Original ANH Stormtrooper helmet and Armor - Just the Facts

defstartrooper said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

Seeing as this was not store bought, but something specifically manufactured and made for a movie, wouldn't that make it pretty simple? The design exists only because of and for that movie, like any other costume or prop created by the production and not store bought.

Not like the blasters and some other props which were altered actual items, the stormtrooper armor didn't exist before it was sculpted, molded and formed.

And since the judge said AA didn't create the design... then that should make it really simple... right?

Too Much Garlic said:

Seeing as this was not store bought, but something specifically manufactured and made for a movie, wouldn't that make it pretty simple? The design exists only because of and for that movie, like any other costume or prop created by the production and not store bought.

Not like the blasters and some other props which were altered actual items, the stormtrooper armor didn't exist before it was sculpted, molded and formed.

And since the judge said AA didn't create the design... then that should make it really simple... right?

Click to expand...

Store bought has nothing to do with it the fact it was created for a movie has nothing to do with it.
If someone designs a decorative bottle for perfume for example while the piece has a practical use it does have aesthetic merit too but it's not considered art by the legal definition.

I'm sure i'm not alone in hearing the term industrial design and picturing that as meaning something without aesthetic merit a utilitarian design but it actually doesn't mean that under law.

It's strange and it's hard to agree with because we all consider these peices art but you can see how they can be defined by the law as industrial design.

I don't agree with the law but that's what it is.

defstartrooper said:

Store bought has nothing to do with it the fact it was created for a movie has nothing to do with it.
If someone designs a decorative bottle for perfume for example while the piece has a practical use it does have aesthetic merit too but it's not considered art by the legal definition.

I'm sure i'm not alone in hearing the term industrial design and picturing that as meaning something without aesthetic merit a utilitarian design but it actually doesn't mean that under law.

It's strange and it's hard to agree with because we all consider these peices art but you can see how they can be defined by the law as industrial design.

Click to expand...

Anything can be misdefined by law. Jurists are not infallible.

I don't agree with the law but that's what it is.

Click to expand...

As I illustrated, it's illogical based on the evidence to simply classify the Stormtrooper character and costume as "industrial design". As I stated before, I'm guessing this would be overturned, or the UK has essentially written off a whole market for licensed memorabilia inspired by things created for film. Yes, this means that I can create and sell all the classic Dr. Who gear I want and not have to pay any licensing to the BBC.

It's my guess that since by any reasonable definition the creation in question would be an example of an artistic expression above and beyond any "industrial" concern, and in hindsight the higher court will find that the lower court misinterpreted the spirit of the law in question. In other words, I really don't think that "what it is." I believe that the lower court misdefined "industrial" in a way that would be damaging to creative enterprises thoughout the UK, and that was never the intent of the law in question.

Maybe,lets hope so, but the studios certainly haven't treated or considered these works as art over the years have they lets be honest, how much of this stuff and i'm not just talking SW here has ended up in skips ?
How much of the stuff that does still exist is in **** poor condition due to how it's been cared for ?
I believe the only reason they now say it's art is because someone else is making $$$ from it, and if art is defined by dollar value that's pretty shameful too.

Lets remember here the artist gets nothing in these cases other than the money they're paid for the commision.

I'm not so sure it is a bad thing for them to be classed as industrial design, these things are still classed as art by the people who appreciate them as such so i don't see any detriment towards the artist.
If unregsitered that gives the studio 15 years of protection with which to have no competition in the marketplace, and if they are registered they have 25 years.
How many movies really keep a major interest one worth setting up an enterprise for after that length of time ?
I don't think bootleg sales really cut into the licensed market much if at all, MR had no problem selling all their lines, infact they had the problem of not being able to produce the numbers they had sold on some items including the stormtrooper LE helmet.
And lets be honest we are all on a forum where huge amounts of money are traded daily for bootleg merchandise.

I bet if a court said we're free to make a certain Roberto the robot's American cousin a few people here would rejoice.

Really it's just this case that's caused a bad taste because of the actual sculptors not being given the recognition THEY deserve, that's all that makes me angry.

I couldn't give two hoots about Ainsworth selling stormtrooper helmets any more than i give a hoot about all the people here and elsewhere who have sold them over the years.
I just disagree with how he has done it by trying to take away credit from people like Liz and Brian.
Credit by the way which LFL had not given for over 30 years until this case got to court.

Yes, that's some of the good things coming from this mess. The knowledge of the actual sculptors and their work. :thumbsup

Too Much Garlic said:

Yes, that's some of the good things coming from this mess. The knowledge of the actual sculptors and their work. :thumbsup

Click to expand...

I agree Carsten so many positives have come from all this. Even with the unwanted hassle of the court case it has opened so many new avenues in my life. I'm also continually meeting and making new friendships with people who have shown me nothing but respect for my work.

It was good to finally discover who sculpted the Stormtrooper helmet and for Liz to now to have the credit.

To me Ainsworth is a minor irritation but I find it difficult to just allow him to blatantly lie and discredit Liz and myself. My intention is not to fuel old arguements but to make people aware of what he is stating now.

Whatever the outcome in the Supreme Court I don't see that he will win anything. If the copyright is held he will be stopped - if it left as industrial then it will be 'Open Season' and he will have competition.

Ah, the old argument thing. Those ARE irrelevant now. If someone has not come around now, there is no hope for them. No matter which side you WERE on, you should be on Liz Moore and Brian's side now.

brianian said:

Ainsworth is now using a colour distorted photo of the clay helmet to try to show it as terracotta as Pemberton (who was incorrectly credited for sculpting the helmet) said he only worked with terracotta as it is cheap.

Photo of me in 1976 using the same clay to sculpt the Death Star Droid as Liz Moore used to sculpt the Stormtrooper helmet

Click to expand...

To be fair I don't think Ainsworth (or anyone on his behalf) purposely adjusted the photo. It looks like they just scanned a bad color copy of the it (probably from the case documents). Note that it has too much cyan (common printer/copier problem) and they scanned it with a Post It note still attached.
Now I wouldn't trust a thing from Ainsworth, but regarding this photo I don't think he did anything on purpose.
Unfortunately, he didn't need to do anything as the court statements based on novice observations back up his lies.

It's obvious that the support structure under both sculptures is identical which should be proof that they were sculpted by the same person or at least both in-studio.
It also looks like there's overspray on the wood support beam clearly indicating that the one sculpt was painted.

Here's a quick color corrected pic of Brian sculpting the Death Star Droid...



The coloring and value of the clay still looks similar to the movie-style trooper helmet sculpt - definitely not as white as the painted concept one.

The picture of Lucas with the sculpts is a little small to try and color correct. It's obviously a little too yellow judging by his blue sweater.

I have a good copy of the clay sculpt if Ainsworth would like to update his photo on his website :confused


I don't see how you can say that both of these sculpts were made by the same person or that they were made at the studio because they are both on wooden struts. This is a method that was/is widely used. Pemberton and/ or one of his employees Nicola Howard Jones(who at one time lived with Pemberton) produced a Stormtrooper helmet and so did Liz Moore - that is not argued. (*Nicola was called as a very last minute witness for Ainsworth who struggled with the details and had to be admired for her honesty unlike Pemberton and Ainsworth's friend Paddy Payne)

Knowing Liz's work, looking at the photographic evidence of Liz's other work on Star Wars and her previous portfolio (plus John Richardson's evidence) I am convinced that she sculpted the clay helmet.

Knowing Pemberton, his work and his reputation at the time plus the fact he said in his statement and in court that a component he incorporated in the sculpt was a Morris Minor ashtray - to make it more British!(although Ainsworth stated it was a Morris Minor heating duct) !) I am in no doubt that the other helmet was produced by him and/or Nicola.

I had to produce some photos of my work for the court case in order to prove my ability. Ainsworth produced some photos of vacuum formed items. I did not see any evidence of Pemberton's previous sculpting skills.

lonepigeon said:

It also looks like there's overspray on the wood support beam clearly indicating that the one sculpt was painted.

Click to expand...

Are you sure this isnt just clay and water marks?



Edit: re-read thread....it is painted. sorry. lol

brianian said:

I don't see how you can say that both of these sculpts were made by the same person or that they were made at the studio because they are both on wooden struts. This is a method that was/is widely used.

Click to expand...

I thought you were saying Liz sculpted both. My mistake.
The struts seemed identical and seeing that you were working from a mannequin form for the droid I thought the struts were more unique to the artist. I guess not.

Clearly from what you just stated the white painted one is Pemberton's - probably painted to further blend in the incorporated ashtray.

It's a shame that the trial went no further to truly determine which sculpt belonged to whom.

Knowing Pemberton, his work and his reputation at the time plus the fact he said in his statement and in court that a component he incorporated in the sculpt was a Morris Minor ashtray

Click to expand...

probably painted to further blend in the incorporated ashtray.

Click to expand...

to make it more British!(although Ainsworth stated it was a Morris Minor heating duct) !)

Click to expand...

Is the heating duct that they're talking about, Ainsworth's so-called ''prototype'' with the serrated neck seal?

The front of the blue troopers mouth area, I believe.

Are you talking about the Clone Troopers having an ashtray mouth, or the original Stormtroopers?

In the above pics Brian posted, the blue helmet has an ashtray on the mouth.(I do believe)

Neither Pemberton nor Ainsworth qualified which part of the head the ashtray/heating duct was used for - that's anyone's guess

Pemberton stated it was an ashtray grill

The helmet made of component parts i.e. Pemberton's - shows it is done by someone who does not understand a drawing.

ahh Brian I see your point above - not being a sculptor myself - the pemberton simply has no fluidity and has very sharped/defined angles. Nose bridge on the Pemberton is quite triangular and stark - whereas, Liz's sculpt just flows.