## Facts

- Lucasfilm-associated companies controlled rights connected to the *Star Wars* franchise, including the Stormtrooper helmet and armour designs used in the 1977 film.
- The Stormtrooper look originated from concept/design work by others; Andrew Ainsworth produced vacuum-formed plastic helmets and armour from models for use as film props.
- Decades later, Ainsworth and his company sold replica Stormtrooper helmets and costumes to the public (including online) without Lucasfilm’s authorization.
- Lucasfilm obtained a U.S. default judgment for copyright infringement in federal court in California, including a damages award of roughly $20 million.
- Lucasfilm then sued in England alleging (1) U.K. copyright infringement on the theory the helmets/armour were protected “artistic works” (e.g., “sculptures”), and (2) enforcement of the U.S. judgment or, alternatively, relief based on U.S. copyright law.

## Issues

1. Whether the Stormtrooper helmets and armour were “sculptures” (or otherwise “artistic works”) under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, such that U.K. copyright subsisted and was infringed by replicas.
2. Whether English courts may adjudicate claims for infringement of foreign copyright where the court has in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.
3. Whether the U.S. default money judgment for copyright infringement could be enforced in England on ordinary recognition and enforcement rules.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court dismissed Lucasfilm’s appeal on the U.K. copyright issue, holding the helmets and armour were not “sculptures” (or other relevant artistic works) for purposes of U.K. copyright.
- The Court held that English courts can hear foreign copyright infringement claims when there is a proper basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; such claims are not barred by the rule associated with foreign land disputes.
- The Court declined to permit straightforward enforcement of the U.S. default judgment on the facts, while confirming Lucasfilm could, in principle, pursue a substantive claim in England for infringement of U.S. copyright (subject to proof and other ordinary requirements).

## Legal Principles

- Whether a three-dimensional object is a protected “sculpture” turns on statutory context and the object’s character and purpose; the existence of design effort or “sculpting” techniques is not determinative.
- A utilitarian object can qualify as a “sculpture,” but where the object’s primary purpose is functional (here, wearable film props), that function may prevent characterization as a “sculpture” for copyright.
- Claims for infringement of foreign copyright are generally justiciable in England when brought in personam against a defendant within the court’s jurisdiction; the foreign-land jurisdiction bar does not automatically extend to foreign copyright.
- Recognition and enforcement of a foreign money judgment remains governed by ordinary private international law requirements, including whether the foreign court had internationally recognized jurisdiction over the defendant.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that Stormtrooper helmets and armour were primarily utilitarian film props and therefore not “sculptures” protected by U.K. artistic copyright, but it also confirmed that English courts may adjudicate foreign copyright infringement claims in personam, even though Lucasfilm could not directly enforce its U.S. default money judgment on the facts.


Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Ainsworth, [2011] UKSC 39 (U.K. 2011)