George Lucas...WTF?

[StreamOfTheSky]

First of all, it can't really be a patent or anything like that... he never actually made a working light saber. Copyright I suppose. But...those movies came out decades ago! Don't patents and copyrights expire after a while?! if it's more of a "registered trademark" issue...then AFAIK, as long as the company itself does nothing to compare it to a lightsaber or call it one, there's no wrongdoing. I'm not a lawyer, though, could be completely wrong.

Second of all...they can't possibly have any sort of real claim to this. I've seen SO many actual light saber knock offs in other media. Not some handheld laser that is in no way distinguishably sword length or even useful for swinging around and making slashing motions. I mean actual beam sabers! Gundam Wing anime and many other Gundams use them, for instance. If Lucasfilms really can sue over this laser, what's prevented them from suing these other representations?

Third...the handles in that sample picture all look very different from each other, aside from being about the same length (enough for a hand or two to hold it) and cylindrical. So no, the handle on the laser doesn't look like a blatant ripoff of a lightsaber to me. It could have just as easily been a sleek flashlight.
[sblock]Some of the designs actually look like something else, too. Not sure if I can say what they reminded me of without offending Eric's grandma. But let's just say I'm a little hungry right now, and some dill pickles would do to abate that hunger.[/sblock]

 

[Banshee16]

If you haven't seen the movies, you might miss something - the body of the "S3 Spyder Arctic" real-world laser does, in fact, look like a movie lightsaber. The lightsaber only looks like a sword when it is turned on for combat, but their image when turned off is also iconic enough for folks to sell replicas.

I would guess there's two things going on here:

1) Maybe Lucasfilms (which is not necessarily really George Lucas himself) feels there's copyright infringement going on.

2) (And, I think, more likely) Those lasers are *powerful* - you can blind someone with it, or burn skin - dangerous enough that they are sold with safety goggles! Someone is inevitably going to get hurt, and I expect Lucasfilms wants to distance itself as much as possible from that. Some kid thinks it's a toy lightsaber, playes with it like a toy lightsaber, and next thing you know their friend Johnny has his retina burned out and Johnny's parents are looking for someone to blame. Lucasfilms may want it on record that they tired their level best to keep these things from being associated with their fiction and toys.

I don't remember where I heard it, but I remember being told that pilots have to be careful as some morons get the brilliant idea to aim lasers at the cockpits of planes as they're landing and taking off. Apparently the handheld ones can still cause eye damage. If there's truth to the story, it's really sad/frightening. Who would be stupid/selfish enough to pull something like that?

But then, never underestimate some people's stupidity, I guess.

Banshee

 

[Umbran]

But...those movies came out decades ago! Don't patents and copyrights expire after a while?!

Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States

So, I think we are looking at... 95 years from creation. They've go ta ways to go yet.

Second of all...they can't possibly have any sort of real claim to this. I've seen SO many actual light saber knock offs in other media.

This is largely why I think the issue isn't so much about the copyright itself, as to cover liability, using the copyright question as the vehicle. They probably don't even have to succeed n their suit to reach that goal. Simply making the attempt may be sufficient.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Design Patents are a form of intellectual property- alongside Trademark, Copyright and Registered Marks- that are protected by law in many countries.

Design patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Essentially, they're protecting the visual and other aesthetic elements of a physical object created by a designer. That's how Gibson guitars won lawsuits against certain (mostly Japanese) guitar makers (see "lawsuit guitars").

Now, Design Patents only last 14 years...which may be why they're suing under Copyright. The thing is, I'm not sure the image of the lightsaber is copyrightable. Yeah, images and iconic portions thereof can be copyrighted- see Mickey Mouse- but I'm not 100% sure that the lightsaber is iconic enough.

 

[Fast Learner]

Copyright doesn't require any "iconic" sense. If I draw a crappy picture of a horse (which is the only kind of drawing I could do of a horse), it instantly is protected by copyright law. No matter how crappy my horse, you cannot use the image without my permission, period.

If you used it without my permission I could sue you and win the amount of money I lost on sales of my horse picture because you were using it.

If I filed for copyright protection prior to your using it then in addition to that money, I could also sue you for court costs and for harm to my reputation or my brand, etc.

The trick with the lightsaber suit is in the court determining whether the laser design is so close to existing lightsaber designs that it's clearly an infringement or whether it's sufficiently different to escape the idea of it being directly derivative. The unfortunate reality of intellectual property law, though, is that if one of you is LucasFilm, with a vast treasury and legions of lawyers, and the other of you is a small company that makes lasers and probably turns only a very small profit, LucasFilm can make the court process so lengthy and expensive that it is in no way worth your time or money fighting it. Even if you won you'd be long out of business and bankrupt.

 

[Mouseferatu]

but I'm not 100% sure that the lightsaber is iconic enough.

What's your take on the "They're doing it to protect themselves from liability down the road" theory? It makes sense to me, but what I know about the law I learned from CSI and secondhand discussion of the White Wolf vs. Underworld suit.

 

[Pseudonym]

I think part of the problem in my comprehension of this is that while the company itself never referred to their product as a lightsaber, the C&D letter quotes numerous bloggers and tech websites who refer to it as a lightsaber. I understand the need to protect IP even under what seems like silly circumstances to a third party observer, but how can a company making a laser device protect itself from what reviewers call it?

 

[Merkuri]

I understand the need to protect IP even under what seems like silly circumstances to a third party observer, but how can a company making a laser device protect itself from what reviewers call it?

I think the fact that other people call it a lightsaber is just used as proof that it looks close enough to a lightsaber to be violating the copyright.

The fact that they're calling it a lightsaber isn't bad... it's just evidence to back up their side of the argument.

The company can protect itself from this by... um... not making it look like a lightsaber.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

What's your take on the "They're doing it to protect themselves from liability down the road" theory? It makes sense to me, but what I know about the law I learned from CSI and secondhand discussion of the White Wolf vs. Underworld suit.

Seems shaky to me - if Lucas loses the case then the product does not look close enough to the movie props, and it could be used in defense.

If Lucas wins then they can get the appearance changed to look less like a lightsaber.

I think that it is more of a knee jerk thing, like Lucas trademarking Nazi (it always annoys me when folks blame that on TSR - TSR included the trademark because it belonged to Lucas in connection with Indiana Jones).

For copyright and trademark, yeah, Lucas will go to court, though he can be surprisingly agreeable if folks bother to ask first. (Just ask the makers of the Tauntaun sleeping bag....) Coolness counts for a bit with Lucas.

The Auld Grump, who wouldn't want to sleep in a snuggle bag shaped like a dead tauntaun?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Copyright doesn't require any "iconic" sense. If I draw a crappy picture of a horse (which is the only kind of drawing I could do of a horse), it instantly is protected by copyright law. No matter how crappy my horse, you cannot use the image without my permission, period.

If you used it without my permission I could sue you and win the amount of money I lost on sales of my horse picture because you were using it.

Actually, yes, copyright does require that something be iconic, though it doesn't use the exact term- whatever is copyrighted has to have features that are recognizably unique. You have to show some creativity. You have to have brought something new to the table.

In the example of your "Crappy Horse", you're absolutely right as to when it becomes protected. However, if you sue to prevent someone from violating Crappy Horse, you'll have to show that what the other party did is definitely derivative of your work.

If Lousy Horse looks exactly like Crappy Horse, you'll win. If, OTOH, the other party can prove to the Court's satisfaction that Lousy Horse couldn't be picked out of a lineup of a few dozen other horse illustrations (including Crappy Horse), some of which may even pre-date Crappy Horse, you're going to lose.

Which is why, even though something may be technically copyrighted, it may not be protectable.

I could record myself doing 7 minutes of strumming quarter-notes in 4/4 time on my open C string on my guitar tonight and get it properly copyrighted.

The moment I try to sue someone for infringing that copyright by tuning their C string at a concert? Its laugh-track time in the courthouse.

What's your take on the "They're doing it to protect themselves from liability down the road" theory? It makes sense to me, but what I know about the law I learned from CSI and secondhand discussion of the White Wolf vs. Underworld suit.

I think its a good exercise in generating corporate goodwill, but I don't think it would have any real legal effect.

The reason is that, unless Lucasfilms (or any of its subsidiaries) actually owns any part of the laser manufacturer or is making any money from their manufacture (including working or cosmetic parts), the odds of anyone tracing liability to them is extremely slim.