In the case of Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth
In the case of Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth, copyright infringement in the form of design paperwork and defenses for the creation of props based on such designs were at issue. The case opened a fresh door for copyright lawsuits from an economic and legal perspective. In addition, the Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth case established a connection between the legal and economic enforcement of a US ruling in the UK. (Solicitors). The case was heard by the UK Supreme Court in July 2011 in accordance with the English Law's powers. According to the English Law, the infringement of the foreign copyright is justiciable in the courts (Bollinger).
The first Star Wars film
The first Star Wars film commenced in 1977 in the United States. However, the conflict between Lucasfilms and Ainsworth began three years before the opening of the film. A group of artists started to make the costumes for a character George Lucas in 1974. The costume involved the clothes for the Imperial Stormtroopers; white attires accompanied by unique helmets for the soldiers. Andrew Ainsworth was hired to create the film costumes to bring about the intended traits of the characters. The costume design was based on the drawings from the other artist. Moreover, the helmets were supposed to be costume apparatus for distinguishing the characters (Bollinger).
In 2004, Ainsworth used the original tools and produced additional pieces
In 2004, Ainsworth used the original tools and produced additional pieces. He sold the Stormtrooper helmets and the full armor costumes to the public in the United Kingdom. Ainsworth also sold some of his products in the United States and earned approximately between $8,000 and $30,000. However, the copyright of the costumes was retained in the United States. The copyright of the costumes belonged to a Californian Corporation and an English Corporation both properties of Lucas. The licenses of the costumes were owned by a Californian Corporate also owned by Lucas. According to the English Courts, all the corporations mentioned earlier were referred to as the Lucasfilms. Lucasfilm sued Andrew Ainsworth in the District Court of California for infringement of the copyright in 2005. The District Court of California gave a ruling of $20M payment to Lucasfilms in 2012. However, Lucasfilm was unsatisfied with the Californian Court ruling and filed a suit but this time not in the United States but the English High Court. In the suit, Lucasfilms challenged the enforcement of the US judgment, and copyright infringement. The court ruled that the US judgment was unenforceable following the lack of personal jurisdiction of the US court over Ainsworth. However, the court determined that the claim for copyright was justiciable in the UK courts implicating that Ainsworth did infringe the Lucasfilms' copyright. After listening to the case, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no copyright attached to the costumes. In the Supreme Court, there were two main issues of the case. First, the court was to establish if helmets in question were subject to the 51st and 52nd chapters of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. Secondly, the Supreme Court had to determine if the United States copyright claims were justifiable within the United Kingdom's court. The Supreme Court argued that since the stormtrooper helmet was not a sculpture, Lucasfilms had no copyright claims over its application (Bollinger).
Court ruling and justification
The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Ainsworth had no physical presence in the United States. Moreover, the enforcement of the US law in English court was only possible if the defendant had the provable physical presence in the foreign territory. In the context of physical presence, the website that was used to market the products was also considered to lack the physical presence in the United States. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed awarding Lucasfilms the damage claims as well as infringement of the copyright in the United Kingdom. The Legality of the ruling was challenged by Lucasfilms who argued that Ainsworth had committed the unlawful crimes according to the United States' Court, the UK courts were obliged to carry out the ruling regardless of if the actions were unlawful in the United Kingdom or not. The UK Supreme Court dismissed Lucasfilm's application by unintended creation of jurisdiction of judgments outside the European Union. Consequently, Ainsworth's appeal against the US ruling that had prohibited him from selling the costumes in the United States was upheld. The UK court argued that although the United States' court had held the matter unlawful, such an act can only be considered if the ruling is made by a court in the United Kingdom.
Dissenting opinions
The dissenting opinion would follow the line of Justice Breyer in the Eldred v Ashcroft case in United Supreme Court. Justice Breyer argued that the copyright laws apply to the public rather than private entities. The copyright laws need to be applied in the promotion of knowledge and learning. Moreover, the laws should support the creation of the incentives that allow the authors to produce creative products. Therefore, the copyright statutes have to eliminate the possible restrictions against dissemination after the expiration of the copyright's duration. The court should have considered if the expected copyright ownership period was exceeded or not (Torremans).
Efficiency of the ruling
The ruling in Lucasfilm v Ainsworth was efficient because it distinguished between the issues that occur within the local environment hence requiring local judgments, and the things that happen outside a country but subject to local judgments. The court emphasized on the localization of copyright. For this reason, the court gave room for the international jurisdiction on matters of the copyright infringement.
Impact of the ruling on effective utilization of resources
On the economic perspective, the ruling was worth; Ainsworth had no any physical attachment to the United States, meaning he was doing all the marketing and selling using online platform. The extensive application of telecommunication such as e-business is a significant driver of any economy. A critical look at the case outlines the necessity of efficient communication and utilization of the power of the internet in promoting business growth. Lucasfilm's copyright was in the design rather than 'object'; meaning, the copyright was only applicable in the United States where there was the physical presence. Localization of the copyright in the ruling was significant in controlling the boundaries for copyright protection. The localization of copyright would assist the local producers to invent as well as invest in creative ideas borrowed from other countries (Solicitors).
Inhibition on voluntary exchange
However, the ruling on the legal context seems awkward. The dismissal of copyright claims for Lucasfilms would be seen as a justification for a crime. According to United States' Court, Ainsworth committed copyright infringement. Therefore, he was barred from selling, and marketing the Stormtrooper helmets in the United States. It was clear that Lucasfilms had not given Ainsworth the authority to produce, sell or market the costumes for his benefits. A critical assessment of the court reveals that Lucasfilms had not voluntarily exchanged their copyright to Andrew Ainsworth (Bollinger).
Effect on future decision makers
Giving reference to Lucasfilms v Ainsworth in the future cases involving copyright infringement would require critical scrutiny of the applicable laws. The Lucasfilm v Ainsworth case gives an insight into differentiating between the local issues and the international cases that are subject to local jurisdiction. The cases related to Lucasfilms v Ainsworth in the future may take the example of the ruling given by the Supreme Court (Bollinger).
Incentives for behavior
The Lucasfilm v Ainsworth opens a new perspective into the operations of the cross-border copyrights and patent laws. The ruling by upholding Ainsworth's plea to continue the selling and marketing of the helmet would purport that his actions were unlawful outside the UK but legal inside the UK. Such a ruling invites the change of the industrial perception of copyrights of international companies. The people would understand it as lawful to copy, produce, sell or market other people's ideas as far as one has no physical attachment within the country concerned (Bollinger).
Unintended consequences
The ruling of the Lucasfilm v Ainsworth case would encourage the producers and investors to engage in copyright infringement outside the local territories. The companies outside the United Kingdom may suffer losses as a result of unauthorized use of their intellectual property in the UK. Moreover, the film and cinema industry may suffer economic losses due to leniency in copyright infringement in the United Kingdom.
Conflict with any law
Following the 1988 Act (Copyright, Patent and Design Act) of the United Kingdom, someone is liable for copyright infringement by direct or indirect actions. By looking at the ruling on Lucasfilms v Ainsworth, the Supreme Court contradicted with the law that permits the protection of the artistic works, registration, fashion, and copyright. Moreover, the ruling contradicted with the provisions under 1886, Berne Convention that sought to give 'national treatment' for the copyright protection. By the term 'national treatment,' the law requires that the copyright protection in the United Kingdom is applicable equally to both locals and outsiders. It would have been expected that the court would consider the significance of the Lucasfilm v Ainsworth case as far as copyright protection is concerned (Bollinger).
Conclusion
In the Lucasfilm v Ainsworth, Lucasfilms was granted the copyright protection by a Californian Court. Consequently, Ainsworth, a former ally of Lucasfilms who was hired to create the costume (helmet) for the film Star Wars was barred from marketing and selling the costumes in the United States. The US court demanded that Ainsworth pay $20 million to Lucasfilms as settlement dues for the loss infringed. However, Lucasfilm lost in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom where the company accused Ainsworth of selling the costumes via the internet. The Supreme Court in the UK did uphold Ainsworth's petition and did not grant Lucasfilms the copyright protection. The ruling was based on the argument that the copyright is a local object that is only applicable where a defendant has the physical presence in the country concerned. The Supreme Court viewed that Ainsworth had no physical presence in the United States. Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that the United Kingdom's court had no obligation to pick judgment from a ruling that occurred in a court outside the European Union.
Works Cited
Bollinger, Kristen Elisabeth. "A New Hope for Copyright: The U.K. Supreme Court Ruling in Lucasfilm Ltd. V. Ainsworth and Why Congress Should Follow Suit." Journal of Intellectual Property Law (2012): 88-94. Print.
Solicitors. "Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth." The Solicitors Group (2009): 2-10. Print.
Torremans, Paul. Research Handbook on Copyright Law. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2016: 36-37. Print.
