Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?

from the the-force-is-not-strong-with-this-one dept

Wed, Jul 7th 2010 11:37am — Mike Masnick

Consumerist points us to an odd story, where George Lucas has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Wicked Lasers, saying that the company's Pro Arctic Laser is too similar in design to the infamous lightsaber from the Star Wars flicks. But here's where it gets a little odd. Wicked Lasers claims that it doesn't market the product as a toy and has never suggested or marketed it as being anything like a lightsaber. In fact, it appears that Lucas' complaint is that blogs like Gizmodo and DailyTech have referred to it as some form of "real life lightsaber," and that this is somehow the company's fault. As for the similarities, well, below is a marketing photo of the Pro Arctic alongside a photo from someone who's apparently collecting all of the lightsabers used in the Star Wars movies. There may be some loose similarities, but does this mean that no similar handles could ever be used on a laser-like device? The Pro Arctic (not a toy) laser from Wicked Lasers

Some lightsabers from various Star Wars movies (courtesy of OohYeah Zone)

I guess the argument is that if blogs are calling it a "lightsaber," that many people will make the similar leap. But that reasoning also seems to lead to troubling conclusions. Would it mean that no one could actually create a "lightsaber-like" device in reality without getting approval from George Lucas? That doesn't seem right...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: george lucas, lasers, lightsabers
Companies: lucasefilm, wicked lasers

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:40am

Hilariously, George Lucas doesn't even know what Lightsabers are supposed to be. I think they stopped being "Laser weapons" half a decade ago, and are probably jumping between other various Sci-Fi voodoos as we speak.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:43am

How is that handle different from any other fancy flashlight handle?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:43am

Hmm...
One question: does the fact that blogs and members of the public so quickly associated the two give credence to consumer confusion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:44am

"But that reasoning also seems to lead to troubling conclusions..."

What I find troubling is that because Lucas has a copyright on specific instances of imaginary swords based on light, that he thinks he owns the entire idea of swords based on light.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:44am

Anyone who gets rich goes insane with power.
The trend to fantasy "creators" ruling the real world must be *stopped*.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:45am

Lucas' issue is going to be that there is not one "lightsaber." Every one looks different and there are dozens of them (to hunderds between the novels, movies, games, comics, cartoons, etc.), so how do you come up with a test for what looks too much like a lightsaber. It's clearly not a direct copy although it is fundamentally similar is overall shape.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:48am

A light-saber is a fictional weapon. A laser is a real object. There is no point where the two intersect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:48am

Yeah, it looks like a lightsaber
Let's face it. It looks a fair bit like a lightsaber. And it is a genuinely powerful laser. So the comparison is obvious. But it doesn't copy any specific Lucas arts design and the original lightsabers were made out of old press camera flash handles. Did Lucas ever pay Graphlex for infringing on their design?

http://www.fx-sabers.com/forum/index.php?topic=5996.0

So I'd say the Pro Arctic Laser looks like a Graphlex flash handle. "Lightsabers" are derivative works not original creations. And I, for one, do not confuse the the Pro Arctic Laser with the Lucas Arts trademark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:48am

Re:
Well yes, things that are hand held share common conformations being that people have similar hands. A regular laser pointer or even a pencil can be said to share a similar conformations. So does a sword. So what? So now we can't use the conformation of the hand with certain types of weapons?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:49am

Re:
He will claim it looks like one of the hundreds of previously un-pictured light-sabers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:51am

Re: Hmm...
I think that "consumer confusion" would only apply in the case of a trademark, whereas the C&D letter invokes copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:51am

I'm not one for the intricacies of copy right law, but just a cursory analysis of the two images makes them look pretty similar. I don't know why Wicked Lasers designed the way it did, but the design certainly seems like it takes elements from the typical lightsabre design.

Whether that means anything, I have no clue, but I at least would acknowledge that the two look similar (and I imagine, unnecessarily so). As another commenter already noted, its clearly created some confusion online with a large number of people immediately comparing the two, despite the rather different uses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 11:57am

Re:
"created some confusion online with a large number of people immediately comparing the two"

It has not created any confusion. There is not a single person on this planet who was actually confused into thinking that this laser is in fact an actual Star Wars lightsaber. The "large number of people" were actually only a few bloggers making an analogy between them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tony, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:03pm

What about Star Trek?
Does this mean that Paramount can go after flip-phone makers for looking like a TOS communicator? Or maybe go after Apple for iphones and ipads looking and functioning like the PADD?

WSFS should revoke his Hugo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:04pm

A legal battle over this would be disastrous for whoever even raised the claims...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:05pm

Re: Re: Hmm...
Well, according to the CNN article, the C&D was sent to protect their trademark....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re:
It has not created any confusion.

This is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue, so I don't think that consumer confusion is relevant. I think the only thing that Lucas would have to prove is whether the laser infringes on his copyright. This angle isn't without its own issues, but as far as I understand, consumer confusion isn't a criteria for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
I based my comment on this statement from the article...

"It is apparent from the design of the Pro Arctic Laser that it was intended to resemble the hilts of our lightsaber swords, which are protected by copyright ... ," said the letter, dated last month and provided to CNN by Wicked Lasers.

The reference to trademark is actually by the CEO of Wicked Lasers, not by Lucas...

"They're a big company that needs to protect their trademarks. Maybe they're having to look like they're protecting their trademark in case they need to [protect it again] later."

Let's hope that the lawyer that he hires doesn't also confuse trademark with copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
M Type, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:15pm

Re:
Did the Roddenberry estate get comped for cellphone design based on Star Trek's communicator gadgets?

And yeah, as someone said above, did flashlight designers get comped by Lucas?

Can you even get comped for something that doesn't actually exist? I could understand if it was a real working, um, sword of light thing...not for use by kids...of course...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
redwall_hp (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:19pm

Is Graflex still around? Maybe they should sue Lucas. I think Mr. Lucas's lightsabers look a bit similar to certain flash guns: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=graflex+flash+lightsaber The real Star Wars geeks among you should be able to figure out why... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeHilarius (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:25pm

I like the idea of holding companies liable for the comments of bloggers. Mike compares the major record labels and movie studios to buggy whip manufacturers all the time. Maybe Jedediah's Buggy Whip (http://www.jedediahsbuggywhip.com/) should sue EMI for creating brand confusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
"This is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue"

I never said it was either. I was just responding to something an ignorant Anonymous Coward wrote.

And BTW, the CNN article linked above does mention trademark, although almost certainly erroneously. Laypeople can never get copyrights, trademarks, and patents right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:31pm

Re:
As another commenter already noted, its clearly created some confusion online with a large number of people immediately comparing the two, despite the rather different uses.

Comparing the two does not mean there is confusion. No one picks up one of these lasers and thinks it's a lightsaber or associated at all with George Lucas.

We recently talked about the FAA approving flying cars and lots of news articles compared it to the flying cars in the Jetsons. Does that mean there's confusion? I don't think so...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:31pm

Re: Hmm...
One question: does the fact that blogs and members of the public so quickly associated the two give credence to consumer confusion?

Only if consumers think they're actually buying an official lightsaber.

Comparing the two is not a sign of confusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dr. Poop, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:34pm

Lucas is Jabba
Lucas is a dbag.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:34pm

Re:
It is kinda obvious that the hand-me-down lightsaber Luke first got was just one of those with a few added bits. I always thought it was kind of an odd shape considering how all the others are.

As for the pro arctic, I always thought it was based off of the lightsaber, but I never actually thought it was official. I guess it being based on Graflex makes more sense (looks more like it).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:37pm

Grips
You know, now that I look at the original lightsaber handle designs, they bear a striking resemblance to grips on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle.
Yeah, I know, Lucas never marketed them as motorcycles but I think the full wrath of HD should be brought to bear...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:38pm

The letter calls the company's newest laser "a highly dangerous product with the potential to cause blindness, burns and other damage to people and/or property."

Are they going to try banning lighters next?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:40pm

Re: What about Star Trek?
Along those lines, what about any concept a sci-fi writer comes up with that someday becomes technically possible? Say we get matter to energy transmission worked out, or warp drives become feasible, does that mean Roddenberry's estate can sue the first company that brings it to market for copyright infringement?

That's all about promoting science and the usefull arts I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re:
Kids can use them if they have enough mediclorians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:42pm

Re:
The letter calls the company's newest laser "a highly dangerous product with the potential to cause blindness, burns and other damage to people and/or property."

It's a 5W laser. It can permanently blind someone at a mile if it hits their eyes for more than a quarter of a second. I'm pretty sure looking at the dot it makes on a matte wall at a few feet will blind you. It burns skin instantly.

It *is* dangerous. I can't wait for the reports of tons of kids with $200 going blind, or blinding drivers on the highway.

PS- I really want one, but would probably blind myself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 12:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
And BTW, the CNN article linked above does mention trademark, although almost certainly erroneously.

This is probably what you meant, but to clarify, the article does mention trademark, but in a quote from the Wicked Lasers CEO. So, CNN accurately quoted someone who erroneously referenced trademark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re:
Comparing the two does not mean there is confusion. No one picks up one of these lasers and thinks it's a lightsaber or associated at all with George Lucas.

But the C&D letter invokes copyright, not trademark, so it's not about the subjective idea of whether the average consumer would be confused or think that the laser was being the sold by Lucas, but whether there are enough objective similarities between the laser and a lightsaber. Right?

We recently talked about the FAA approving flying cars and lots of news articles compared it to the flying cars in the Jetsons. Does that mean there's confusion? I don't think so...

Right, but what if the flying car also looked very similar to the Jetsons flying car? I think that would be a better analogy. Lucas isn't suing all makers of lasers, just the one that made a laser that most people would agree looks like a lightsaber.

(BTW, I'm not saying that Lucas should win. As another person mentioned, I think that Wicked Lasers can make a case that the form of the laser has more to do with the human hand than with an effort to infringe on Lucas' copyright. Wasn't there some story about chocolate bunnies that referenced this principle?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lapsed Romulan, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:21pm

Re: Re: Re:
Where are my dilithium crystal-powered flying cars?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yakko Warner, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:24pm

Same story, different actors
ThinkGeek and the National Pork Board, where "The Other White Meat" was only used in links *to* ThinkGeek's "Unicorn Meat", not on their actual (fictional) product page itself.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0934489897.shtml

The only difference there is, the sue-er has the real product, and the sue-ee has the fake one...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:34pm

Re: Yeah, it looks like a lightsaber
Agreed and well put. It surely does look like a lightsaber, and just as surely what the manufacturer intended.

That being said, unless Lucas is in the actual-really-real lasers business, his copyright/trademarks have not been harmed or even infringed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
britmic, 7 Jul 2010 @ 1:57pm

graflex
I find it highly amusing that the original lightsaber props were nothing more than '40s camera flash handles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:08pm

Screw Lucas Film, as if Goddddd wasn't rich enough. I will take the new Laser and tell Lucas to fire up his toy light saber and see who wins the day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:19pm

Re:
No, it's not. Unless this thing has a range of about a meter.

Gods forbid that someone makes a *real* lightsaber and gets sued by this clown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:31pm

Re:
That's it! The CEO of Wicked Lasers and Lucas need to duel. Lucas with his lightsaber of choice and WL's CEO with the Pro Arctic Laser. Winner takes ownership of the other's company stock options.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 2:40pm

Idea vs Implementation
here is a prime example when you give some one control over an idea (plasma sword). The Wicked Laser actually cuts, the plasma sword is a white stick on a piece of camera equipment and then drawn over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon Snow (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 3:58pm

Emperor Lucas
I saw an interview with Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia) a few years ago... She said that Lucas controls everything so tightly that she has to send him $5 every time she looks in the mirror.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 4:53pm

If this ever gets dragged to court I can see how Lucas is going to make his arguments.

"You don't need to think I'm being vexatiously litigous..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E, 7 Jul 2010 @ 5:52pm

I just think the whole thing is hysterical. Cue, copy sue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:45pm

So if I patent a lightsaber, can George Lucas make another movie without my permission?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lonewriter (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 6:46pm

Lucas is greedy
I love his movies but come on, it's a real woreking laser, not a movie prop. I think the courts should throw out the suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:02pm

Re: Re:
Hmmm...did you know that fiber optics networks can blind you too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 7 Jul 2010 @ 8:20pm

Re:
They's meh-di-chlu-rean shooters, don'cha know?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2010 @ 10:50pm

"These are not the light sabers you were looking for. He can go about his business..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse, 8 Jul 2010 @ 2:34am

Re: Re:
Actually, it's a
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:16am

Re: Re:
Wait...that wasn't the Jetson's car? Figures...I have to go cancel my order now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 8 Jul 2010 @ 4:38am

Lucas Does Have A Valid Point, Even If It Is Not Intellectual Property
I think there's something to be said for George Lucas's position. I would agree with The Infamous Joe (#31) about these being actually dangerous objects, though I find the laser to listed as 1 watt instead of 5 watts (not a very great difference, comparable, say, to the difference between 22-cal-long-rifle and 9-mm-parabellum rounds).

The kind of laser one uses in a laboratory comes in a more or less rectangular metal box, for the obvious good reason that you can set it on the bench, and it will stay there, instead of rolling away. Likewise, such a laser is likely to have threaded screwholes, mounting flanges, etc., so that one can conveniently build it into an apparatus by more precise methods than simply taping it down. This Pro Arctic Laser would appear to be manifestly packaged as a toy, with lots of nonfunctional decor. It doesn't have any sighting mechanism. It is obviously intended to be waved around wildly. This laser would appear to be rated at a watt, in the same range as the most advanced disk burners, but it is not encased in a protective housing. It would appear to fall into safety class IV, the most dangerous class, and in fact, the manufacturer admits as much. By comparison, a laser pointer is only rated at a milliwatt or less.

The laser is advertised in the following terms, on the manufacturer's website, "this laser possesses the most burning capabilities of any portable laser in existence. That's why it's also the most dangerous laser ever created... *Supplies are extremely limited as voluntary and regulatory restrictions increase the difficulty to purchase Class IV portable lasers." In other words, the makers of the underlying laser device try to restrict sales to legitimate users, such as the makers of disk drives and optical cable modems. The web page has the split personality of a cigarette advertisement, one part, "real cooool," and the other part, "... the Surgeon General warns..."

Toy guns are made in bright plastic colors so that they won't be mistaken for the real thing, and children carrying them will not get shot by mistake, in what one might call "mistaken self-defense." If Glock began manufacturing automatic pistols designed to look like toys, I am sure that Mattel and Hasbro would get very upset. George Lucas's complaint does not exactly resolve to copyright or trademark, but that does not mean it is not legitimate. Presumably Lucas's proper recourse would be to lobby for suitable consumer product safety standards for Class IV lasers, ie. a rectangular package capable of being bolted down, etc. If toy Lightsabers cannot instantly be distinguished from dangerous weapons, then Lightsabers will have to be banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arc tic_Series-96-37.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 Jul 2010 @ 11:24am

Re: Lucas Does Have A Valid Point, Even If It Is Not Intellectual Property
I find the laser to listed as 1 watt instead of 5 watts (not a very great difference

The latter is five times as powerful! To put it in gun terms, an equivlant change would be a 5 gram slug compared to a 25 gram slug at the same muzzle velocity. If I had to get hit by one, I know which I'd pick. But that's all relatively off topic anyway.

Presumably Lucas's proper recourse would be to lobby for suitable consumer product safety standards for Class IV lasers, ie. a rectangular package capable of being bolted down, etc.

What if there is a legitimate use for a portable handheld class IV laser?

If toy Lightsabers cannot instantly be distinguished from dangerous weapons, then Lightsabers will have to be banned.

Are realistic toy guns illegal? I could not find any evidence that they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 8 Jul 2010 @ 1:23pm

Re: Re: Lucas Does Have A Valid Point, Even If It Is Not Intellectual Property
Regulation of Realistic Toy Guns:

Here are some sources. I gather the Consumer Product Safety Commisions got a number of major manufacturers and retailers to drop realistic toy guns back in 1994, mostly by "jawboning." Firms like Toys'R Us don't really want to push back against this kind of regulation. It's not really very difficult to comply with, given time, and people buying toys for children are likely to see the logic.

http://airsoftgun.blogspot.com/2007/06/increasingly-realistic-toy-airsoft-guns.html

a proposed federal law died in committee in 2007:

http://www.therpf.com/f9/us-ban-replica-toy-firearms-28031/

But in New York, they have gone further:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/838toyguns.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2010 @ 6:52am

George Lucas is just an old fart. He has no idea what hes talking about. What a shmuck!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 10 Jul 2010 @ 6:48pm

This is pretty open and shut. George Lucas never created a lightsaber. You could say that he created the idea for a lightsaber, but if he had a patent then it would have ran out over a decade ago, so anybody can make toys like this if they wanted to. He might own the trademark on "lightsaber" but this company isn't even calling it a lightsaber.

If you make a device that resembles a lightsaber, then people will compare your device to lightsabers, just like people compare Coke and Pepsi, generic tissue with Kleenex, and Wal-Mart brand mouth wash with Listerine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2010 @ 4:25pm

Re: What about Star Trek?
With tricorders, at least, Gene Roddenberry specifically allowed in his contract for companies that are able to create functioning technology to use the name to describe it.

Obviously, this is where he and Lucas differ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 2:36am

Re:
But if they did, what a wonderful sound they'd make!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 1:42pm

Everyone keeps tossing the topic around of does it or does it not look like a light saber, and basing judgment on that concept alone.

The real core of this argument shouldn't be about how quantitatively it looks like a light saber, but on how much right Lucas' copyright has.

My opinion is that, no, Lucas doesn't have a case here. You can't copyright an entire design concept or style. It would be like implying that one person holds a copyright on all that encompasses the Steampunk style.

The laser is obviously designed to follow a Science Fiction stylization, but Lucas doesn't have a copyright that he can enforce on any science fiction looking hand held device.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
laser pointer, 27 Apr 2015 @ 6:58pm

only used Class IIIa laser pointers
I have few chances to use high powered lasers, but only using Class IIIa laser pointer in my lab experiment.
I am quite enjoyed with charming beam emitting from those of powerful lasers at long working distance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]