Forget The Stormtrooper Costumes, Get Worried About UK Courts Saying They Can Judge US Copyright Law
from the the-dark-side dept
We've covered the legal battle between Andrew Ainsworth and George Lucas for a few years now. If you don't recall, Ainsworth apparently designed the original stormtrooper costumes for Star Wars. He then tried to sell replicas that he made, but Lucas claimed copyright over the outfits. Ainsworth had been consistently winning, and that continued right up to the Supreme Court. The court has ruled in favor of Ainsworth, but the reasoning is a bit convoluted. First, the court still says that he violated US copyright laws -- which we'll discuss below. In this case, that really hasn't been an issue, because earlier courts had ruled the same thing. However, it was deemed meaningless since he didn't have sales in the US (and now refuses to sell to the US). As for the UK, the court said that as a costume, it gets a 15-year copyright (from the date it was marketed), meaning the copyright has now expired. I was unaware that the UK had special 15-year copyrights for certain items.While most folks are focusing on the fact that Ainsworth "won," the whole part about the UK Supreme Court feeling qualified to judge whether or not something is infringing in the US may turn out to be the bigger story:
The decision is important for business because it clears up a long-running controversy over whether U.K. courts can decide if non-U.K. copyrights have been infringed, said Nigel Jones, a lawyer at Linklaters LLP in London.Yes, get ready for copyright tourism lawsuits to go with libel tourism in the UK. In fact, others are now predicting "a flood of copyright lawsuits" are about to be filed in the UK. I'm still at a loss as to why the UK feels that it has any jurisdiction whatsoever concerning copyrights outside of its borders, but I fear that we're going to see a lot of unfortunate lawsuits because of this.
�That uncertainty has now gone,� Jones said. �If you want to sue here, that is good news. If you want to avoid being sued here, it may be less welcome.�
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: copyright, jurisdiction, stormtroopers, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Only lawyers will win this game
So win or lose, you have to pay Nigel Jones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least that was the impression I got from the NPR report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But the judges agreed with Lucasfilm's lawyers � and a lower court � that Ainsworth had violated Lucas's copyright in the United States by selling costumes there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
O wait.. They are talking about an UK citizen and US laws. I've just reached a 'wtf?' moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, the court seemed to feel that copyright is a natural thing, so isn't bound to any one jurisdiction. The UK court is therefore happy to look into issues with copyright law - however the normal issues wrt jurisdiction apply, so the case must have a strong connection to the UK and the UK must be the most appropriate place for the case.
I think... over half the judgment was on this issue and it was rather complex. It may just be that they're saying the US can apply their copyright law to a UK resident if they want to - but possibly only in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think they're warning that if he continues to sell stuff in the US, thus breaking US copyright law, the UK court will be happy to make him stop (as he will be doing something in the UK that is having a direct, illegal effect in the US) but they will not stop him selling stuff here.
Of course, there's nothing stopping Lucasfilm talking to the ICE, getting his .com domain name seized and trying to get him extradited... well, other than his legal team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2008/04/star-wars-costu/
which states:
"While a California court found in favor of Lucasfilm in 2006, awarding $20 million in damages, the legal battle has spread overseas as the film company seeks enforcement of the ruling"
as long as he doesn't sell in the US, they can't touch him. I have a hard time seeing ICE seizing the domain if he doesn't sell in the US. In fact, Lucas could do it on his own with the California ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
juridiction
They are just following the US's examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: juridiction
Boy are the unintended consequences going to hit us really hard, really soon.
On an ironic note, what if this causes software patents to be invalidated since EU doesn't recognize them? etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope not. Because in the United States, copyright is a limited statutory monopoly, and the "natural right" basis for copyright has been firmly rejected by our courts.
Curiously enough, I believe we got that idea from English courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect if you read the actual judgement, there will be a long discussion where the courts points out exactly why they feel they have power to apply foreign laws, probably involving interpreting whatever laws govern what powers the UK courts have, with some clauses from international treaties.
Ultimately, it's the UK courts and UK legislators who have to decide whether courts there can enforce foreign laws, not the country who's laws are being enforced. Of course, their ability to ENFORCE the judgement against a defendant who isn't based in the UK isn't enhanced in any way. If a successful plaintiff wants to recover from a US-based defendant who has no assets in the UK, they're still going to have to convince a US court to enforce the UK judgement.
Maybe someone better acquainted with how US courts decide whether to enforce foreign judgements can shed some light on whether or not this is likely to actually happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, if the US can do it, why couldn't the UK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0015_Judgment.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyrights should only apply to creators
No other "right" is transferable so why do we allow copyrights to be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyrights should only apply to creators
I can't remember, did that "works for hire" issue get resolved one way or another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not overturning copyright, defining what the original copyright was for?
The reason the copyright has been overturned is that the stormtrooper replica's are considered marketing material (which only holds a 15 year copyright) and not a sculture or a piece of art (copyright for that being artist's lifetime + 70 years I believe?).
Also, I believe I read there was nothing written and/or signed by either party regarding reproduction or copyrights, and that it was an "implied" copyright, which is where the type of copyright came under question.
So to sum up, I think it's that the UK feels the copyright wasn't made in the US, at no point was the firm that produced these pieces (of marketing - to cause further discussion) in or registered in the US. The deal to make these was made in the UK, I believe the artwork that inspired the 'Stormtrooper' design was also created in the UK by a UK national. Therefore, if it was art then the copyright stands for the original artist - but he's not bringing the lawsuit - who's from UK, therefore the copyright would be held in the UK. If it's marketing material, as the court ruled, then the copyright has already expired (by a long shot).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not overturning copyright, defining what the original copyright was for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not overturning copyright, defining what the original copyright was for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not overturning copyright, defining what the original copyright was for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not overturning copyright, defining what the original copyright was for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's amazing to watch you tapdance Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's amazing watching you make shit up, coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's all. No made up shit. That would be your job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also: Please illustrate where I have made anything up.
I'll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me: "I am at a loss why you would think this story is about monkey pictures"
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for making things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Caught you. Admit it and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your words, and your IP address, given that the symbol next to you Anonymous Coward is the same. So yes, you did say (incorrectly) that this post was about monkey pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am at a loss why you would think that a potential lawsuit over a monkey picture that you published in the US would be decided based on UK law.
It's amazing to watch you tapdance Mike."
why, look at that, it's got the same AC color, even
i love when people say stupid shit and then later on come along and deny it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lucasfilm sued Ainsworth's company for $20m, when actual damages were more akin to the sub-$50,000 area. The original UK court explained that no, the US decision was not enforcable under UK law.
The Court of Appeal agreed with that decision, explaining the above and citing relevant caselaw (which is over 200 years old, as there is only one known similar case).
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom gave the same reason; that Ainsworth may have violated US copyright law, but NOT UK copyright law, therefore the damage award is unenforcable over in the UK.
Also, I find it interesting that Linklaters are celebrating this, considering they deal in multi-jurisdictional cases as their speciality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He may plead no contest to the US charges and argued that even if he broke US law that law did not apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for the US charges - his company was first sued in 2004 in California, hence the $20k damages award; but as he's UK-based, it didn't change anything, so Lucasfilm sued him here (and lost due to the props not being copyrightable).
I think the court is also suggesting that if he keeps selling stuff in the US (breaking US copyright law) the UK court can step in and stop him, but they won't stop him doing stuff here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jurisdiction
I don't think it does - in fact I think the judge was simply expressing an opionion about the status under US law - much like the US judge expressing an opinion about UK law in the Corel case.
There is no new enforcement here as far as I can see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd be surprised if this is the first time a court has taken the laws of another country into account when it comes to dealing with cross border business disputes. But given that we're all part of the American economic empire anyway what's all the fuss about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforcement
So if a plaintiff sues in the UK, wins and gets a judgement, that's great for him, but the defendant back in America doesn't have to obey the orders of a British judge and pay the plaintiff money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not worried
U.S. Corporations go overseas and obtain judgment from foreign courts.
It's not a violation of the Neutrality Act--they didn't drop bombs on anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overblown
It may also be an effort to spell out why he cannot be extradited if ICE got cute and decided to try even after losing in UK court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Overblown
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Berne Convention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Berne Convention
The term "international" is very imprecise.
But, under U.S. law, the Berne Convention is not a "self-executing treaty"
17 U.S.C. � 104:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but in the UK, since this guy did create them originally, the UK RIGHTLY declared them props, ie... costumes, not artwork and used "OMG" UK law to decide that copyright was expired and he had the RIGHT to sell them,
they recognized the fact in the US they had said he was guilty of violating copyright, as proof of the court case, but it had no bearing on UK law and no bearing on him, as long as he doesn't sell any costumes to the US, which he now will not do
but it is fun to see mike dance around copyright when he doesn't read and understand the court ruling just grabs his soapbox and starts getting "offended" by a another country ruling on US things they have no authority over, wheres your anger for the US pushing its laws on other countries??
lucasfail was trying to make the UK court enforce his US ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember in the USA a treaty is the law of the land, as per the US Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"special 15-year copyrights"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification of the issues
1. Andrew Ainsworth is not and never claimed to be the owner of any copyright in the design of the helmet. The original idea came from George Lucas and this was worked up into a painting by an artist named Ralph McQuarrie, and this in turn was made into a three-dimensional clay model by Mr Nick Pemberton (a freelance scenic artist and prop-maker). This clay model in turn was used with some slight modification by Andrew Ainsworth to vacuum-form the plastic helmets. At no stage was it disputed that, if copyright in the helmet itself did exist, then Mr Lucas would have been the beneficial owner of that copyright.
2. The copyright issue turned on the difference between US and UK law over what was copyrightable. If the helmet was found to be a 'work of sculpture' then it could be protected under UK copyright law. If not then it was probably protected under the UK concept of Design Right which is roughly similar to the US Design Patent. Design Right has the shorter term of protection and as this term had expired by the time Lucasfilm brought the action, there could be no claim under Design Right legislation. The British court found that the helmet was not a work of sculpture; this decision was confirmed by UK Court of Appeal and finally by the UK Supreme Court.
3. The argument about the jurisdiction of the UK courts went differently. As has been said, George Lucas obtained a default judgment in a Californian Court for infringement under US law and was awarded $20M damages. Andrew Ainsworth had no assets in the US so Lucas was unable to get his damages. Lucas therefore came to the UK courts to seek a new judgment for damages. While the court felt it was able decide about copyright under UK law, it considered that it had no power to hear a claim of infringement under US law. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge. The Supreme Court disagreed on this point and said that as the court had in personam jurisdiction over Mr Ainsworth, it could hear a claim based on US law. This decision does not mean that the UK courts claim any jurisdiction over American citizens, but rather that US citizens may bring a claim against a UK citizen in the UK courts over copyright infringement. This latter concept should not be too hard to grasp if you live in the USA because it is not dissimilar to the Diversity Jurisdiction concept where although each state may have slightly differing statutes, an individual resident in New Jersey (for example) can bring a civil suit against a resident of California in a Californian court.
Comment: It remains to be seen what, if anything, Lucasfilm will do now to try a recover damages from Ainsworth for earlier sales of the helmet in the US. It seems unlikely that a UK court would award damages approaching the $20M awarded by the Californian court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No such thing as "UK court"
This was an English court decision. Scotland has always had a completely separate legal system (based on very different principles). Northern Ireland has a distinct legal system, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I agree that Scotland does have a separate legal system, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 applies throughout the UK and therefore decisions in higher courts are binding on the Scottish courts. The UK Supreme Court is just that: the topmost court in the entire judiciary for the UK, just as SCOTUS is the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]