Langues appliquées - Anglais : Economie, gestion, droit, AES - 4e - 245

Film copyriGht protection

The High Court dismissed the claims for infringement of English copyright: the helmet was not a
work of sculpture and therefore Mr Ainsworth had a defence under section 51. It held, however, that
the United States' copyright claims were justiciable and that US copyright had been infringed. The
Court of Appeal allowed Mr Ainsworth's appeal. It agreed that the helmet was not a work of sculpture
but held that the US copyright claims were not justiciable. Lucasfilm appealed to the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal. It holds that the helmets were not sculptures
but that the US copyright claims were justiciable in English proceedings. Lord Walker and Lord Collins
give a joint opinion, with which the other members of the Court agree.
Reasons for the judgment
Sculpture issue
The court reviews the legislative history of the current statutory provisions and previous authorities
as to the meaning of "sculpture". In the High Court, the judge had formulated various "guidelines"
as to the meaning of sculpture. For example, some regard must be had to the normal use of the word
"sculpture". The concept can apply to things going beyond what one would normally expect to be
art, but it is inappropriate to stray too far from what would normally be regarded as sculpture. Not
every three-dimensional representation of a concept qualifies. Lucasfilm contended that the helmet
was sculpture as it had no practical function at all. Its purpose was wholly artistic, to make a visual
impression on the filmgoer. That was not, however, how the trial judge and the Court of Appeal had
viewed matters. Mann J found the helmets to be a mixture of costume and prop and that their primary
function was utilitarian, namely to express an idea as part of character portrayal in the film. He held
that this lacked the necessary quality of artistic creation required of a sculpture. This type of judgmental
conclusion was one with which appellate courts should be slow to interfere, as Lord Hoffmann observed
in Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416. The judge did not err in
law or reach an obviously untenable conclusion. It would not accord with the normal use of language
to apply the term "sculpture" to, for example, a 20th century military helmet used in the making of a
film, however great its contribution to the artistic effect of the finished film. The argument for applying
the term to an Imperial Stormtrooper helmet was stronger, because of the imagination that went into
the concept of the Stormtroopers. But it remained the Star Wars film itself that was the work of art.
The helmet was utilitarian in the sense that it was an element in the process of production of the film.
The Court noted that the law did not apply an "elephant test", but instead a multi-factoral approach.
Justiciability of foreign copyright claim
The Court of Appeal had held that the common law rule in British South Africa Co v Companhia
de Moçambique [1893] AC 602 that an English court had no jurisdiction to entertain an action for
the determination of title to, or the right of possession of, foreign land, or the recovery of damages for
trespass to such land, was an example of a general principle which applied to claims for infringement
of foreign intellectual property rights. The Supreme Court concludes that, provided there is a basis
for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, an English court does have jurisdiction to try a claim
for infringement of copyright of the kind involved in the present action.
Press summary for LucasFilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39,
issued by the UK Supreme Court. https://www.supremecourt.uk.

https://www.supremecourt.uk

Table des matières de la publication Langues appliquées - Anglais : Economie, gestion, droit, AES - 4e