Imperial Storm Troopers Skirmish in Latest IP Battle

fm6 writes "According to guardian.co.uk, George Lucas is suing the designer of the Imperial Stormtrooper armor. Andrew Ainsworth took the original molds he used to make the props for the movies, and has been using them to make outfits that sell for up to £1,800 (US$3,600) apiece. Ainsworth has countersued for a share of the $12 billion that Star Wars merchandise has generated since the first movie."

Ungrateful Lucas?

[Izabael_DaJinn]

Lucas Licensing called the prop designer a "fan" even though he created the Stormtroopers!

A spokesman for Lucas Licensing said: "We would never want to discourage fans from showcasing their enthusiasm for the movies. However, anyone who tried to profit from using our copyrights and trademarks without authorisation ... we will go after them."

This guy made one of the really cool things about Star Wars!! We all see the sort of nonsense Lucas came up with without this guy :-( Nothing in the newer 3 movies was there anything as memorable as Stormtroopers. Am I wrong??

TFA doesn't really say anything about the details of the original contract, but it seems ridiculous for someone with the money of God to come after a little guy who did so much to make his movies distinctive.

Re:

[NeverVotedBush]

I think that holders of copyrights and trademarks are obligated to protect them or else risk losing the copyright or trademark.

On the other hand, Lucas could make a sweetheart deal to license the trademarks and copyrights and not be at risk of losing the rights while also doing what sounds like the right thing by the person that contributed a huge amount to the Lucas "empire".

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[Dun Malg]

I think that holders of copyrights and trademarks are obligated to protect them or else risk losing the copyright or trademark.

trademark, yes. copyright, no.

Correct!

[Anonymous Coward]

> trademark, yes. copyright, no.

You are correct in saying that you have to defend a trademark but do NOT have to defend a copyright, so I'll add on to that. IANAL, but unless there was a copyright assignment with a 'written memorandum of transfer' (I learned that one from SCO v. Novell; copyright law being federal, it applies to the whole USA), THE COSTUME MAKERS own whatever copyright there could be on the costume. Though I assume that Lucas owns the trademark. True, it could be a 'work for hire', but I think that only applies to individuals working for some company (and it would probably have to be spelled out), so I don't know.

I should also mention that while trademarks have to be defended, you are NOT required by law to be a dick when defending them (even if it seems that way). I think it was Second Life where they sent the "Get a First Life!" people a "Permit & Proceed" letter that let them know they were *okay* with using the trademark.

Lucas? Sounds like he believes he deserves all the money from anything related in any way to Star Wars, even if he did absolutely none of the work in creating it, simply because he came up with Star Wars to begin with.

So yeah, I'm not really going to take either side here, but I just want to say that if they had any sense, they'd come up with some kind of arrangement that doesn't involve suing each other, or there won't be any money left to fight over.

Re:Correct!

[electrictroy]

IMHO

George Lucas showed unusual intelligence when he asked FOX Studios for the rights to the merchandise. Prior to 1976, virtually no other filmmakers did that, because it was believed by both directors and studios that "toys" were worthless, and the real money was in the film.

FOX was more than happy to sign that contract, because they thought Lucas was a fool. Well Lucas turned-out to be smarter than everybody else. And the fact that Andrew Ainsworth in 1976 failed to request payment for post-movie merchandishing is HIS OWN FAULT, and he has no one to blame but himself.

George Lucas' contract with Fox gives him the right to make money off the merchandise.

Andrew Ainsworth's contract does not; he could have requested a share, but he chose not to. His own dumb fault.

Re:Correct!

[immcintosh]

Now, maybe I'm missing something here, but when a person manufactures some artistic creation, that person by default has the right to profit from said creation. The real question here, it seems to me, is whether the terms of this costume designer's employment specifically gave those rights up. If not, my guess is he has every legal right to sell storm trooper armor to his heart's content.

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[Eivind]

You may -think- so. But you're simply wrong.

There is absolutely nothing you can do, or fail to do, to "lose" a copyright.

Trademarks yes, those can be commoditized. But that is completely irrelevant as Lucas does not, infact, have a trademark on the design of the stormtrooper-armour.

Re:

[Shakrai]

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation only donates a small fraction of its holdings

I honestly don't know enough about it to debate you on the other points you bought up but this one seems questionable. The whole point of an endowment is to finance your activities off the earnings of that money so it's sustainable over the long run. You don't spend the money itself.

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[quanticle]

The way a foundation works is by donating the the interest, not the principal. Therefore, it makes sense that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will only be donating a small portion of its total assets, since the principal will not be touched.

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[King_TJ]

I thought it was pretty blatantly obvious by now that George Lucas is out to milk the Star Wars franchise for every dollar he can squeeze from it. This sort of thing would be par for the course, coming from him.

To an extent, that's not even necessarily a "bad thing". One of the moves Lucas made in the beginning which he's often admired/noted for was his shrewdness in securing the rights to royalties on all the toys and products (which Hollywood thought was worthless).

I think the information we're lacking here is the legal contract made between him and the set designer.... If it's clear that Lucas didn't allow the guy to go off and make money duplicating Stormtrooper outfits, then Lucas is in the right to sue him. Otherwise, I'd say he deserves to lose this case.

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[Saint Fnordius]

That's the problem right there. The designer as artist also has unalienable rights, and most likely he signed a boilerplate contract selling Lucas' production company the suits without addressing the issue of derivative designs or casting new suits. Such a thing was probably not even considered a possibility all those thirty-odd years ago.

The article states that a California court already ruled in favour of Mr. Lucas, but that ruling doesn't apply since Mr. Ainsworth is a Briton and most likely signed his contract under British law. That suggests to me that there may be some merit to the claim, possibly hinging on Ralph McQuarrie's concept design drawings/paintings, but Mr. Ainsworth is also a designer, and I think he could successfully argue that his designs are a derivative but separate artwork, and his counter-suit could have merit.

I think the real reason for Mr. Lucas' suit is as a warning shot to all of those prop designers who worked for the original Star Wars movies, in an attempt to maintain total control over his merchandising empire. It's not about the money, but keeping control, and I personally feel that it's a very selfish act.

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[wild_berry]

If these were commissioned, designed and made in the UK, then there's no inherent rights remaining. The UK (and Europe) have a maximum of 25 years on Registered industrial design rights, and either 15 years (GB) or 3 (EU) for unregistered design rights. There's the possibility that the designer is riding the shirt tails of the Star Wars phenomenon and is therefore an unlicensed user of its trade mark. But without branding (like "Star Wars(TM) Storm Trooper(TM) Suit!" -- with notes that "Star Wars" and "Storm Trooper" are trademarks of their respective owners) there's nothing to stop him using the public domain property.

Such a thing was probably not even considered a possibility all those thirty-odd years ago.

Yes, it was. Trade mark law in the UK is more than a century old; UK has had a Registered Designs Act since 1949 which moves industrial use of copyrighted work from the life + 50 years (as was) of Copyright to a maximum of 25 years when registered with the UK Patent Office.

I am not a patent or trade mark attorney and this is not legal advice.

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[Moryath]

As opposed to the US, where every time copyrighted anything comes close to hitting public domain, Dizney sends a bunch of hookers to the congressional offices to "lobby" for an "extension."

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[RiotingPacifist]

Not sure whether this is +1 funny, or +1 insightful given the recent scandals.

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[Saint Fnordius]

IIRC most of the set scenes in the original movie were filmed at Pinewood Studios in the UK. I'm too lazy to check, to be honest.

Oh, hell. *googlegooglegoogle*

I was right. :)

Re:

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

"If it's clear that Lucas didn't allow the guy to go off and make money duplicating Stormtrooper outfits, then Lucas is in the right to sue him."

I'd say that would be a legal right then, but not a moral one.

He doesn't have to do it for the money, does he? And I don't see another decent reason to go after one of the creative minds that helped make your movie into a classic.

I will NOT thank Lucas

[elrous0]

I will *not* thank Lucas for starting the Hollywood "backend" phenomenon. It's just this sort of thing that led to increasingly out-of-control budgets for "blockbuster" movies that have made them increasingly annoying over the decades. Now we're stuck with droves of movies that are filled with how-do-we-top-ourselves special FX, overpaid celebrity-of-the-moment-actors, extensive audience testing that relentlessly strips anything worthwhile from the original script, product placement that's gone beyond distr

Re:

[silentphate]

The storm troopers were originally George Lucas idea in the first place. What was created by Ainsworth was depicted by what George Lucas wanted to see. I believe that still makes is property of Lucasfilm.

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[dougmc]

I'm not sure it's quite that cut and dried.

If I ask you to design some futuristic looking armor for some soldiers, and you do so without much more input from me beyond `I like it!', then you'd own the copyright on that. If we both worked on it equally, we'd probably both own the copyright.

If I paid you to design and make the design for the armor, then the contract would probably say who owned the copyright. If there's no written contract, then there's probably some law (`work for hire') that covers the situation, but I'm not so sure about that.

In this case, I would have expected that Lucas paid to have the design made, and there was probably a written contract and it probably assigned complete ownership of the final work (including the copyrights) to Lucas. But perhaps Lucas didn't fully lawyer up and there's some holes in this theory ...

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[Kierthos]

Unless I did it as part of a "work for hire" agreement. If he (Ainsworth) did the work under such an agreement, then he doesn't own the copyright (or any creation rights) on the armor he originally created for Lucas.

Re:

[hey!]

Well, I suppose the first and most important question was what was in the contract? The contract could enjoin this guy from doing anything with the molds ever.

After that, I'd say the question is who did the actual design? Costumes may be fashion statements, but they can also be props; as props I think they probably deserve the kind of copyright protection that other elements of the movie get. If Lucas sketched out the designs, handed them to the fabricator and said "make a bunch of these", the design w

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

If I ask you to design some futuristic looking armor for some soldiers, and you do so without much more input from me beyond `I like it!', then you'd own the copyright on that. If we both worked on it equally, we'd probably both own the copyright.

What if there was already concept art [df.lth.se]?

Re:Ungrateful Lucas?

[ecavalli]

Sigh.

This is what I get for learning due diligence from /.

Since the guy was the one who originally created the armor for the films, it all depends on what the original contract said. If it isnt specifically stated that Lucas owns the design of the whole thing, I think the guy does deserve a bit of the royalties, at least as far as they relate to the actual Stormtrooper armor.

That said, I'd be surprised if Lucas wasn't clever enough even then to write in bits of the contract that state that he owns the whole thing.

I'd be shocked if this actually goes anywhere.

Re:

[actiondan]

I've been trying to see things from his point of view, but no matter how hard I try, there's just no way to justify giving the guy any part of the merchandise profit from Star Wars just because he's created some replica armor.

The thing you seem to have missed is that this guy designed the _original_ stormtrooper costumes for the first film.

Re:

[ecavalli]

No. I saw. Take a look at my own response to my comment.

It's not like I RTFA'd until after that first comment anyway. Heh.

Re:

[GauteL]

"When you buy photographic portraits from professional photographers you get prints of them. If you want more copies you must buy them from the photographer. If you copy them and try to print them you are violating copyright law."

IANAL, but it depends on whether you hired the photographer to take pictures or whether you are just buying photographs the photographer has taken.

I know lots of wedding photographers would claim to own the copyright to your wedding pictures, but unless there is a proper contract t

Re:

[makomk]

IANAL, but I seem to recall that, at least in some countries, photographers are specifically exempt from the normal works-for-hire laws which would otherwise (if there aren't any contract terms to the contrary) mean that the person paying owned the copyrights.

Re:

[garett_spencley]

"Nothing in the newer 3 movies was there anything as memorable as Stormtroopers. Am I wrong??"

For better or worse I think that Jar Jar Binx is more memorable.

mmmm ... for worse. Definitely for worse. Still, more memorable.

Does anybody know what the armor does?

[Joce640k]

It certainly doesn't stop blasters or light sabers. What use is it?

Re:

[atrocious cowpat]

"... It certainly doesn't stop blasters or light sabers. What use is it?"
It looks kinda ... shiny? Opps, wrong Fanverse, sorry.

Re:

[WaltBusterkeys]

Speaking of light sabers -- who gets to sue the Star Wars Kid for IP infringement?

Re:Does anybody know what the armor does?

[Jason Levine]

Hey, you go to war with the Rebels with the armor that the Empire gives you, not the armor you wish you'd have. I have heard reports of some particularly creative Stormtroopers adding additional armor to their suits. I find this lack of faith in the Empire disturbing.

Re:Does anybody know what the armor does?

[kalirion]

To remove the blood and dehumanize the enemy so that we don't feel like real humans are being killed by the hundreds and the movies can be rated PG.

Re:

[carpe_noctem]

This guy made one of the really cool things about Star Wars!! We all see the sort of nonsense Lucas came up with without this guy :-( Nothing in the newer 3 movies was there anything as memorable as Stormtroopers. Am I wrong??

Who could ever forget Jar-Jar? He was sure memorable!

Why pay 3600$ fo this...

[Datamonstar]

when you can just use a RepRap?

Re:

[TubeSteak]

I hope this can be the beginning of a new /. meme.

Cue obligatory...

[Mongoose Disciple]

I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kaiser Wilhelm II is suing them both for use of the term "Stormtrooper".

Whats in the contract?

[mckinnsb]

If the contract signs over all work to Lucas Film, this guy may be in a bit of a bind. If it doesn't, Lucas Film is in a bind.

I bet you two different contracts are presented.

Logical mode off: Its a goddamn Storm Trooper Costume! He was making them for 3k! You make millions of dollars! Go home!

That's an interesting business model

[caitsith01]

So you do work creating IP for people and then refuse to give them the rights to the IP that you create? Let me know how that works out for you.

I think you will find that the majority of companies who get design work done by independent contractors would have watertight agreements transferring all of the relevant intellectual property to them, for obvious reasons, i.e., that people like you can't then attempt to weasel around their rights with dubious contractual terms and thereby hold them hostage.

Honestly, I am generally all in favour of limiting the IP rights of companies, but when you do work for a business creating IP and then try to suggest that it's somehow reasonable and equitable that you retain the rights to all of the "original art work" that goes into it then you are being borderline dishonest. Certainly it's reasonable for you to retain IP you create which is not specific to that job; but it would be entirely unreasonable to refuse to relinquish the rights to the 99% finished "work in progress" version of a website, for instance.

The Windows example is silly, because Windows is not uniquely crafted to each user's requirements (if only), it is a generic piece of IP that is licensed and relicensed.

Re:That's an interesting business model

[lakeland]

It seems to be that way where I work.

We contract companies to write software for us, but then they retain full ownership of that software.

It means we often don't get to see the source code, and even if we do, we are not permitted to modify it or to get any other company to extend the software, etc.

I have to admit, I find it foolish to enter into such agreements. When I pay for work I expect to receive IP, but such situations clearly do exist. Other people must just not care so much...

Re:

[LaskoVortex]

Reason its this way is that i reuse a lot of code from project to project

[Windows] is a generic piece of IP that is licensed and relicensed.

Let me say the same thing yet again in a different way, but attempt to disagree with you by saying exactly what you said, but different and yet trying to make the exact opposite point, but not failing miserably because I will actually support my point:

You are wrong because the software would be general use and reusable so IP rights would need to be retained by the author.

Re:

[timmarhy]

nonsense.

lots of places pay for IP to be created that they then only have the rights to use. I can think of 1/2 dozen large software firms that do it right now.

Re:

[vux984]

i work as a designer and get this problem every time, they either ask for the original files and i reply that its outside of the scope of the contract or i try to explain to them in a simple term they might understand.. "When you buy windows do you own the original code used to create the system? What makes you think this is any different?"

Which is actually a good reason not to buy windows.

When my clients hire me to write custom software I always give them an unlimited license to the program, and its source

Merchandising Rights

[The MAZZTer]

I've watched documentaries and read books about Star Wars... one of the genius moves Lucas made was to make the studios sign away all the merchandising rights to him. This was before merchandising was a big thing (Lucas helped make it big!).

The question is is do those clauses extend to sold props and replicas of props...? IANAL so don't ask me.

Re:

[The MAZZTer]

Ugh I'm tired. A correction.

Obviously the prop designer is not bound by that specific contract, but he might have had an employee contract or the prop/mold he used might still technically belong to the studio or Lucas or something. Obviously the courts in California found something but the article is light in this area.

I'm waiting...

[sootman]

... for the Special Edition lawsuit, where Andrew sues first.

Re:

[esocid]

Wait, is Andrew is Han? I believe both he and Greedo were pretty shady characters in the books. Can't imagine who to compare Lucas to here.

Re:I'm waiting...

[Zerth]

Duh, Jabba. Have you seen Lucas lately? He's been packing them on eat those little froggies.

mod parent funny!

[Spy der Mann]

it's funny because it's true!

Re:

[gatzke]

Can we get a class action together for breach of trust? I trusted Lucas not to ruin my childhood...

not really IP

[ILuvRamen]

That's not really IP. It's an actual, physical mould making actual physical objects. This is barely about the stormtrooper image itself.

hollywood accounting

[fermion]

It sounds like one of these vague cases where everyone is fighting over the money, even though there is more than enough money to go around. It is why the term "Hollywood accounting" exists, and why so many thinks that the average hollywood executive makes the average investment banker look like mother teresa.

In any case, the article makes it appear that Lucas just bought several dozen of the costumes, and did not in fact commission the design nor purchase the rights. OTOH, the designer sold the costume

Re:

[wellingj]

Who says he would be satisfied if he won?

Laches

[Raul654]

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure Ainsworth's claims of damages going back to 1977 is a textbook case of laches [wikipedia.org] and will probably be dismissed on those grounds.

why?

[blakecraw]

The design wasn't even any good. One blaster shot and they're finshed!

Re:

[edwardpickman]

Worse yet they couldn't hit the ground if they dropped their guns while wearing them. They were kind of channeling Ned Kelly only the armor couldn't stop a blaster round let alone a bullet. They probably would have been better off fighting in "G" Strings so they could at least hit what they aimed at. I guess visually it wouldn't have been as cool having a bunch of guys running around dressed like skinny Sumo Wrestlers with guns. That's an image that sticks with you for all the wrong reasons.

Protect your IP Addresses

[jamesh]

And here was me thinking that we'd finally run out of IPv4 addresses and that the storm troopers had been deployed to sort the problem out.

It depends on their contract.

[Aqua OS X]

All in all, it depends on the contract they signed. If this guy signed away his rights, he's screwed... and if he didn't, he probably has a case.

Re:

[adona1]

And if he wins, does that mean he can sue Lucas again for copyright infringment in episodes II & III? That clone armour seems to be a derivative work, even if it was retconned into the franchise :)

He's a lawsuit-crazy bastard...

[Vthornheart]

This isn't the first frivolous lawsuit he's done lately. He tried to sue the pants off of this warehouse company a year ago or so because he kept his storage facility in bad condition and one of his R2D2 props got moldy.

I don't know the details of it, but my grandmother in law works for a sister company of the warehouse that was getting sued. Apparently it was enough that if it hadn't been dismissed, it would've sent them into immediate bankruptcy.

Where he went wrong

[edwardpickman]

It sounds like Lucasfilm may have screwed up and not gotten a contract. That said where the guy screwed up was using original molds. They are technically the property of Lucasfilm since they paid for them. He may have been in his rights reproducing the design but not using the molds. I used to know John Stears back in the early 80s. He told about Lucas getting him to sign over the rights to R2D2 and the land speeder for the promise of more work. Rights up until then had no value so he opted for the addition

Ainsworth was the caster, not the sculptor

[Misagon]

Brian Muir is known as the sculptor of the original Stormtrooper armor, and Nick Pemberton is believed to have sculpt most of the helmet. Andrew Ainsworth's company manufactured the outfit. Of course, there must have been some interaction between these people during the process. Some prototypes were made, and refined. It is possible that Liz Moore (who sculpt C-3PO) was involved, but she died in 1976, so it is difficult to tell.

Andrew Ainsworth's company refined the molds after the production of the first movie to simplify production. It is believed by fans that Ainsworth kept some of the latter molds, which he when setting up his new business in recent years, modified back to produce casts more like the screen-used pieces. Some pieces of his Stormtrooper outfit are recast from pieces made by fans in recent years, who never gave Ainsworth permission to recast their sculpts.

If you want a Stormtrooper helmet and/or armor, then there are other "fan-made" armor that is actually more accurate to the original (recast from original screen-used armor), and also of better build and much cheaper.

Lucasfilm is not going after fans making and selling Stormtrooper armor. They are only going after those who are making a high-profile business out of it, like Andrew Ainsworth.

On the contrary, Lucasfilm is often cooperating with a fan organization called the 501st Stormtrooper Legion [501st.com], which, being the largest costuming club in the world, has a few thousand members owning Stormtrooper costumes. George Lucas himself has appeared at events to meet and greet members and thank them for their appearance. The name "501st Legion" has even entered official canon, given to a group seen in the last movie. Almost all of the Stormtrooper cosplayers in the 501st Legion bought their armor from one of the dozen makers that exist - none of which has any licensing agreement with Lucasfilm. Licensed armor does not exist.

Re:Biter bitten

[TooMuchToDo]

RTFA: A california court ruled in favor or Lucasfilms, but since the designer lives in the UK, Lucasfilms has to sue there. Good luck getting a UK court to go along with the same tort bullshit the US passes off as civil law/justice.

Re:

[TubeSteak]

Good luck getting a UK court to go along with the same tort bullshit the US passes off as civil law/justice.

Well considering that the USA's legal foundation was copied almost wholesale from the UK, maybe you should blame them for the "tort bullshit the US passes off as civil law/justice."

Re:Biter bitten

[cheater512]

The US has had plenty of time to mutilate it.

Just like how you guys have mutilated the English language. :)

As I keep saying...

[absurdist]

You Brits invented the language. We Yanks merely perfected it. ;)

Re:Biter bitten

[dave1791]

The two dialects have diverged in different directions in the past couple of centuries and neither is correct". The inhabitants of Tangier Island, Virginia, supposedly speak with a dialect as close to Elizabethian English as exists anywhere in the world. If anybody can say that their English is true, it is these people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZgw09CG9E [youtube.com]

Re:Biter bitten

[belmolis]

That's a bit too cynical. We don't have all the information here. If Lucas went hired Ainsworth and told him what he wanted and Ainsworth developed the detailed design and the molds, then the basic idea was Lucas's and the design was a work for hire, the rights to which belong to Lucas. It's just like when an engineer designs a chip for Intel - the design belongs to Intel, not the engineer.

It is possible that the arrangment was different, e.g. that the designer came up with the design and offered it to Lucas, in which case the rights would depend on what sort of contract they entered into (that is, whether Ainsworth merely licensed Lucas to use the design or whether he sold the rights outright), but the fact that a court has already ruled in Lucas' favor suggests a scenario like the one above. If so, it isn't a case of the courts screwing the little guy - it is a standard case of work for hire.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be extremely unusual for a costume designer (or art department, or set designer, or special effects model builder or whatever) to work for anything but "for hire" or to be able to claim any ownership of their work afterwards. Since this was the 70's and Star Wars was not expected to be the blockbuster hit most likely the guy did the work for a few thousand bucks. There could always be exceptions, like HR Giger, but that's extremely rare and only when the guy's a big name already and can call hi

Re:

[Jack9]

That's a bit too cynical. We don't have all the information here. If Lucas went hired Ainsworth and told him what he wanted and Ainsworth developed the detailed design and the molds, then the basic idea was Lucas's and the design was a work for hire, the rights to which belong to Lucas.

Even if THAT were the case (which is probably isn't), Ainsworth would still hold the rights to the design. You need a contract stating that the intellectual property is yours, especially when dealing with foreign nationals.

It

Re:

[belmolis]

Er, in reality you have to sign an employment agreement for that to be true, depending on where the agreement is made.

And do you think that either Intel or George Lucas is so ignorant as not to know the law of the jurisdiction in which it operates and arrange the necessary agreements? The fact is that it in many industries designs are routinely set up as work for hire so that they will belong to the employer. We don't know whether Lucas did this, but it is quite possible that he did, in which case he own

Re:

[timmarhy]

who gives a fuck if lucas owns the rights or not? this bloke is probably making less then 100K turnover per year on this little side show he is running. why the fuck does lucas even care if someone else is making such an insignificant profit?

i'll tell you why, because he's a typical hollywood money grubber. sometimes laws are just plain wrong

Re:Biter bitten

[whoever57]

I'm guessing Lucas screwed this guy in the original contract,

According to the UK Daily Telegraph there was no contract: [telegraph.co.uk]

Mr Lucas, who wrote the screenplay and directed the 1977 film, is understood to have hired Mr Ainsworth through intermediaries in 1976, but it is claimed no formal contract was put in place. The designer received just £30,000 for his work.

I wonder if the award in the US was a default judgment?

Re:

[pokerdad]

but it is claimed no formal contract was put in place.

Well, I think its a given who is claiming that.

Its certainly possible this is the case, and 30 years passed might make it more difficult to prove even if they it did exist. But having said that I find it highly improbable that so much money changed hands without a contract.

Re:

[davmoo]

Believe it or not, and even now as well as 30 years ago, quite a bit of business is conducted without formal contracts. And for big dollar amounts. In the UK I can't say for sure, but in most US states, a verbal agreement is binding...but it then boils down to who what to who and when they said it. But as this case points out, its always best to get paper. And that's true even when all parties are "friends"...its amazing how fast money can change that friendship.

Re:

[Miseph]

Of course, this case is hardly a shining example of that last sentence... it's hard to call 30 years "fast" change for a working relationship.

Interesting Defense

[Selanit]

Note that this is design right, not copyright. UK law recognizes a difference between the two. Design right applies to the shapes of things.

I'm interested in Mr. Ainsworth's defense. According to the article, he has two claims in his defense. First, "... that the intellectual property rights to the designs have expired." The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988 specifies that design right (as distinct from copyright) lasts 15 years [opsi.gov.uk] from when the design was first recorded or a finished product fi

Re:Biter bitten

[Duhavid]

So, let me make sure I have this straight....

The Imperial Stormtrooper armour is *not* suing the designer of George Lucas?

Re:

[kylehase]

The Imperial Stormtrooper armour is *not* suing the intelligent designer of George Lucas?

Fixed that for you.

Re:

[king-manic]

I'm sorry, did you even read the summary?

       

George Lucas is suing the designer of the Imperial Stormtrooper armor.

...not the other way around.

You missed the bit where the designer was counter suing.

Re:

[fatalwall]

I have to agree with you here. As a consultant i often subcontract work out and make contracts with these people before the work begins. When they are done making artwork or code that i did not want to make myself the deal is that i own the work. If they wanted the ability to use the work for others i would consider working a deal with them however once the contract has been completed and all the work becomes mine. Same thing here i feel. The biggest part is the base idea came from Lucas. He wouldnt have ev

Re:

[nmb3000]

He was hired to do a job. He created the items to fit Lucas' vision. It wasn't as if he created them and them sold them to Lucas.

How do you know this? I actually RTFA and while I might have missed it, they seemed pretty light on pertinent details like this. I would imagine that it's quite common for a studio to outright purchase prop designs and rights the same way they do pretty much everything else related to a film. If the guy from Weta who created Andúril started selling exact duplicates of the sw

Re:

[L0rdJedi]

Bzzz! Wrongo! Maybe exact replica lightsabers that carry a certain name have to be licensed, but Jeff Parks sells Parks Sabers that are completely non licensed. A lot of his designs look just like the ones from the movies. Lucas tried to sue him before Ep 1 came out and was unsuccessful because he couldn't produce the copyrights.

Everyone here keeps assuming that Hollywood and the Lucas of today is the same as they were back in 1975-76. It was a completely different world back then. Nobody cared about

Re:He was hired to do a job

[Dun Malg]

He was hired to do a job.

The particularities of employment contracts vary. Unless you are privy to the specifics of the agreement, you, an uninformed goof on Slashdot, aren't really in any position to say.

Re:

[corsec67]

The particularities of employment contracts vary. Unless you are privy to the specifics of the agreement, you, an uninformed goof on Slashdot, aren't really in any position to say.

Privy to information? Hah, on /. you are lucky if they even read the article.

Not like it will prevent 100+ comments.

(My take: it will depend on exactly what is written in the contract as to who owns the copyright on the armor.)

Re:

[LynnwoodRooster]

an uninformed goof on Slashdot

Well that's a bit redundant...

Re:He was hired to do a job

[Anonymous Coward]

By default independent contractors under English law own their work. Assuming this guy was contracted rather than employed, unless otherwise specified by a contract he owns copyright.

If, as the article says, Lucas bought the helmets by the unit already manufactured that would imply that the guy was an independent contractor. If the guy was an employee he would have been paid at a flat rate and it would have been irrelevant to him home many Lucas then had manufactured. If you buy a dozen prints of an artist's work that doesn't mean you own the original.

Re:

[wellingj]

You, Sir, deserve some mod points.

Re:

[Neoprofin]

"All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with." Thinking about it again, I don't know if that Clerks quote is Offtopic or Insightful...

Re:

[JamesRose]

He lives in the UK now, but he may have lived in the USA then, in which case, pressumably they'd use the default terms of an american agreement. I doubt if you move countries the terms of a deal that was already done change.

Re:

[wild_berry]

In the UK, designers for hire own their copyrights. They don't own the Design Right (whether registered or unregistered), the person who commissioned the work does. See UK's Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended), and the UK Registered Designs Act 1949 (as amended).

Re:How much

[$RANDOMLUSER]

does it cost to get a girl with a suit like this: http://webzoom.freewebs.com/basementnightclub/Stormtrooper%20Bride.jpg [freewebs.com]

$4,300.00 at last quote.

Re:

[Carthag]

She looks like a bobble-head.

Re:

[kylehase]

Na, I'd prefer the princess Leia's bikini instead.

Damn, while looking for a picture I came across this [usatoday.com]... ruined my whole image.

Damn you google image search!

OW! MY EYES!

[plover]

You bastard!

I can never un-see that now!

Re:

[zippthorne]

Isn't she a little short for a storm trooper?

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

<blockquote>and when he sold the design to Lucas, it stopped being his, end-of-story.</blockquote>
<p>I don't see any mention of him selling the design.</p>
<p>That's the essential question, then: Did he sell the design, or did he just make the costumes to order, without a contract? If the former, Lucas owns them. If the latter, he owns them, though I doubt very much he should really sue Lucas for anything.</p>

Re:

[Tacvek]

I've read above that this guy was paid "just" £30,000 for his work. Now, even if that's adjust for inflation and he was paid less than that, I still wouldn't feel sorry for him. If the only thing you put on your resume for the rest of your life is "Designed Storm Troopers Costume", then your career is made! I'm sure he's been reaping the benefits of his work indirectly ever since. Sure, it's not as much as Lucas himself, but he's gotten his share of the pie. He shouldn't be allowed to sell something that's not his, and when he sold the design to Lucas, it stopped being his, end-of-story.

Technically, he was not an employee, nor did he have any contract. The whole thing hinges on verbal agreements made so long ago neither could possibly remember the details. Under the circumstances any sane court would need to assume no assignment was made in the verbal agreement, but bar the counter-suit under latches. Lucas may well have a valid trademark case though, as the storm-trooper design may be subsumed into to overall storm-trooper visual trademark, but base design itself it almost certainly not

Re:

[Tuoqui]

Patents would have long expired since they're limited to what 20-30 years?

Copyright however is FOREVER... As long as Disney needs to keep extending Mickey Mouse's copyright so he doesnt enter the public domain.