It was announced yesterday that Andrew Ainsworth, a prop designer from Twickenham, had emerged the victor of a seven year long legal fight against one of the world's best recognised movie moguls. A Stormtrooper helmet is not sculpture. It is a functional work, not an artistic one and therefore cannot be protected by copyright. So far, so predictable. While the helmet's non-sculpture status has received a lot of comment, the intention behind the author of the design drawings was clear. It was not to create a sculpture - it was to create a design for a prop to be used in the first Star Wars film. The fact that the helmet was striking in design and had some aesthetic appeal does not alter this.
The ostensible David vs Goliath aspects of the copyright decision (not to mention some highly questionable Star Wars puns, which I shall do my best to avoid) overshadow the very real legal implications of this case. To understand these implications, one must appreciate that there were two issues to be decided by the UK Supreme Court. The first was whether UK copyright could be used to prevent the sale of the Stormtrooper helmets. The second, and more far-reaching, was whether it is possible to sue in the UK courts for infringement of US copyright - as the helmets are protected by US copyright, which differs somewhat to UK copyright.
The decision on this second issue is the surprising one. The Supreme Court overturned The Court of Appeal's decision and held that actions for breach of foreign copyright could be brought in the UK Court. This goes against previous case law on the subject and breaks new ground in the field of intellectual property rights, which are, by their very nature, territorial in scope.
What this means going forward is that it will be possible to bring proceedings in the UK courts for infringement of copyright (and, it seems certain, other unregistered intellectual property rights) under the laws of any country in the world, so long as the defendant is based in the UK. There are a number of reasons why claimants might want to do this:
English actions might be quicker to pursue than an action in, say, India.
In England, a successful party can recover its legal costs from the losing party - this is in contrast to US law, where the general principle is that each side bears its own costs.
Court actions in England are generally cheaper than in the US.
The English legal system has a strong reputation globally, with the independence of the judiciary from the State a sacrosanct principle. It might therefore be considered preferable to the legal systems of some other countries where the outcome might be more subject to the vagaries of State influence, intrinsic bias against foreign claimants and even bribery.
To say this will open the floodgates would be an exaggeration, though, as the Supreme Court did leave one vital stone unturned. It declined to comment on whether UK courts could hear cases relating to the validity of IP rights registered in countries outside the EU (it is already clear that, within the EU, such cases should be brought in the member state where the right is registered). Clearly, it would be helpful for the Supreme Court to have been more forthcoming on these issues.
And what of Mr Ainsworth? Is his battle really over?
Ainsworth had been found to have infringed US copyright in a US court. The reason Lucasfilm brought the claim to the UK was that Ainsworth's assets are located there - an English Court's judgment, unlike a US Court's judgment, can be easily enforced against those assets. On copyright, Ainsworth won. The Supreme Court ruled the Stormtrooper helmets were not protected by UK copyright and that Ainsworth was and is free to manufacture and sell them in the UK. However, given the Supreme Court's decision on the second issue, Lucasfilm could, provided they have the appetite given the bruising experience of the last seven years, sue him again in the UK, this time for infringement of its US copyright related to US sales of his Stormtrooper helmets.
Whether you see Ainsworth or Lucasfilm as the Darth Vader of this piece, one thing is certain: the Supreme Court has left this case open for a sequel.