Star Wars – International Episode on Copyright

A “New Hope” for a More Flexible Approach

The Case Lucasfilm This is a very good example of international copyright disputes that addresses the question of whether a national court in Europe (in this case, the United Kingdom) can exercise jurisdiction and authority over a lawsuit against individuals domiciled in that same country for copyright infringements committed outside the European Union. The facts of the case Lucasfilm They're very simple, since this is the famous first Star Wars movie, released in the United States in 1977.

The movie *Star Wars* (later renamed “Star Wars: Episode IV” – ”A New Hope") was a huge success and won an Oscar for Best Costume Design. Part of this success was due to the Imperial Stormtrooper's helmet and armor:

“One of the most enduring memories from the film was that of the Imperial Stormtroopers. These were soldiers clad in white armor, including a white helmet that left no part of the face exposed…The helmet was intended to be used as a prop in the film—not only to identify a character but also to convey something about that character: their loyalty, strength, menace, purpose, and, to a certain extent, likely their anonymity. It was a combination of costume and props.” (excerpt from the trial ruling Lucasfilm, p. 2).

George Lucas's concept for the Imperial Stormtrooper suit (helmet, armor, and other accessories) took shape through drawings and paintings by artist Ralph McQuarrie between 1974 and 1976.

The defendant, Mr. Andrew Ainsworth, transformed the drawings and paintings into three-dimensional costumes. He created several prototypes at Mr. Lucas’s request, and once the final version was approved, 50 copies of the helmet were made for the film. In 2004, Mr. Ainsworth used his original clay models to create new copies of the Imperial Stormtrooper helmet and armor, and ultimately sold them to the public online, earning an estimated profit of between 8,000 and 30,000 (US$) U.S. dollars.

The plaintiff (a group of companies owned by Mr. Lucas, known as Lucasfilm) owns the artistic works related to the Star Wars films and won a favorable ruling against Mr. Ainsworth in California, United States. At the same time, Lucasfilm He attempted to enforce this judgment and filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement under English law. On appeal, two distinct legal issues were raised: (a) the definition of “sculpture” under English copyright law; and (b) the question of whether a British court can exercise jurisdiction over a lawsuit against persons domiciled in England for copyright infringements committed outside the country.

The first question was of great importance to the defendant, as it concerned whether Stormtrooper helmets were considered “sculptures” and, therefore, fell under the United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. The court held that the helmets were not considered sculptures because they served a functional purpose in the film rather than being works of art.

The second question is perhaps more relevant to our discussion regarding jurisdictional issues on the Internet. In this case, Mr. Ainsworth had acknowledged the copyright infringement in the United States; however, he challenged the jurisdiction of the British courts. This case prompted the UK Supreme Court to reconsider previous judicial decisions, including the well-known beginning of Mozambique, which occurred in 1893 in connection with a piece of land registered in Mozambique. In that case, the British courts had ruled that they lacked jurisdiction and authority to hear cases involving disputes over foreign land.

Interestingly, in the ruling on the case Lucasfilm, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court unexpectedly ruled that there are no obstacles preventing British courts from hearing cases involving violations of foreign intellectual property rights, thereby rejecting the long-standing "Mozambique" principle, which is generally invoked in similar intellectual property cases.

British courts can now rule on foreign copyright matters (outside the European Union), thereby establishing jurisdiction im personam regarding the defendant, which undoubtedly represents a shift and offers “new hope” to advocates of a more flexible approach to foreign intellectual property rights. This suggests that other common-law countries might also adopt this new approach.