Film is art, props are not: Designer wins UK legal fight with Lucasfilm over Stormtrooper helmets

Not all bad guys wear black hats. That was the lesson an entire generation learned from the white uniform and helmeted Stormtroopers introduced in 1977’s sci-fi epic Star Wars. Now it appears the designer of the iconic helmet isn’t a bad guy either, at least, not according to the Supreme Court in Great Britain.

Stormtrooper at Phoenix Comic Con 2011

Britain’s Supreme Court upheld the decision of two lower courts, ruling that “…it was the Star Wars film that was the work of art, that Mr. Lucas and his companies created. The helmet was utilitarian in the sense that it was an element in the process of production of the film.” Accordingly Andrew Ainsworth, whose vacuum molding skills helped create the iconic look, was not violating copyright laws in the United Kingdom when he created, using the original models and tools, or sold replicas of the helmets to fans and collectors. In other words, Ainsworth can continue to make and sell the replicas, at least within the U.K., without Lucas’ permission or a licensing agreement with Lucasfilm.

Although the Supreme Court of Britain found that the replicas did not violate British copyright laws, the Court did agree with the ruling of California courts that replica uniforms made by Ainsworth did violate U.S. copyright laws. Further, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. copyright laws were enforceable within the U.K. with respect to activities occurring beyond Britain’s borders. Ainsworth maintains that while he sells the replicas online, he does not sell in the States.

Lucasfilm, the organization who virtually pioneered movie merchandising, was understandably disappointed by the split ruling, issuing the following statement:

“Today, the U.K. Supreme Court issued a split ruling in the copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Lucasfilm involving the Stormtrooper costumes from Star Wars. The Court agreed that Mr. Aisworth’s replica costumes infringed on Lucasfilm’s U.S. copyrights, and ruled that those rights are enforceable in the U.K. with respect ti activities outside the U.K. This is the first time the Supreme Court has Ruled on an issue of great commercial an legal importance, namely the jurisdiction of the courts in the U.K. over infringements taking place abroad. The judgement is an important step in modernizing U.K. law and bringing it into line with the E.U.

“The decision unfortunately also maintains an anomaly of British copyright law under which the creative and highly artistic works made for use in films — which are protected by the copyright laws of virtually every other country in the world — may not be entitled to copyright protection in the U.K. Lucasfilm remains committed to aggressively protecting its intellectual property right relating to Star Wars in the U.K. and around the globe through any and all means available to it, including copyright, trademark, design patents and other protections to three dimensionalartistic works.”

U.S. Supreme Court ruling give video games constitutional rights

“This is a historic and complete when for the First Amendment and the creative freedom of artists and storytellers everywhere.  Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what we have always known — that free speech protections apply every bit as much to video games as they do to other forms of creative expression like books, movies and music,” said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which represents the U.S. computer and video game industry. “The Court declared forcefully that content-based restrictions on games are unconstitutional, and that parents, not government bureaucrats, have the right to decide what is appropriate for their children.”

The Courts landmark 7 – 2 decision came in the case Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association/Entertainment Software Association. At issue was a 2005 California statute restricting the sale and rental of computer and video games based on content.  California argued that the state had a compelling government interest in the law and that the proposed remedy was the narrowest, or least restrictive, means of furthering that interest. The ESA argued that the statute presented unconstitutional limitation on expression. The Supreme Court agreed with the ESA.

“California’s effort to regulate violent video games is the latest episode in a long series of failed attempts to censor violent entertainment for minors,” Justice Anotnin Scalia said, writing for the majority. “Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply.”

The Court’s decision underscored the constitutional protections for video games, developers and video game industry artists.

United States Supreme Court Building

Citing may of the same reasons cited by lower courts in striking down the California statute and other similar statutes, the Supreme Court held that:

• Video games contain expression that is protected as much as the best of literature.
• California had not shown that video games were harmful to minors.
• Less restrictive means of achieving the state’s intended goal of protecting children from violent content exists, notably in the form of rating systems.
• Parents, not the government, should bear the primary responsibility for determining what games their children play.

The Entertainment Software Association is the U.S. association dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies publishing interactive games for video game consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the Internet.

“We are very gratified that our arguments — and those of over 180 other groups and individuals from across the ideological spectrum — were heard in this case,” Gallagher said. “The Court has now definitively held that legislative attempts to restrict video game content will be struck down.

“It is time for elected officials to stop wasting time and public funds seeking unconstitutional restrictions on video games,” he continued. “Instead, we invite them to join with us to raise awareness and use of highly effective tools that already exist to help that parents choose games suitable for their children.”

JK Rowling faces Wizard Court battle over inspiration

The Trustee of the Estate of Adrian Jacobs, the late English author of The Adventures of Willy the Wizard, has announced the payment of 50,000 sterling to the court enabling the estate’s appeal and copyright breach lawsuit against Harry Potter author JK Rowling and her publishers, Bloomsbury, to proceed. The amount, ordered by the English Court of Appeal, is less than have the amount originally asked for by Rowling’s lawyers and the High Court.

“We welcome the opportunity to prove our case at trial next February and exposing the inconsistencies in the account of how J.K. Rowling came to write the Harry Potter books,” states Trustee Paul Allen.

The dispute casts doubt on JK Rowling’s account of creating Harry Potter on a train. The Estate’s position is that many of the familiar aspects of the books originated with Jacobs and their suit has already survived several legal challenges.

Rowling's Wizengamot or Jacobs' Wizard Court?

Weighing the evidence on video game violence

Scientific evidence suggests violent video games promote real life violence. No wait. Scientific evidence indicates there is no direct relationship between real life violence and violent video games. Who’s right?

“The evidence suggests that those who argue violent video games are harmful have a lot more experience and stronger credentials than those who argue otherwise,” said Brad Bushman, professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University and co-author of a new study about the scientific evidence regarding violence and video games.

The researchers developed a novel method to consider that question: they analyzed the research output of experts who filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association (case no. 08-1448). The case asked the Court to decide whether the state of California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to children under the age of 18. A ruling in the case is expected in the summer of 2011.

NOTE: The California law in question defines “violent video games” as those whose range of options available to the player includes killing, maiming, dismembering and/or sexually assaulting an image of a human being AND the depiction of such act(s) is offensive. 

In the case, groups supporting and opposing the law have filed what are called briefs of amicus curiae. These are briefs by people or groups who are not directly involved in the case but want to offer the court their expert opinion on the issues involved.

The researchers, Bushman, Craig Anderson, professor of psychology at Iowa State University, and Deana Polland Sacks, professor of law Texas Southern University, analyzed the credentials of the 115 people who signed the Gruel brief believing video violence is harmful, and the 82 signers of the Millett brief, who believe video violence is not harmful. (The briefs are named after the lead attorney representing each side.)

“We took what I think is a very objective approach: we looked at the individuals on both sides of the debate and determined if they actually have expertise in the subjects in which they call themselves experts,” Bushman explains.

For each of the signers of the two briefs, the researchers calculated how many articles and books they published on issues relating to violence and aggression in general and on media violence specifically,

The results reveal that 60 percent of the Gruel brief signers (video game violence is harmful) have published at least one scientific study on aggression or violence in general, compared to only 17 percent of Millett brief signers. Moreover, when the researchers look specifically at the subject of media violence, 37 percent of Gruel brief signers have published at least one study in that area, compared to just 13 percent of the Millett brief signers.

In further analysis, Bushman and Anderson examined the academic journals and publishing houses where the signers of both briefs have published their research. They utilized a well-established formula, called the impact factor, to determine the top-tier journals (those with the highest standards and most rigorous peer review) and then calculated how many signers had published in these journals. The results indicated signers of the Gruel brief had published 48 times more studies in top-tier journals than did those who signed the Millett brief.

“That’s a staggering difference,” Bushman said. “It provides strong support for the argument that video game violence is indeed harmful.”

The study was conducted not to validate the position that violent video games pose risks to young people but to demonstrate that there is a way in which the U.S. Supreme Court can impartially weigh the evidence presented in two contradictory briefs.

The problem, however, is that this type of study is not done for every case that is a “battle of experts”. Neither does the study explore where the signers fall within the general scientific community. Yes, one party presented  a stronger argument. That does not mean they presented an accurate argument. Further, there are other issues in the cases besides who has more or better experts. These are important considerations because one of the findings of the lower court was that the studies presented by California in support of their law censoring violent video games was that the studies presented in not support the finding that violent video games actually harmed the psychological health of minors.

“The justices were presented with two briefs, arguing opposite sides, and they may think the contradictory briefs simply cancel each other out,” Bushman said.

“We just wanted to point out to the justices that not all briefs are the same. In this case, the credentials and experience of those who signed the Gruel brief far exceeds that of the ones who signed the Millett brief.”

Trademark frenzy: Charlie Sheen claims 22 phrases

Remember our conversation about names and trademarks? Maybe you do and maybe you don’t. Charlie Sheen obviously does. The #Winning media creation has filed, or rather has had Hyro-gliff, a company he has ties to, file trademark applications for 22 catchphrases and names according to Time magazine’s News Feed and other media reports. (A TESS search this morning found that Hyro-gliff has filed 24 trademark applications.)

It is unlikely that Sheen himself coined all 22 phrases he is seeking trademarks. Some were undoubtedly conceived by the writers and creative people he has worked with during his career.  But it could be argued that in his delivery of those phrases he has made them his own and therefore has every right to protect and profit from them.

The problem is this: he isn’t the only one to use all of these phrases. A basic search of existing trademarks including applications that have been filed reveals that some of the key phrases Sheen seeks to claim as his own have also been claimed by others and, in some cases are already registered trademarks. For instance, 18 trademark applications have been filed for “Tiger Blood” alone. Two uses of “Tigers Blood”, as a tobacco product (2010) and a drink syrup (2008) are already registered trademarks. Hyro-gliff has also filed trademark applications for what could be considered common phrases like “Defeat is not an option”, “You’ve been warned” and even just the word “Winning”.

All of which raises the question: has Sheen gone to yet another extreme in attempting to claim ownership not just of unique phrases like “Sheen’s Korner” but also claiming words and phrases already (arguably) part of our everyday lexicon?

Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta: 

• Charlie Sheen moves to trademark 22 catchphrases
• Charlie Sheen moves to trademark 22 catchphrases
• Charlie Sheen Calls Dibs on (Duh!) “Adonis DNA,” “Tiger Blood” and Other Winning Catchphrases
• Charlie Sheen moves to trademark 22 catchphrases

A moment in role-playing history

Facebook isn’t the first to worry about role-players online. More than 2 decade ago, the American government was so concerned about the connection between computer crimes and computer games including role-playing that the Secret Service raided the offices of Steve Jackson Games (SJG) in Austin, Texas. It was a mistake on the government’s part. Not only did they not find the evidence of crimes they were looking for, the raid would also be one of the seminal events in computer gaming leading to the creation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

It’s hard to say what exactly the government was seeking when they conducted the raid on March 1, 1990. Based on subsequent court documents and rulings, it is possible the government didn’t know either. Ostensibly, the hacker known as The Mentor was the target of both the raid and additional investigations. At the time, Loyd Blankenship, the human behind The Mentor, was writing the supplement Cyberpunk to GURPS for SJG.

Although GURPS was initially a tabletop role-playing game that used dice, current “free form” role-playing, including that practiced on Twitter, is in many ways an extension of it.  GURPS was unique when it was introduced in 1986 because it was a system the worked independent of the environment.  Players also controlled their characters verbally, similar to how characters are currently controlled on Twitter. The only thing missing is the dice.

Cyberpunk was one of the first attempts to move GURPS into a specific universe. In the case of Cyberpunk that universe was a dystopian future based largely on a novel by William Gibson. This too was a precursor of Twitter RP with their True Blood, Twilight, Supernatural and other RP universes.

The case against SJG would not go to trial for more than three years. When it did, the company prevailed on 2 out of 3 counts. The third count was turned down by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 1994. The U.S. government was ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees to SJG. GURPS Cyberpunk was eventually published as well.

For Twitter and other online role-players, the true impact of the raid was not on SJG. It was on the gamers, role-players, programmers and others who were mobilized to create the EFF and become leaders in the fight for civil liberties online and digital rights. The non-profit EFF has been a cornerstone in keeping up with the impact of changing technology on communications not to mention the legislation that may have unintended consequences on free speech and fair use online.

Twitter RPers and anyone else role-playing online owes a debt to that raid in 1990. Even if it is barely a footnote elsewhere.