header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 August 2011
Issue: 7477 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Copyright—Infringement—Film props

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth and another [2011] UKSC 39, [2011] All ER (D) 257 (Jul)

Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, P, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Collins, 27 Jul 2011
A judge was entitled to find that a helmet worn by a fictional character in a film was not a “sculpture” for the purposes of copyright protection. Provided there was a basis for in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, an English court may have jurisdiction to try a claim for infringement of foreign copyright.

Jonathan Sumption QC, Michael Bloch QC and Alan Bryson (instructed by Harbottle & Lewis LLP) for the claimants. Alastair Wilson QC and George Hamer (instructed by S C Andrew LLP) for the defendants.

The proceedings concerned intellectual property rights in various artefacts made for the Star Wars franchise, principally the helmet for the stormtrooper characters. The defendant, based in England, had some expertise in vacuum-moulding in plastic, and made prototypes and then 50 helmets for use in the film. The claimants held copyright in the artistic

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll