Star Wars helmets did not infringe copyright because they are not art, Supreme Court rules

Lucasfilm, the company owned by Star Wars creator George Lucas, was trying to stop designer Andrew Ainsworth from using the tools and techniques he had originally used in the 1970s to build replicas to sell.

Lucasfilm claimed that his copyright in the Star Wars creations gave him sole right to licence the sale of replica costume items.

The Supreme Court has ruled, though, that the helmets were not sculptures or artistic works, which means that an exception in Section 51 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act applied. This says that an object that is made to a copyrighted design document only infringes that copyright if it is an artistic work.

The Court found that Ainsworth's helmets were functional, rather than artistic. The art lay in the whole film and the helmet had a functional contribution to make in achieving that artistic aim but was not, in itself, a work of art, the ruling said.

Ainsworth makes full replica costumes, but the court process had chosen the helmet to stand in for the whole costume in the dispute.

The Court has agreed with the Court of Appeal that the replicas were not sculptures and so did not infringe Lucasfilm's copyright.

The Supreme Court agreed with lower courts that the replicas were reproductions of work done by a designer hired by Lucasfilm, but that because the helmets were not themselves sculptures, Ainsworth had a defence under copyright law against copyright infringement claims.

Lucasfilm had insisted that the helmets were works of art, meaning that their copying of the original designer's work was copyright infringement.

"[Lucasfilm] contend that the helmet had no practical function at all," said the ruling.

"Their case is that it is sculpture because its purpose is wholly artistic."

"In the present case, the question of functionality does not arise, because the articles in question have no functional purpose whatever," said Lucasfilm's case, according to the ruling. "The Stormtroopers' helmets and armour did not exist in order to keep their wearers warm or decent or to protect them from injury in an inter-planetary war. Their sole purpose was to make a visual impression on the filmgoer. They are therefore artistic works."

The Supreme Court's ruling disagreed, arguing that Lucasfilm confused the helmet as a work of art and the helmet as a part of a wider work of art.

"It would not accord with the normal use of language to apply the term 'sculpture' to a 20th century military helmet used in the making of a film, whether it was the real thing or a replica made in different material, however great its contribution to the artistic effect of the finished film," said the ruling.

"The argument for applying the term to an Imperial Stormtrooper helmet is stronger, because of the imagination that went into the concept of the sinister cloned soldiers dressed in uniform white armour," it said.

"But 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."

Lucasfilm had sought the enforcement in the UK of a US court order related to copyright infringement. The Supreme Court said that it was not enforceable in the UK but that because of it Ainsworth could not sell his replicas to the US.