Imperial Storm Troopers Skirmish in Latest IP Battle 261
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Correct! (Score:4, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ungrateful Lucas? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ungrateful Lucas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ungrateful Lucas? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, hell. *googlegooglegoogle*
I was right.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ungrateful Lucas? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if there was already concept art [df.lth.se]?
Re:Ungrateful Lucas? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
The thing you seem to have missed is that this guy designed the _original_ stormtrooper costumes for the first film.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like I RTFA'd until after that first comment anyway. Heh.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For better or worse I think that Jar Jar Binx is more memorable.
mmmm
Does anybody know what the armor does? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks kinda
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does anybody know what the armor does? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does anybody know what the armor does? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who could ever forget Jar-Jar? He was sure memorable!
Why pay 3600$ fo this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cue obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Whats in the contract? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm waiting... (Score:4, Funny)
mod parent funny! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get a class action together for breach of trust? I trusted Lucas not to ruin my childhood...
not really IP (Score:2)
hollywood accounting (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Laches (Score:2)
why? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Protect your IP Addresses (Score:2)
It depends on their contract. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's a lawsuit-crazy bastard... (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Ainsworth was the caster, not the sculptor (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Biter bitten (Score:5, Funny)
Just like how you guys have mutilated the English language.
As I keep saying... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Biter bitten (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZgw09CG9E [youtube.com]
Re:Biter bitten (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
i'll tell you why, because he's a typical hollywood money grubber. sometimes laws are just plain wrong
Re:Biter bitten (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting Defense (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
The Imperial Stormtrooper armour is *not* suing the designer of George Lucas?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Privy to information? Hah, on
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: (Score:2)
Well that's a bit redundant...
Re:He was hired to do a job (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How much (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:2)
I can never un-see that now!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
<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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Copyright however is FOREVER... As long as Disney needs to keep extending Mickey Mouse's copyright so he doesnt enter the public domain.