Brian Muir
Well-Known Member
Brian:
Will you keep us posted as to when you add the Liz Moore section to your website? I'm sure a lot of us would love to see it...
Thanks!
Yes I'll let you know as soon as it's done
Brian:
Will you keep us posted as to when you add the Liz Moore section to your website? I'm sure a lot of us would love to see it...
Thanks!
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
Hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
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.Just hope the whole UK movie industry joins in on the trial to reclaim their rights.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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...
Oh, we CAN indeed call him stupid. His one smart move was hiring a smart lawyer.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.
His one smart move was hiring a smart lawyer.
Industrial design right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An industrial design right is an intellectual property right that protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian.