ground and it is now down to personnal opinion, but the question must be asked, and as a UK person, who can afford this and why is AA such a threat!!!!!! The bandwagon is easy to get on but not so easy to get off !!!!!!!
If the argument is about greed the in my eyes GL wins hands down, if it is about ownership, then why was this not brought about years ago and before AA re produced the Stormtrooper armour and helmets, or was it a case that someone had more $s to gain his support, after the event!!!!!!!
UK Courts, for once, did do the right thing IMOA
(copied from iphone)
This subject is very hard as had I been commisioned, then from the start, the master would be the property of the commision and as such he/she can choose what and how they want the finished product to look.
It does strike me that GL did not know the value, although protected commercial copyright. Also, as anyone who is part of a team of builders, ideas, painters, know, it is a joint effort.
To me, the only proof is WHO OWNS THE MOULDS, which you give up in the scuplting world or at least the rights. Perhaps GL should have concentarted of those rather than KENNER !!!!!!
For myself I feel I have given GL enough over the last 40 years of my life and I still have not had the idol I wanted, I for one thank AA for giving me that, at a price that is serious to a collector.
I own others, but the man that wanted us to promote him and to be loyal, basically sold us crap.
If it had not been for AA we would still be paying over the odds, I congratulate him for standing his ground and it is now down to personnal opinion, but the question must be asked, and as a UK person, who can afford this and why is AA such a threat!!!!!! The bandwagon is easy to get on but not so easy to get off !!!!!!!
If the argument is about greed the in my eyes GL wins hands down, if it is about ownership, then why was this not brought about years ago and before AA re produced the Stormtrooper armour and helmets, or was it a case that someone had more $s to gain his support, after the event!!!!!!!
UK Courts, for once, did do the right thing IMOA
(copied from iphone)
Last edited:
geordietrooper
Sr Member
well for me its been about aa's lies/false claims
it would seem his supporters don't mind or care about that
it would seem his supporters don't mind or care about that
Either you are sadly correct, or there's just no such thing as a fully-informed AA supporter. (I clued in a mate last week - he was planning to buy one of AA's lids, after hearing the full story he's now going for an eFX.)
TK7771131G4r30, let's say you engage me to cast up a run off an original figure you have designed and sculpted. You send me the master, I make the moulds and run the castings, you handle the orders, fulfilment etc. It's in no way my project, yours is the only name publicly attached to this project, which quickly makes you a famous millionaire.
Twenty years later I turn up half of the mould. It's damaged but I patch the tears with new silicone and clean it up a bit. On eBay I find a Thai recast of a Ukrainian recast of that old figure I cast for you. It's damaged in transit but I slap some epoxy putty on it and give it a rough sanding and then I make some new moulds from it for the bits I don't have.
I then advertise it on the Internet. Figure X re-available FROM THE ORIGINAL MAKER!!! FROM THE ORIGINAL MOULDS!!!!!!!!
Are you okay with this? Just curious.
Cheers,
Martyn
I first found this place through the AA case when it was in the High Court. I came across the case in the legal pages and as I was researching copyright in the entertainment industry for a potential thesis I looked into it.
I'd heard of AA and SDS through his ads in the back of a magazine I used to get regularly. I looked his site up, saw what he was charging, read his (probably first) version of his involvement where he claimed to have been the primary designer (something which never rang true as a long standing fan of Ralph McQuarrie's original pre-production paintings) and thought little more of it until the court case. I must have given him the benefit of the doubt that he meant only the 3D aspect of the design.
On reading the vague reports I decided to look for more information, not least because I couldn't for the life of me work out under what legal principle he was claiming copyright.
At that time I was, as most Englishmen would, wishing him the best as he was the plucky underdog.
I soon found this place mid discussion and soon realised not all was as it seemed.
There were long standing questions over the originality of his moulds, deep uncertainties, later confirmed by Brian Muir and others, over the extent of his involvement and other issues remaining unresolved.
In short my opinion went from being a tacit supporter to confirmed sceptic. When I finally read Justice Mann's judgment, I couldn't fault its logic and became convinced AA had been a very lucky man.
Since that time I have been involved in numerous discussions on the case here as it has progressed through the system, most of which have led to very insightful questions being raised, and have greatly improved my understanding of the legal issues.
I doubt anyone who skims the discussions here can take any other view that while AA was and remains a skilful craftsman, his version of his involvement in the Stormtrooper and his opinions on his artistic talent don't bear scrutiny.
Anyone who cares to take even a cursory glance at the evidence and still supports AA unreservedly is either wilfully blind to or an idiot.
The sad thing is if AA had been less egotistical and more honest about the whole thing he would have undoubtedly been a valued member of this community. Even the meanest member of the production team of that film is revered here. It is his own fault he is a person treated with scorn and contempt.
With all that said I have always wondered how far personal feeling rather than rational analysis was involved with the criticism of the decision. I wonder what the reaction would have been if instead of AA it was one of the more popular vendors of prop replicas who fought the studios and won (or at least didn't lose).
I suspect it may have been quite different.
Very possibly. It's the lies/attribution part - as capitalised in my example - that chafe, for me. My mate was about to plonk down his readies in the entirely honest belief he would be getting a helmet that couldn't be bettered short of an original production-made item.
Heck, *I* oppose American international copyright imperialism, there have been some real stupidities in that field. I'd hazard a guess that a large minority if not a majority of Commonwealth citizens would have some similar opinion on that, it's not JUST the David and Goliath angle. I think it's that we're primed to root for a win against that *particular* Goliath which makes for another reason the story has been so popular with the non-US Anglophone media.
Heck, *I* oppose American international copyright imperialism, there have been some real stupidities in that field. I'd hazard a guess that a large minority if not a majority of Commonwealth citizens would have some similar opinion on that, it's not JUST the David and Goliath angle. I think it's that we're primed to root for a win against that *particular* Goliath which makes for another reason the story has been so popular with the non-US Anglophone media.
Except in reality, he doesn't have any of the molds laying around, only a few scrap left over parts many of which he's pawning off as prototype parts.
He makes a mold from a face, but he only has parts of some crappy cap/backs with the goofy flex hose rear tubes.
So he has to resculpt that whole rear area resulting in a mold that is way off from original with the left side taller than normal and the rear swoop now missing.
Because of this he now has to resculpt both ears and make them longer to compensate for the horribly resculpted cap/back.
Who's going to know right? Especially when you have a bunch of prop collecting backers all mooching off you and giving you praise. Until he's called out on it and then the web of lies start. Its ok for awhile as his prop board minions fight his battle, but in the end the truth wins out.
Yeah, I was referring back to one of his own early stories there (and being very generous).
The problem is that while the truth may have won out, once you have a critical mass of supporters, it becomes self-sustaining. You can potentially accrue new ones at a faster rate than old ones get educated. (Thanks, UK press, for helping out there.) And some old ones will just refuse to accept the evidence and go into denial mode, like people who think major historical events simply didn't happen.
Anyone who reads a newspaper article, thinks "ooo I'd quite like one of those!" and Googles Ainsworth's site up is unlikely to find out the truth until too late.
The problem is that while the truth may have won out, once you have a critical mass of supporters, it becomes self-sustaining. You can potentially accrue new ones at a faster rate than old ones get educated. (Thanks, UK press, for helping out there.) And some old ones will just refuse to accept the evidence and go into denial mode, like people who think major historical events simply didn't happen.
Anyone who reads a newspaper article, thinks "ooo I'd quite like one of those!" and Googles Ainsworth's site up is unlikely to find out the truth until too late.
The Sun Newspaper here in the UK who ran the article stating Ainsworth won his battle against LFL have listed both the reporter and the editor who covered the story
i wonder if they would be interested in knowing what a lier and thief AA actually is and how he is taking all the credit from a dead woman.
Lucasfilm Loses U.K. Supreme Court Bid Over Stormtrooper Helmet Copyright - Bloomberg
i wonder if they would be interested in knowing what a lier and thief AA actually is and how he is taking all the credit from a dead woman.
Lucasfilm Loses U.K. Supreme Court Bid Over Stormtrooper Helmet Copyright - Bloomberg
Similar threads
