But is it art?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not according to one British court.

Quote :

Andrew Ainsworth, the man who originally created the helmets and armor
for the first "Star Wars" movie, decided to capitalize on his design by
selling replicas made from the original mold online.

Lucasfilm clearly thought Ainsworth's view of copyright was from a
very strange planet. So, after taking him to court and winning in the
US in 2006, it thought it would strike a further victory in British
courts.
[ ... ]

... Mr. Justice Mann and, subsequently, three more justices in the Court of
Appeal, decided that Stormtrooper uniforms are not art, but mere
industrial design. You see, art enjoys British copyright protection for
70 years. But industrial design is only worth 15 years of protection.

A storm trooper costume design that was a major part of a timeless movie series isn't art?

According to their logic, none of the costume designs of Shakespeare are art, but mere industrial design.

In that vein, all the costumes used for any theater production, ever, aren't art.

I rather liked the costumes of Cats and The Phantom of the Opera. Too bad they aren't art anymore, and can't inspire or teach future artists, who aspire to create art of their own.

I wish Pluto was still a planet.

The Empire's uniform designer will be pleased.

"See, sir, I told you that I wasn't sacrificing functionality for style!"

In a similar, amusing note, the reason why the Army is stuck with godawful ACUs instead of a more functional design with a better camo pattern (Multicam), they don't want to pay royalty fees for the pattern.

Penguin wrote:

In a similar, amusing note, the reason why the Army is stuck with godawful ACUs instead of a more functional design with a better camo pattern (Multicam), they don't want to pay royalty fees for the pattern.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] You're kidding.

Wikipedia wrote:

The pattern was on the race to replace the out-dated 3-color desert and Woodland patterns, but eventually lost to the Universal Camouflage Pattern seen in the Army Combat Uniform.

...

You're not kidding. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Also according to Wiki, over eight hundred billion dollars was allocated for the 2010 National Defense budget.

"Why can't we get the MultiCam?"
"Royalty fees are too expensive. Now get on board that shiny new aircraft carrier, soldier!"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Soldiers don't get on aircraft carriers, Marines do. And the Marines, with a much smaller budget than the Army, have a much better uniform and camo pattern.

Me, I just get a kick out of our ABUs.

"Everyone else is going digital. We need a new uniform."
"We could bring back tiger stripes and make them all pixilated."
"We tried tiger stripes back in Vietnam. Then we got rid of them."
"Yes, but THESE stripes will have SHARP EDGES."
"Hmm, you have a point, but I'm not quite sold."
"We'll also make it so you don't have to polish the boots or press the uniform. And we'll make the pockets a bit smaller."
"Iiiii dunnooooo..."
"And... add... pen holders?"
"SOLD!"

Well yeah, it may have been declared 'not-art' but on the plus side any Brit-induced profits will go to fund whatever the designer wants to buy with it..

You know..

Instead of George Lucas' screwing-beloved-franchises fetish.. ^^

My mom likes the new uniforms. She's crazy.

Manny wrote:

A storm trooper costume design that was a major part of a timeless movie series isn't art?

According to their logic, none of the costume designs of Shakespeare are art, but mere industrial design.

Except that Shakespeare never stipulated costumes for any of his plays, and are left to the whim of the current production.


I agree with Lucasarts on this one. If they have a copyright to that costume design, they should have the right to deny others the use of it.

I'm disappointed. I thought this thread was going to be about the Rape Tunnel, or whatever newest controversy Andres Serrano has inevitably gotten himself into.

unskilled78 wrote:

I agree with Lucasarts on this one. If they have a copyright to that costume design, they should have the right to deny others the use of it.

They did have the copywrite but those things only last so long until they become public domain, it's just that under British law things like costumes and scenery for movies and plays have a much shorter life span as copywrited material than in the US.
So no, they do not have any right to stop the guy selling replica helmets and armour, at least not in England, not anymore anyway.

I don't want to respond to this topic. I'm having philosophy class flashbacks.

So, guys, what is art?

Augh, not this. I already went through this debate in art history, (in which one girl said anything pretty is art [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ) and you just can't ever come to a satisfactory answer.

Personally, I believe that yes, the storm trooper costume can be considered art, but that's just my opinion. What is art and what is not is different for each person.

I don't know; it means you can now buy a Stormtrooper costume online for a reasonable price. I don't know about me, but SOME people are going to be pissing themselves over the opportunity.

Quote :

Mr. Justice Mann

:roflmao:

Proffy wrote:

So, guys, what is art?

The correct response is "Who the fuck cares?"

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I don't know; it means you can now buy a Stormtrooper costume online for a reasonable price. I don't know about me, but SOME people are going to be pissing themselves over the opportunity.

Metropolitan police have put in an order for 3000.

Somath Cegem wrote:

They did have the copywrite but those things only last so long until they become public domain, it's just that under British law things like costumes and scenery for movies and plays have a much shorter life span as copywrited material than in the US.

Er...not exactly. In the US they're copyrighted (I can't comment on that, I don't know what the rules are in the US about designs like this) but the UK judge ruled that they were "industrial design" and therefore only covered for 15 years.

Anyway, there's a pretty loose definition of what counts as art nowadays. Christ, you could spit in the road and put a frame around it and it counts as art.