Lucas Film Ltd v Ainsworth, 2009 FSR 2, EWCA Civ 1328
Citation:Lucas Film Ltd v Ainsworth, 2009 FSR 2, EWCA Civ 1328
Rule of thumb: If there has been a movie, can you manufacture ‘replicas’ of the different weapons and gadgets used in it? As a general rule, yes, although they cannot be identical though still extremely similar, unless these have been registered as designs.
Background facts:
Parties argued:
Judgment:
This was a case that gave an insight into the interface between copyright and designs, and when the lines between them can be unclear, with people sometimes needing to register designs in order for their ideas to be protected. The facts of this case were that replicas of all of the different weapons, props and costumes for a Star Wars film were replicated. These did not state to be official replicas but were obviously similar. The Court held that these were not sculptures, did not have automatic copyright protection, and that without other registered rights then replicas could be produced. Anyone who creates objects like this for a film has to register these designs in their own name in order to retain rights to them. 8 different factors were taken into account by the Judge cumulatively in considering whether an object qualified as a sculpture or not – (i) the normal meaning of word, (ii) it could apply to things in everyday life, (iii) the core historical image of a scultpture was the starting point and it was important not to get too far away from this, (iv) the quality of the work was not important, but the intrinsic nature of the object was more important, (v) not all objects are sculptures – there has to be special qualification in order to be a sculpture rather than a standard object, (vi) it should be visually appealing and this should largely be the original purpose of it, (vii) as long as the original purpose was to be visually appealing then if it had a practical use then this was not important, (viii) not all objects carved out of wood and stone are sculptures if they veer more towards being functional rather than attractive, ‘the multi-factoral approach... is... preferred... not... highly crafted models designed to appeal to the collector but which might be played with by his children. These are mass produced as aplitic toys. They are no more works of sculpture than the helmet and the armour which they produced’.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.