Stormtrooper case. CR in painting and drawings owned by Lucasfilm as employer? D's alleged the army and helmets were not a work of artistic craftsmanship so not a sculpture,protected by s.51? A sculpture: normal use of the word, goes beyond that found in art gallery, no judgement about artistic worth, not every 3D reproduction is a sculpture, part of its purpose must be visual appeal, fact that has another use does not mean not a sculpture, must have intrinsic quality of being intended to be enjoyed as a visual thing
Hensher v Restawile
Chair not artistic, lots of different possible tests and little guidance. Mance J says (fromLucasfilm) artistic craftsmanship is a composite phrase, must be both artistry and craftsmanship, nexus between artist and craftsman (need not be the same person)
Bonz Group v Cooke
A craftsman is a person who makes something in a skilful way and takes justified pride in their workmanship. An artist is a person with creative ability who produces something which has aesthetic appeal. Expert evidence is not required, judge can make up their own mind unaided.
Very simple drawings can fit under s.17 (copy in 3D to 2D). This may be easy to establish instead of design rights.
British Leyland v Armstrong Patents
UDR in the UK introduced to solve these issues. Exhaust pipes the Moris Mariner Car. They were expensive to buy, decided wanted to create spare exhaust pipes. Argued was indirectly copying the design drawings on which it was based, this was CR infringement in the CR of this drawings. HofL - CR infringement, indirectly copying. Non-derogation from grant. After buying a car, you have inherent right to maintain in the most economic way possible. You need a competitive market for spare parts. P's were not able to derogate from the grant of the right in that car to use CR. Defence not for printing cartidges.
Specifically designed to deal with British Leyland type of situation