Brian Muir
Well-Known Member
Yes I'll let you know as soon as it's done
Original ANH Stormtrooper helmet and Armor - Just the Facts
- Thread starter Brian Muir
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star wars a new hope
Yes I'll let you know as soon as it's done
Brian Muir
Well-Known Member
The main isssue for Lucasfilm is the copyright. It still seems incredible that the judge saw something conceptualised by an artist, sculpted by an artist and used for a film (in itself deemed art) and that had no function other than a costume could be defined as industrial.
It could maybe be argued that vacforming the Stormtrooper armour was an 'industrial' process but the resulting costume should be under the category of art.
Presumably because so much had to be covered during the court case, once it was established that Ainsworth had NOT sculpted the helmet then that point was left. It is sad that there were no clay comparisons presented and that with a very short interview with John Richardson who said Liz worked in grey clay made the judge rule that the helmet must have been sculpted by Pemberton. The 'grey' clay helmet is not clay at all it is painted.
Although Ainsworth is using the photo of the clay helmet looking reddish according to his version he didn't use that helmet at all - according to him in his rush he damaged it and it collapsed - quite how it would collapse when it was solid I don't know - and it was of no use.
I mentioned to the lawyer several times before the court case that Ainsworth never stated how he 'sculpted' the armour but it was not brought up in court. He now says on his website that he sculpted the moulds as he did the helmet - using himself as a dummy :confused Now I would like to know how he did that. Is he saying he put plasticine on himself, sculpted one handed and then covered the sculpt (on himself) with the iron filing and fibreglass strand mixture then waited for it to go off and then cut it off himself!! Also how did he sculpt the back on himself - with a mirror one handed!! His dvd of making the armour is just vacforming from moulds - but where is the dvd of making the armour moulds ?
A few screencaps of Ainsworth's reconstruction of how he sculpted the Stormtrooper helmet - presented as evidence in court - the dvd is on his website and Youtube
It could maybe be argued that vacforming the Stormtrooper armour was an 'industrial' process but the resulting costume should be under the category of art.
Presumably because so much had to be covered during the court case, once it was established that Ainsworth had NOT sculpted the helmet then that point was left. It is sad that there were no clay comparisons presented and that with a very short interview with John Richardson who said Liz worked in grey clay made the judge rule that the helmet must have been sculpted by Pemberton. The 'grey' clay helmet is not clay at all it is painted.
Although Ainsworth is using the photo of the clay helmet looking reddish according to his version he didn't use that helmet at all - according to him in his rush he damaged it and it collapsed - quite how it would collapse when it was solid I don't know - and it was of no use.
I mentioned to the lawyer several times before the court case that Ainsworth never stated how he 'sculpted' the armour but it was not brought up in court. He now says on his website that he sculpted the moulds as he did the helmet - using himself as a dummy :confused Now I would like to know how he did that. Is he saying he put plasticine on himself, sculpted one handed and then covered the sculpt (on himself) with the iron filing and fibreglass strand mixture then waited for it to go off and then cut it off himself!! Also how did he sculpt the back on himself - with a mirror one handed!! His dvd of making the armour is just vacforming from moulds - but where is the dvd of making the armour moulds ?
A few screencaps of Ainsworth's reconstruction of how he sculpted the Stormtrooper helmet - presented as evidence in court - the dvd is on his website and Youtube
Last edited:
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
God, I remember watching this. Is he using silly putty and cement or what? That angle grinder is a must in every sculptor's toolbox it seems.
The main isssue for Lucasfilm is the copyright. It still seems incredible that the judge saw something conceptualised by an artist, sculpted by an artist and used for a film (in itself deemed art) and that had no function other than a costume could be defined as industrial.
It could maybe be argued that vacforming the Stormtrooper armour was an 'industrial' process but the resulting costume should be under the category of art.
Presumably because so much had to be covered during the court case, once it was established that Ainsworth had NOT sculpted the helmet then that point was left. It is sad that there were no clay comparisons presented and that with a very short interview with John Richardson who said Liz worked in grey clay made the judge rule that the helmet must have been sculpted by Pemberton. The 'grey' clay helmet is not clay at all it is painted.
Although Ainsworth is using the photo of the clay helmet looking reddish according to his version he didn't use that helmet at all - according to him in his rush he damaged it and it collapsed - quite how it would collapse when it was solid I don't know - and it was of no use.
I mentioned to the lawyer several times before the court case that Ainsworth never stated how he 'sculpted' the armour but it was not brought up in court. He now says on his website that he sculpted the moulds as he did the helmet - using himself as a dummy :confused Now I would like to know how he did that. Is he saying he put plasticine on himself, sculpted one handed and then covered the sculpt (on himself) with the iron filing and fibreglass strand mixture then waited for it to go off and then cut it off himself!! Also how did he sculpt the back on himself - with a mirror one handed!! His dvd of making the armour is just vacforming from moulds - but where is the dvd of making the armour moulds ?
A few screencaps of Ainsworth's reconstruction of how he sculpted the Stormtrooper helmet - presented as evidence in court - the dvd is on his website and Youtube
I watched that video.I really feel for you Brian.I mean for you knowing that you and Liz sculpted the Stormtrooper and seeing such a hack trying to lay claim to sculpting it and making such an amaturish video to try and prove it really sucks.And with an angle grinder at that. :confused
Brian Muir
Well-Known Member
Thanks gizmo :thumbsup
Even though it was obvious to the judge that Ainsworth did not sculpt the armour and was given the fibreglass tools produced from my sculpt he has now changed his history to make sense of his version i.e. being in consultation with John Barry (who he never mentioned in any statement) on the development of the armour. There's a lot to wade through here ............
Judgement :
40. The Stormtrooper armour is another detail conceived by Mr Lucas. Mr Muir told me how his conception was embodied, in its early stages. The armour was the first project he worked on in the film. He worked from the two McQuarrie drawings given to Mr Pemberton and Mr Ainsworth. A plaster cast of an average-sized actor was taken, and used as a sort of tailor's dummy on which armour was modelled using clay. During the modelling phase changes were made as required by those involved in design, which must have included Mr Lucas. The final sculpt was approved by both Mr Lucas and Mr Barry. That approval having been given, the model was broken down into sections and a rubber mould was taken (within a fibreglass case). From that rubber mould a plaster cast was made, giving the same shape as the original sculpture. Mr Muir then worked on the plaster by carving to produce a more refined version of the original clay shapes. Again, Mr Lucas was involved in approving detail at this phase of the operation. The detail was sharper so that when (as would happen later) moulds were produced, the detail would survive through the ensuing process into the final shapes. This phase, Mr Muir said, took him about 4-5 weeks and was finished by the end of January 1976.
46. I do not accept Mr Ainsworth's evidence on this point. I think that his factual case is born of a combination of loss of recollection over time, and his propensity to claim credit for greater creativity than he in fact demonstrated. I find that Mr Muir's evidence is correct in relation to the design of the armour. That means that many man hours, over several weeks, were spent producing a design for the armour. That design was approved by Mr Lucas. Even if it could not be reproduced in-house, the fruits of the design exercise (plaster casts and fibreglass tools) were available. It is inconceivable that that would not be provided to any contractor charged with fabricating the armour. It would otherwise have represented wasted effort, and there is no reason why it would not naturally be provided. Furthermore, there were positive reasons why it would be. The whole design and appearance of the film was closely controlled and supervised by Mr Lucas. He had approved the armour as finalised by Mr Muir. Anything new would have to obtain fresh approval, and there was no point in seeking that when approved designs were to hand. The idea that Mr Mollo and others would hand over the armour project to a third party (even one with Mr Ainsworth's capabilities) and invite them to start again (albeit from drawings) strikes me as being faintly absurd. If that were done, one would have expected a series of prototypes, and a pattern of discussions, approval and modification, taking (probably) weeks. It is highly unlikely that Lucas would have just taken and approved whatever Mr Ainsworth produced. There is no evidence of any such course. Mr Ainsworth said that he had made about 14 sets of armour by 5th March. That left nothing like enough time for him to make up some sets and have the sort of discussion that the design values of the film would require. He cannot have just worked up some immediately acceptable armour from the McQuarrie paintings. He must have had some real designs to duplicate. He was unable to give a convincing description of what the extra drawing with which he said he was provided (the only descriptions he was able to give did not demonstrate it to add anything useful to the McQuarrie drawings, leaving one wondering why he would have been provided with it). I find that he was provided with the Lucas tools, or useful casts, from which he made his own tools (I accept he did that) which produced copies corresponding to what Mr Lucas had approved (the clay originals) and ultimately the McQuarrie drawings.
Ainsworth's revised history on new website :
Panic!
This was the entry in Nick’s diary from 25 February 1976… Nick was away and Mollo called a rush meeting with Andrew at Nick`s to ask him to attend a meeting the next day at Elstree Studios to discuss the production of the armour.
Andrew met with the production crew headed by John Barry, the Art Director, who explained to Andrew ‘We have been working on this film for three months and all we have to show for it is this’ as he held out one of 3CPO's eyes.
Andrew saw no evidence of any armour being made, but Nick had said that he had seen some grey armour being worked on, probably in the same style as the grey clay helmet from Liz Moore.
In any event, John Barry gave Andrew a further sketch which portrayed a Stormtrooper with canvas type ammo pouches as per a soldier from the Vietnam war. He asked Andrew if he could make the armour in time for the first shoot in Tunisia, less than a month away*. Andrew said he could, and the Art Dept at the Studios abandoned any further work on the armour and moved on to Darth Vader
* when he says less than a month away it was between the period of 25th February to 5th March (14 sets of armour needed by 5th March)
Last edited:
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Brian Muir
Well-Known Member
My feelings exactly :thumbsup
Amish Trooper
Sr Member
I'm kinda curious to see how this plays out in court again.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
So far, not good at all. This is one time I am routing for "The Man" to stick it to the little guy.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Just hope the whole UK movie industry joins in on the trial to reclaim their rights.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Oh, I am. My fingers are crossed because this one d-bag has managed to dump all over every artisan's work and set a really horrible precedent. Just my opinion.
SFPROPS
Sr Member
We have George Lucas's written script. Works of fiction normally are considered art and are covered by copyright.
George Lucas asked Ralph McQuarrie to collaborate with him on his creative endeavor, using his work of fiction as inspiration in creating paintings/drawings that realized his artistic vision in a way others can see. Paintings and drawings expressing an interpretation of other art are normally considered art as well, and covered by copyright.
George Lucas took the collaborative artistic designs he and McQuarrie made and hired an ART department to realize this one dimensional design into a sculpture (which should normally be considered art, and part of a valid copyright). We have evidence that sculptors working on behalf of George Lucas, realized his artistic design in three dimensions.
At this point and time Andrew Ainsworth has not been involved in the process, and it's pretty clear that we have an original author (Lucas) creating art (a fictional "Stormtrooper) to be used as part of another artistic endeavor (a film) where others where hired to create something that had previously just been in his head, and on paper. All of which was supervised and directed by the original creator of the thing in question.
How hiring a manufacturer to mass produce your artistic endeavor for profit turns that creative process into one that is entirely "industrial" as for a copyright goes and gives the manufacturer absolute power to profit from the creative endeavor defies logic. That does precisely the opposite of what copyright laws are supposed to do.
I'm betting that the case will be overturned. I'd hope that the UK Supreme Court is filled with justices that understand the negative ramifications such a precedent would have for UK industries that require unique artistic expression as part of their business plan. You can have your laws in regards to "commercial design" where it isn't part of a larger artistic work, but I think it's clear here that film production design isn't just a commercial endeavor, but also an artistic one and it's insane to rule that intellectual property created artistically as part of the film making process isn't covered by normal copyright.
Simply insane.
George Lucas asked Ralph McQuarrie to collaborate with him on his creative endeavor, using his work of fiction as inspiration in creating paintings/drawings that realized his artistic vision in a way others can see. Paintings and drawings expressing an interpretation of other art are normally considered art as well, and covered by copyright.
George Lucas took the collaborative artistic designs he and McQuarrie made and hired an ART department to realize this one dimensional design into a sculpture (which should normally be considered art, and part of a valid copyright). We have evidence that sculptors working on behalf of George Lucas, realized his artistic design in three dimensions.
At this point and time Andrew Ainsworth has not been involved in the process, and it's pretty clear that we have an original author (Lucas) creating art (a fictional "Stormtrooper) to be used as part of another artistic endeavor (a film) where others where hired to create something that had previously just been in his head, and on paper. All of which was supervised and directed by the original creator of the thing in question.
How hiring a manufacturer to mass produce your artistic endeavor for profit turns that creative process into one that is entirely "industrial" as for a copyright goes and gives the manufacturer absolute power to profit from the creative endeavor defies logic. That does precisely the opposite of what copyright laws are supposed to do.
I'm betting that the case will be overturned. I'd hope that the UK Supreme Court is filled with justices that understand the negative ramifications such a precedent would have for UK industries that require unique artistic expression as part of their business plan. You can have your laws in regards to "commercial design" where it isn't part of a larger artistic work, but I think it's clear here that film production design isn't just a commercial endeavor, but also an artistic one and it's insane to rule that intellectual property created artistically as part of the film making process isn't covered by normal copyright.
Simply insane.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
You're missing a couple of key things here you seem to be under the impression that the courts gave Ainsworth rights to ptroduce these items because he worked on the production of the originals.
That isn't the case at all, the courts haven't given anyone any rights, what the court has done is say that LFL do not own any rights as the design falls under industrial design and therefore is no longer a protected design.
This in effect means ANYONE is free to use that design, they haven't given any rights to Ainsworth.
And also what their decision boils down to is that the costumes themselves are not art, sure someone designed them and someone sculpted them but that in itself does not qualify as art according to the court.
Lets say you have a table on set just a regular table purchased from a store, someone designed that table, someone created that table does it become art just because it's in a film ?
The movie itself could be considered art but does that qualify everything on the screen as art itself ?
It's not an easy question to answer.
SFPROPS
Sr Member
Not really. I understand the case. I do however believe that Ainsworth was using the notion that HE was the designer of the Stormtrooper to claim copyright that really wasn't his if it was necessary in order to keep selling.
I understand this and I'm not meaning to claim that Ainsworth is the only one who can take advantage of this ruling. I also stated that this had ramifications for ALL holders of IP regarding motion pictures in the UK.
What I was showing was that for all intents and purpose, the "industrial design" classification is bogus (as it's all art and expressions of original authorship of creative materials) and the ownership of the copyright to the design in question is clearly Lucas's and that Ainsworth doesn't have a logical claim to it.
Whether you are debating based on the totally illogical idea that the original ideas and designs expressed in films is just an industrial product, or that somehow Ainsworth had intellectual property rights, you're still on the losing end of a rational argument, IMO.
According to THAT court.
I believe that there isn't really a rational argument though that can be made that a fictional, original creation which was created to express in three dimension that which was in an artist's mind as part of an artistic endeavor put to film is not "art" itself. Especially when we know that these types of creations are often times the subject of books discussing the artistic skill used to create and design the pieces in question, and shown in galleries as art.
Probably not, because it was not an original expression that was a key visual part of the artistry in question. That can't be said about the creation and design of the Stormtrooper characters in Star Wars.
I think it's pretty easy. If it's an original design which was created as part of the storytelling process, and required artistic expression as part of it's creation, it's "art" and not just an industrial recreation.
You can argue that there was no real requirement of original thought or expression along the way in having that table appear in the film. It didn't significantly impact the visuals or the storytelling of the film, and it wasn't a new creation made as part of the artistic expression in question.
The same is simply not the case with an original, artistically expressed new creation like a Stormtrooper. While I know your analogy is what the court originally had in mind, they simply dropped the ball in this case and I haven't heard a single credible argument on their behalf that makes any sense logically. That's why I think that the UKSC will likely overturn.
There have however been instances where furniture as an industrial design has been protected under copyright law, as part of a film. For instance, the producers of Men In Black where sued for recreating the "Egg" chairs used at headquarters, which rationally was both an artistic creation and an industrial design (much like the Stormtrooper) and had to pay the original designer big bucks for damages since instead of buying them from him, they just reproduced them on their own without license.
Last edited:
exoray
Master Member
Or lets say what really happened, an ARTIST sculpted a figurine/statue out of clay as a derivative of previous artistic works and because the final product ended up in a movie vs say a statue in a courtyard or someone's living room it's no longer art...
defstartrooper
Sr Member
No i believe his original intention was always to use the claims he sculpted the piece as sales and marketing tool, i believe the only reason he attempted however to argue that he created the design in court was because he had an insane counter suit he was going to file against LFL for them using the design which they didn't have ownership of.
The court ruling however that it's industrial design protects LFL from a lawsuit as much as him.
You can accuse Ainsworth of a lot and rightly so but you cant accuse him of being stupid.
If the design was classified art he was going to argue the final finished product was his design and as he was not under contract from LFL ownership of that design resides with him and LFL have been profiting off it.
As for the argument of what qualifies as art well that's a legal minefield, you have to remember the courts have to go by what the law says personal opinion aside.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Hey i'm with you it's art in my eyes but my eyes don't count in a court of law.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Oh, we CAN indeed call him stupid. His one smart move was hiring a smart lawyer.
exoray
Master Member
I wouldn't even give him that credit for that, I'm of the opinion that said law firm was simply an ambulance chaser looking to make a name for themselves and found him, hardly uncommon...
defstartrooper
Sr Member
See theres an issue already, according to international law industrial design does not have to be for a purely utilitarian use to qualify as industrial design.
Similar threads
