Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth

Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth was a 2011 court ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.[1][2] The case concerned an intellectual property dispute over the production of Lucasfilm's Stormtrooper costumes by model maker Andrew Ainsworth.[3] Mr Ainsworth argued that the helmets, which he continues to manufacture and sell, were functional props covered only by design right legislation, as opposed to Lucasfilm's assertion that they were sculptures or art which fall under copyright law.[4] Design right protection is retained for 15 or 10 years, copyright protection can last considerably longer.[5]

Lucasfilm v Ainsworth
CourtSupreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameLucasfilm Limited and others (Appellants) v Ainsworth and another (Respondents)
Decided27 July 2011
Citation(s)[2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208

Case background

The Stormtrooper character first appeared in the film Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. The character was conceived by George Lucas, designed by artist Ralph McQuarrie, sculpted by from Liz Moore[6] and Brian Muir,[7] and finally molded from the existing designs by Andrew Ainsworth. Before the case came to court, Ainsworth had sold replica Stormtrooper outfits online for many years causing Lucasfilm to sue for infringement of copyright.[8][4] Ainsworth did not defend the 2006 case in the US courts and defaulted. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California gave summary judgement in favour of Lucasfilm, awarding a USD $20 million compensation.[9]

In the English courts, Lucasfilm was represented by Michael Bloch QC and Jonathan Sumption QC.[10]

Court ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the Stormtrooper helmets could not be considered a sculpture for the purposes of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. On the issue of the justiciability of a foreign copyright claim, the court ruled that providing that there is in personam jurisdiction over a defendant, an English court does have jurisdiction in this area. On this point, the case was distinguished from British South Africa v Companhia de Mocambique,[11] that expressed the general principle that English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action to determine title, where claims applied to foreign intellectual property rights.[10]

As part of their conclusions on the justiciability question, Lord Walker and Lord Collins stated:[12]

We have come to the firm conclusion that, in the case of a claim for infringement of copyright of the present kind, the claim is one over which the English court has jurisdiction, provided that there is a basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, or, to put it differently, the claim is justiciable. It is clear that much of the underpinning of the Moçambique rule and the decision in Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [13] has been eroded. All that is left of the Moçambique rule (except to the extent that it is modified by the Brussels I Regulation) is that there is no jurisdiction in proceedings for infringement of rights in foreign land where the proceedings are “principally concerned with a question of the title, or the right to possession, of that property".[2]:at [106]

They went on further to state:

The basis for what remains of the rule was said by the House of Lords in the Moçambique case to be that controversies should be decided in the country of the situs of the property because the right of granting it was vested in “the ruler of the country” and in the Hesperides case to be the maintenance of comity and the avoidance of conflict with foreign jurisdictions. It is possible to see how the rationale of the Moçambique rule can be applied to patents, at any rate where questions of validity are involved.[2]:at [107]

gollark: If you have a neural interface that is.
gollark: No hazmat suit can save you.
gollark: What's computer 142? Weird.
gollark: What?
gollark: What *is* computer 0 anyway?

See also

References
  1. "The Supreme Court Press Summary" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov.uk. 2011-07-27. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
  2. Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, Supreme Court (UK).
  3. "George Lucas defeated by Star Wars helmet man Andrew Ainsworth". Metro.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
  4. "The Lucasfilm empire strikes out". Toronto: theglobeandmail.com. Retrieved 2011-07-31.
  5. "Star Wars prop maker wins right to sell Stormtrooper helmets in UK". London: Telegraph. 2011-07-27. Retrieved 2011-07-30.
  6. DeBord, Jason (March 16, 2011). "Facebook Hosts Ongoing Public Debate Over Original Sculptor Credit for Star Wars Stormtrooper". OriginalProp.com. Retrieved September 9, 2011.
  7. DeBord, Jason (June 24, 2008). "Star Wars "Prototype" Stormtrooper Helmets". OriginalProp.com. Retrieved September 1, 2011.
  8. "Judgement: Lucasfilm Limited and others (Appellants) v Ainsworth and another (Respondents)" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov.uk. Retrieved 2011-07-31.
  9. "Lucasfilm Ltd. Wins Major Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Star Wars Stormtrooper Pirate" (Press release). Lucasfilm, Ltd. October 11, 2006. Archived from the original on September 10, 2011. Retrieved September 1, 2011.
  10. "Judgement: Lucasfilm Limited and others (Appellants) v Ainsworth and another (Respondents)" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov.uk. Retrieved 2011-07-31.
  11. British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602, House of Lords, (England and Wales).
  12. Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [105].
  13. Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd [1906] HCA 88, (1906) 3 CLR 479 (20 March 1906), High Court (Australia)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.