Lucas loses legal battle with UK Stormtrooper armour maker

PGowdy said:
Interesting story. Can't believe the courts sided with that guy tho. Doesn't seem right to me.


From what i have read it kinda is fair, A. Ainsworth has been making paddles for whitewater kayaking for years, and as a paddler i have owned many of his creations.
But the urban legend that he was screwed over by lucas was doing the rounds for years.

In brief it went some thing like this;

star wars arrives and lucas hires prop makers. Ainsworth being one of them.
He gives them some designs mostly based on the drawings of ralph mcquarrie.
The stormtrooper is there but looks nothing like its final design on screen.

Ainsworth takes artist licience and develops the design to what we all know. Thereby improving it and adding an element of his own artist endevaour .

But instead of being given some credit/royalties for the design. he is paid his fee for simply making them.
Imagine if he was a plastic company that pressed the suits from strict designs with no changes allowed.
then his case would be rubbish.

but he made the stormie what it is today and his designs added to the finished product,, so his claim is more creative than simply industrial.

thats the low down i have heard over the years,, its the same with ILM model makers,, they got paid a daily wage and then owned no rights to their iconic creations such as the X-wing and y-wing?

lucas has enough money.
 
Imperial nut said:
but he made the stormie what it is today and his designs added to the finished product,, so his claim is more creative than simply industrial.

thats the low down i have heard over the years,, its the same with ILM model makers,, they got paid a daily wage and then owned no rights to their iconic creations such as the X-wing and y-wing?

lucas has enough money.

But its down to intellectural rights really. They were contracted to make whatever it might be for Lucas or the production and as such the rights of what they create belong to Lucas as per the original contract. Its the same as developers that are paid to create software for Microsoft, they know what they create or programme then belongs to the company not them. I fail to see a difference.
 
I agree. If i were an american film company i would now think twice about employing any british designer/artist to make or design anything for me as in a few years they would be free to market the product themselves. The guy who designed the Nike swoosh got paid a few dollars and never received further payment or rights to the design. Should he now be able to make his own shoes and t-shirts using the swoosh claiming "well i invented it..." Personally i think no.
 
PGowdy said:
I agree. If i were an american film company i would now think twice about employing any british designer/artist to make or design anything for me as in a few years they would be free to market the product themselves. The guy who designed the Nike swoosh got paid a few dollars and never received further payment or rights to the design. Should he now be able to make his own shoes and t-shirts using the swoosh claiming "well i invented it..." Personally i think no.


The 'lady' who designed the Nike swoosh was later paid back admirably by the company in stocks & shares, quite a decent amount if my memory serves me correctly.
 
I can see both sides of it. I agree with copyright law, but I also believe in karma. If a film you paid actors a few dollars to star in makes you a billionaire, give those who helped you get there a bit extra. Lucas is notorious for being a **** to the people who made him and the film, look at the entire cast now, they all loathe him and the films.

I realise that their shitty deals were in the contract, but jeez, review the contract after you've made your billions.
 
Yeah i agree with that but we're talking about the fairness of this ruling. ie. Acrosss the board. This now hjas to apply to all film makers and designers. Even the ones who don't make any money. Lucas is a money grabing ****, no one's denying that. :lol:
 
I'm with the little guy on this one. Plus the film makers still get 15 years of protection the greedy sods. So should have no impact on any decent film makers decision. Assuming I've read the article correctly. :D
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom