Everything has a purpose, even art. The prop makers built the Stormtroopers to be seen on screen as part of a story, part of a piece of art.
Yes. Art's purpose is to be art. If something is created with that purpose copyright attaches. The court held the purpose of the helmets was not to be art, so copyright didn't attach.
They are part of a piece of art but that does not mean they are pieces of art in their own right.
But a drawing is not necessarily art either under this court definition.
An animator's drawing is as much a piece of art as the Stormtrooper costume, both are a means to an end, to create an image on film.
Tons of animators drawings were thrown away as garbage back in the day. Those creators did not consider them art any more than prop makers considered their work.
Most people doing a drawing or sculpture of a Stormtrooper are copying it from a copyrighted film, not the original costume. I would think unless it's original "utilitarian" purpose is being copied as well any unauthorized Stormtrooper likeness would still be illegal.
Otherwise, What? Everything in Star Wars is free to copy because it's all utilitarian and older than 25 years?
Heck, anything in any movie over 25 years old is public domain in the UK?
Drawings fall completely outside the scope of this judgment. There is no question whether a drawing is art, as drawings are explicitly referenced in the text of the Act. The judgment only applies to items which may or may not be sculptures. If it is a sculpture it is art and copyright attaches. If it isn't a sculpture it isn't art and copyright doesn't attach. This judgment collects and defines the legal guidelines to follow to establish whether something is or isn't sculpture. When applying these guidelines to the case it was deemed the helmets were not sculptures so copyright did not attach.
It doesn't matter where a person copies the Stormtrooper from. It could be the film itself, a photo or another drawing or sculpture; all of these take after the helmets which were photographed and are derivative of it. The helmet as fabricated by AA in 1976, and filmed by George Lucas marks the point where the design was complete. If that design is not under copyright you can't enforce any rights over any later work based on it which derive from the original.
A later work may well have a different set of rights which attach to them by virtue of them being art, but they can only enforce them on their individual merits, not on the more general likeness rights as for all practical purposes they don't exist.
If you copy the movie Star Wars you breach the copyright in the movie. If you take a single image of a Stormtrooper from the film and copy it you breach the copyright in that particular image, not in any underlying likeness rights, as they don't exist as far as copyright is concerned.
The 25 year rule is where a design originating in a work of art is industrially exploited, copyright is limited to a period of 25 years. As almost every design in Star Wars has been exploited in some way or another it appears the copyright in the designs has lapsed. This does not mean the copyright in the film itself has lapsed, just any designs in it which have been exploited.
The rationale is that monopolies are bad for society. Limiting the term which exclusive rights can be held by one entity helps prevent monopolies, and is good for society. 25 years is deemed to be long enough for the entity to have exclusive rights to exploit something. After which time they can continue to exploit the designs, but so can anyone else.
It is also the maximum term which a design can be registered for, which similarly prevents others from exploiting your design.
Even if the judge had ruled the helmets were sculptures, AA would have had a defence under these provisions.
