CSMacLaren
Sr Member
Brian, I applaud your last post. That was one of the best summaries I've read of Ainsworth for all time.
Original ANH Stormtrooper helmet and Armor - Just the Facts
- Thread starter Brian Muir
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star wars a new hope
If I understand the UK's Limitation Act 1980 correctly, the owner of (whatever) property would have a 6 year window (in some cases a 12 year window or less) to claim ownership of said property from the initial action (for example, the start of or end of production and molds, props etc haven't been returned). Once that time has passed, no action can be brought forth to claim ownership.
Last edited:
jedimaster
Sr Member
Has everyone seen the "how to" discs that ainsworth puts out? I have copies of each one and in the stormtrooper one he makes the mold for the faceplate on screen and then goes on to show the pulling process. The face plate he sculpts on this film really is laughable and looks like it should have a piece of elastic stapled to the sides.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Did he actually form anything with that fabrication?
Brian Muir
Well-Known Member
Thanks Mac :thumbsup- There are still more damning facts in the court judgement but I've posted most of the facts that are relevant.
jedimaster
Sr Member
Larry Young
Master Member
To the Supreme Court!
Lucasfilm invokes the force of Sumption QC in Star Wars showdown | News | The Lawyer
Lucasfilm invokes the force of Sumption QC in Star Wars showdown | News | The Lawyer
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Wow. I wonder if the lawyers will read this thread and all the research contained within.
More here:
http://www.thelawyer.com/may-the-force-be-with-you/1006517.article
More here:
http://www.thelawyer.com/may-the-force-be-with-you/1006517.article
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
I'd be willing to lay odds that Brian would be called in by LFL to assist in this case, if for no other reason than to see credit given where credit is due.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Hope so.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Likewise, Willie. This is one of the few times I am rooting for "The Man" to trounce the little guy into powder.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Yeah, I mean taking credit for, and profiting off of a deceased woman's work ain't gonna win you any popularity contests.
:thumbsdown
:thumbsdown
exoray
Master Member
The implications of this not getting overturned go well beyond AA...
What International (heck even UK based) production company in their right mind would contract anything film related to the UK if this isn't overturned knowing their IP rights would expire in a mere 15 years? The implications of destroying the UK film industry IMO are real if the original judgment is upheld...
I still have to wonder why I have not read anything about the BBC or other larger UK production companies jumping on board, as the immediate implications of the original ruling upheld for them would be devastating... Just imagine say The Harry Potter franchise starting to become public domain in 4 years... Not to mention what would already be public domain like the older Dr. Who franchise, including the Daleks, Cyber Men, the Sonic Screw Drivers and heck the TARDIS itself... Wallace and Gromit, the Bond franchise, and the list could go on, if not overturned then it's free public domain props for everyone no licensing required for a large portion of all UK productions...
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Yes, the ramifications of this are pretty staggering.
I'm not convinced that removing the production of items from the UK would make any difference.
Copyright is bound by international agreements whereby countries recognise copyrights made in other jurisdictions. An object made in the US would be granted copyright status in the UK, but subject to the limits of UK copyright law as each jurisdiction has the right to regulate its internal systems.
Even if all of the Stormtrooper armour was made in the US, UK copyright law would still apply within the jurisdiction. Outside the UK's court's jurisdiction, UK copyright law obviously does not apply, so all the protections of other nations laws are still enforceable. Just not in the UK.
I still doubt that the ruling on the helmets being sculpture will be overturned. An appeal is based on errors in judgment of the law, not the facts. As long as the trial judge's interpretation of the law was sound and the application of it was not "Wednesbury" unreasonable (that is so irrational no reasonable judge could come to the same conclusion) the courts are loathe to overrule the trial judge.
On the jurisdictional claim on enforcing foreign judgments in UK courts, that is a matter for reciprocal treaties between states, not the court. As it stands they can only be enforced if the subject has a legal presence in that country, and it would be a step too far to widen it to citizens without legal presence. It undermines the ability of sovereign nations to protect its citizens. I know the US would (quite rightly) take a very dim view of the possibility were the roles reversed.
While I am sad that AA got away with what he has been doing, I am pretty comfortable with the judgment as a whole. The underlying principles are more important than personal feelings.
That isn't entirely true. Some designs from the films might go public domain after 15 years if the design is unregistered, but the underlying copyrights and related rights remain.
Even were the designs to go into the public domain there are still other protections in place to limit the marketing of works based on the design. All names and logos are trademarked (if they aren't the rights holder get little sympathy from me), and any unlicensed marketing using them would be actionable.
In any case that doesn't stop the erstwhile rights holders from marketing their own products, they just lose exclusivity. I really don't see the problem being any greater than it is now with unlicensed fan replicas.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Registered designs are protected for 25 years.
Hypothetically, yes, they are... and I have seen several articles playing this up, but in the real world, do you really believe that if Andrew wins, this will actually have any affect on what US movie makers do? Do you not think this is a pretty extraordinary situation and that even if Andrew were to prevail it wouldn't automatically mean anyone else would. I certainly see where you and a number of others are coming from, and I think, considering the facts that have been presented, that it would be appalling if Andrew comes out on top, but even if he did, it is difficult for me to believe this would create any major change in regard to using UK resources in the making of films.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
I believe it will have an effect on what all moviemakers do around the world. It will set a legal precedent that others can latch onto.
exoray
Master Member
Production companies already avoid cities that don't give them huge tax breaks, incentives or kiss their butt to film there, so yeah I personally do believe the prospect of shortening the life of the IP rights would very likely be a factor for many studios to consider...
But do you truly think this case would set an international precedent or even just a US/UK precedent for the life of IP rights? I totally understand where you are coming from, I just have difficulty believing this case will be the Roe v. Wade of IP rights... but maybe I am not giving it the true significance it deserves.
Similar threads
