Lucas loses lawsuit; "Helmets are not works of art"

[KarmaTiger]

http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/star-wars-st...r-costumes.html

Dec 16th, 2009

'Star Wars' stormtrooper costumes not artistic, says court

By Eriq Gardner

Star385_314229a George Lucas should have used the Force rather than lawyers to pursue a British designer who sculpted the original Stormtrooper helmets in the first "Star Wars" film.

A British appeals court has ruled that these helmets are not copyrightable works of art and therefore, Lucasfilm can't prevent Andrew Ainsworth from selling replicas of the helmets. The $20 million lawsuit against Ainsworth has dragged on for five years and may continue still as Lucasfilm says it is prepared to appeal the case up to Britain's Supreme Court.

In the decision yesterday, a judicial panel ruled that the helmet and armor of the Stormtrooper costumes had a "utilitarian," rather than an artistic, purpose, so "neither the armour nor the helmet are sculpture."

Previously, Lucas won a $20 million judgment against Ainsworth in a California court in 2006. He's been unable to get British courts to enforce the decision.

[KarmaTiger]

Obviously that should say "lucas", but I can't edit the topic title.

[srg]

http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/star-wars-st...r-costumes.html

In the decision yesterday, a judicial panel ruled that the helmet and armor of the Stormtrooper costumes had a "utilitarian," rather than an artistic, purpose, so "neither the armour nor the helmet are sculpture."

gee, looks like George's intentional avoidance of artistry and fashion in the OT's is coming around to munch his ***, no?

well, not that im going to be a lucas-hater, but he kinda has it coming when he tries to cut people out of the process....

[berkal]

I'm sure that $20m could have easily been better spent elsewhere (perhaps saving a few lives rather than lining the pockets of lawyers) and an amicable solution negotiated.

[Tube]

Very strange. George clearly needs different lawyers.

Armour most obviously is art. It always has been. Just because it is also utilitarian doesn't mean it isn't art. Its just wearable art.

Whether its real armour, medieval or whatever, or Sci-fi armour makes no difference. The body becomes a sculpture. Its a no brainer.

If armour is not art, why are almost all the great collections of medieval and Renaissance armour in art museums?

If stormtroopers are not art, why is there one in the collection of the Kelvingrove Art Gallery in Glasgow?

If stormtroopers are not art, why do they feature in the work of more than one modern artist, like that guy in London making pink and chrome troopers and selling them in a modern art gallery? Do art dealers not know what art is or is not? That's especially weird because Ainsworth is the one who actually made this art, working with the artist. Guess he kept his mouth shut at that point in the court proceedings.

But I'm not a lawyer.

TC

[Productions]

May I quote "Art is anything with no purpose what-so-ever". And Stormtrooper armour is defiantly useless, apart form looking good.

[berkal]

I think the key phrase is "the helmets are not copyrightable works of art" meaning that he has no claim to the intellectual property rights of the design. In fact in IP terms AA probably has more right to the design since he was the artist or artisan primarily responsible for the design. Unless the IP was assigned in some way to GL perhaps by way of a contractual agreement.

I'm not a lawyer either just a UK-based designer of buildings who also has a keen interest in protecting his own IP.

[RoCKo]

Thanks for posting!

btw. i edited your title to "Lucas"!

[firebladejedi]

I think the key phrase is "the helmets are not copyrightable works of art" meaning that he has no claim to the intellectual property rights of the design. In fact in IP terms AA probably has more right to the design since he was the artist or artisan primarily responsible for the design. Unless the IP was assigned in some way to GL perhaps by way of a contractual agreement.

I'm not a lawyer either just a UK-based designer of buildings who also has a keen interest in protecting his own IP.

Come on we all now that Liz Moore sculpted the helmet and Brian Muir the body armour and AA was responsible for pulling plastic, so why should he own any rights to anything?

[berkal]

I didn't say he owned the rights. Remember all the courts are saying is that is is able to manufacture replicas of the design. As for it being art: the product is intended to be worn on the head as part of a costume and, it could be argued, does indeed have a utilitarian purpose (as opposed to art which by definition does not). History has however blurred the lines between art and object. After all one man's art is another man's urinal.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p15_design_rights

[erase]

Thanks for sharing this info.

Cheers.

[troopermaster]

I watched AA on the BBC news the other morning. He did say he sculpted the helmets which we know is a lie and also that the armour came from the original moulds which again is another lie.

AA is not about to change his story after all this time. It's only us hard core fans that know the truth about who sculpted what and I guess the general public really could care less. I would imagine that AA did some resculpting of the original sculpt in order to make it workable for vacuum forming, but to say that he sculpted the whole thing is just plain wrong.

From what I gather, AA does not hold the copyright for the trooper helmets or armour, merely that he has the right to reproduce them legally here in the UK.

[Jumpinjax]

Come on we all now that Liz Moore sculpted the helmet and Brian Muir the body armour and AA was responsible for pulling plastic, so why should he own any rights to anything?

Maybe the right to an #$%-kicking?

[dutchy]

Come on we all now that Liz Moore sculpted the helmet and Brian Muir the body armour and AA was responsible for pulling plastic, so why should he own any rights to anything?

I bought Brian's book, so I hope he has dedicated some chapters to it as well.

Maybe this will shed a new light on the subject but as Firebladejedi already wrote..it's clear who made and did what.

[theGreatSot]

I'm honestly rather surprised to see that the courts ruled in favor of AA... As for the idea that the helmet is not art, that's just the largest load of $*#& I've ever been spoon fed, and what is the idea that art has to have no utilitarian purpose? I make functional pottery, and ain't nobody on earth gonna tell me I don't make art! I can't believe that a court ruled that the helmets aren't a work of art. There are literally thousands upon thousands of items from movies that are owned by both museums and private collectors, just like works of, oh wait, what was that word that I'm looking for? ART.

[Tube]

I guess it has something to do with the current legal definition of 'art' in the UK, which may have nothing to do with what art actually is. This garbage about art having no function is something you might still hear from the odd paintings historian, but very few people who really know anything about art would subscribe to it these days.

If I was on the Lucas legal team I'd go after that definition. It would not be hard to knock it down as a load of dewback manure. There are entire art museums dedicated to art that also has a function. Its often called 'decorative' art.

On the flip-side, stormtrooper armour has no role beyond its own expressive 'costume' function, as part of larger works of art (the films; nobody argues films are art). Its not real armour, it doesn't work or do anything protective or practical. Its not as if we are arguing about the artistic value of flak-jackets or something.

Sure, it is designed to be worn, but that occurs only as part of its capacity as an art-work that also incorporates a human body. Again, there are a lot of other examples of the human body, and body adornment, as art. Tell my local tatoo artist that he's not an artist and see what happens!

So if a stormtrooper armour has no other function beyond the expressive, its art.

You can win this arguement from either side...

[Too Much Garlic]

It wasn't just Lucas who lost... it was the whole movie industry. Anything older than 15 years are now no longer protected, so anyone can legally replicate a prop from any movie or tv show and sell it in the UK without having to acquire a license first and without fearing a C&D. I'm sure the makers of Dr. Who are thrilled about that, as they just lost their rights to license their own items as well. Nothing but BS and it was a stupid ruling that the judge apparently had no clue what repercussions it would have on the movie industry, otherwise he wouldn't have made such a ruling.