Not so long ago in a court room not too far away Star Wars was in court. This was not about a storm trooper helmet, Darth Vader, or Luke Skywalker, but it did involve the IP in Rogue One which stars the brilliant Felicity Jones.
Rogue One tells the story of the creation of the Death Star and the attempts by the Rebel Alliance to steal the plans - the set up for the first Star Wars movie. A character from the first movie, Grand Moff Tarkin, appears in Rogue One. However the actor who played Tarkin, Peter Cushing, died in 1994 and so was not able to reprise his role. His appearance in Rogue One was the result of motion capture, AI and the use of scenes previously filmed, which LucasFilm still had the rights to. Or did it? His resurrection on screen was the subject of the dispute.
This case was brought by Tyburn productions against the defendants for unjust enrichment in respect of the exploitation of rights that the Tyburn claims to control.
The Facts
An individual related to the claimant was a close personal friend of Mr Cushing and the claimant made a number of films with him. There was an agreement between the claimant and Peter Cushing Productions Limited (“PCPL”) in August 1993 for making a TV movie and a separate agreement with Mr Cushing which the claimant claims provides them rights relating to Mr Cushing’s resurrection and blocking any other such resurrection.
Key Issues
The key points for the court to determine were:
who owned the rights to resurrect Peter Cushing?
what rights accrued to Star Wars Productions?
was any enrichment actually unjust?
The claimant claimed that the 1993 agreement gave it a blocking right that was expansive enough to prevent the Peter Cushing’s estate or anyone else from using the rights without consent.
The defendants state that the rights they had under the 1976 agreement between Star Wars Productions Ltd and Peter Cushing’s production company, Peter Cushing Productions Ltd. Clause 11 provides all the consents required under the Performer’s Protection Acts of 1958 to 1972 and clause 12 states:
''The lender gives every consent and grants to the company the rights throughout the world (a) to use and authorise others in relation to other reproductions of the artist's physical likeness, recordings taken or made directly or indirectly from the artist's performance, his engagement hereunder."
“... to make or authorise others to make including any other recordings whatsoever of the artist's performance or any part thereof and to exploit the same, and for the purposes of advertising publicising and commercially exploiting the film or otherwise as the company may desire.”
It was argued that these clauses were sufficient to transcend any other elements of the 1976 agreement and provided the necessary consent for Peter Cushing’s ressurection in Rogue One.
In light of the technical arguments the judge felt that this was not a case in which the court should grasp the nettle and make a summary determination of the legal issues.
What happens next?
There will be a sequel to this case because the summary judgment application was not successful. A full trial will be required to determine the matter and that should give the court a good opportunity to clarify some aspects of Performers’ Rights and the resurrection of movie stars who are no longer with us.
Things I’ve appreciated this week
Interesting IP thing:
Podcast episode I’ve enjoyed
Fashion Law Network on Apple Podcasts
This is a great podcast, by Kasia Zebrowska-Trauben, a patent attorney and fashion lawyer. It is a great place for fashion legal news.
Design I’ve appreciated this week
Faber-Castell PITT artist pen (F) - this is my favourite drawing pen. It is so simple and efficient, with a really constant line.
Quote of the week
“It is not the mountains we conquer, but ourselves.”
Sir Edmund Hillary
Great article. Hopefully the Court has the text on screen flying through space before the trial commences to give everyone the background of events leading to the trial!