Ni Legal
’The empire tries to strike back’ Big Battles over Little Playthings
In July of this year, the Supreme Court gave its judgement in the long-running epic Lucasfilm –v- Ainsworth. Amongst a number of issues determined, one significant part of the judgement related to the issue as to whether the iconic helmet worn by the Imperial Stormtroopers in the Star Wars films was a sculpture, and as such protected by the law of copyright. Nicholas Worsnop explains...
Nicholas Worsnop
Lucasfilm (being a triumvirate of a Californian corporation and an English company both owned by George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, and thirdly a Californian corporation responsible for the group’s licensing activities) sued Andrew Ainsworth for, amongst other things, copyright infringement initially in the United States and subsequently in the English Courts. Mr Ainsworth had, amongst others, been commissioned in the mid-1970s by Mr Lucas to design the Stormtrooper armour. The final version, well known to millions, was produced as a vacuum-moulded helmet by Mr Ainsworth. Fifty of these were made for use in the original Star Wars film, released in 1977. The costume designs subsequently received an Oscar.
In 2004, Mr Ainsworth began to make and sell the helmets to the public. Lucasfilm perceived this, amongst other things, as a breach of their copyright and sued Mr Ainsworth accordingly. The matter finally came before the Supreme Court in March 2012. Lucasfilm argued that the helmet was a sculpture. As such, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act would afford protection for 70 years from the date of the death of the artist. The Court at each previous instance had found that this was not the case, and that the helmets performed a utilitarian function. Lucasfilm argued
before the Supreme Court that such a finding was “eccentric”, in essence their argument being that the Stormtrooper helmets were not functional, and the previous courts could only properly find it as having a functional purpose “within the confines of a film”. The court noted that there had to be a difference between a true replica historical helmet used in, for example, a film depicting the Second World War as that truly had served a function. Here there clearly had to be a difference. The helmets were not real in the sense that they had ever served a purpose. They were, of course, fictional, set, as the Judge stated, “in an imaginary, science-fiction world of the future”. Despite this fact, the Supreme Court upheld the earlier findings that the helmets still served a utilitarian purpose, albeit as an “element in the process of production of the film”. The primary use of the helmets was as a prop, serving a purpose. In my view, there is logic in this finding. A sculpture, regardless of artistic merit or value, is aesthetic. It is something purely to view. A helmet’s primary purpose, whether in the real world or a fantasy world, is to be worn. The helmet would undoubtedly also have been protected by design rights, but the period of protection for designs is significantly less than that afforded to a sculpture.
So, unfortunately for Lucasfilm, it was another defeat for the Dark Side.
This is a very important decision for your industry. Take a baby’s mobile for example. Is this a utilitarian toy, to which design rights attach, or a sculpture to which copyright attaches? This could mean the difference between 10 years protection and 70 plus years protection for your design.
Nicholas Worsnop, Partner
Intellectual Property | IT team Chadwick Lawrence LLP Web:
www.chadwicklawrence.co.uk
www.nursery-industry.co.uk • NOVMBER 2012 • NURSERY INDUSTRY • 11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40