A High Court legal battle over the use of the image of actor Peter Cushing in a Star Wars film should go to trial, a judge has ruled.
Film company Tyburn Film Productions is taking legal action against Lunak Heavy Industries (UK) Ltd, which is owned by Disney and produced the film, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, over their use of Mr Cushing’s image.
Cushing, who played imperial commander Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope in 1977, died in 1994 but the character was recreated in the 2016 spin-off through special effects.
Tyburn Film Productions claims that it entered an agreement with Cushing shortly before his death that prevented the reproduction of his appearance through special effects without its consent.
It began legal action against Lunak Heavy Industries and Lucasfilm, which produced the original Star Wars films, in 2019, claiming they received “unjust enrichment” from using Cushing’s image in Rogue One without its permission.
The film, which was nominated for two Academy Awards, was the highest-grossing production of 2016 in the UK, according to the BFI.
Cushing, who died from cancer aged 81, was recreated in the film by using special effects to alter the appearance of former Holby City actor Guy Henry.
Lucasfilm and Lunak Heavy Industries oppose the claim, with the court previously told that they did not believe permission to recreate Cushing’s image was required under the terms of his contract for A New Hope.
They later entered into an agreement with the executors of Cushing’s estate, which saw permission to use his image granted in return for a fee.
The companies had a bid to have the claim thrown out rejected by a judge last December, which they challenged at a hearing in London in July.
But in a ruling on Monday, deputy High Court judge Tom Mitcheson KC dismissed the appeal, stating the case should go to trial.
In his ruling, the judge said that while he was “far from persuaded” that Tyburn Film Productions would succeed in its claim, the case was not “unarguable” and a “full factual inquiry” was needed.
The trial will now take place at a later date.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article