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."

Comments

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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?

[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.