wrylac

Finally, next is world peace.

lol, you don't know MEMO too well do you.

I hate taxes, but breaking the law is contemptable. If he did it, he should go down.

As long as we're engaged in wishful thinking, consider that Bandai could eventually just buy Takara for whatever reason. Not motivated by a desire to consolidate the Macross properties, surely, but that would be a side effect.

310205[/snapback]

I'd agree, that this is in the 'wishful' thinking category. I could be that the reason we've not heard much lately is because of this transition. I'm certain Takara is very much aware of the legal battle and certainly has a position on the matter. But, we have no indication of what that is yet.

Though, at one of the Robotech panels at AX, Alan Letz, who's pretty much been in Japan for the last few months overseeing Shadow Chronicals, said that it's highly probable Shadow Chronicals will become a sequel to Mospeada in Japan. Whatever that portends, I have no idea.

From Lebhead's thread,

JRock has heard a rumour that ADV is planning to buy out Harmony Gold next year. Anyone else heard this? If not, I guess we can dismiss that.

First time I've heard of this but perhaps they're speaking of buying RT and any anime related business from HG. They wouldn't want to take on all their other ventures.

This is an argument only a good game of Heroclix can sort out. Ummmm...love me some Heroclix.

They need to be nitpicky when you keep making arguments based on incorrect descriptions of copyright law and incorrect reporting of the facts.  If you write things like, "Creative rights is a very specific term with legal significance," you should be prepared to be called for blowing smoke. When you write, "The same ruling basically said that internationally TP has everything else," you are making a false assertion. In an exchange with you (link), I've already pointed out that the ruling didn't say anything about the international market for anything other than SDF Macross.

Sorry, I meant this entire arguement is and does need to be nitpicky. I was not trying to attack you. I haven't gotten my sealegs back yet.

Keith's post was directed at the creation of SDF Macross, and I was speaking specifically about the Jan 03 ruling which was about SDF Macross. And, regarding SDF Macross TP doesn't have the Moral Right but, does have "everything else."

One detail worth mentioning: while arguing this case, Big West said that the earlier judgments of 1/20/2003 and 9/25/2003 found that BW owns the Author's Moral Right to SDF Macross. I didn't see this spelled out in the texts of those judgments-- they seemed to say that TP didn't have the Moral Right, without specifying who did have the Moral Right. I thought that the Moral Right could conceivably belong to Noburo Ishiguro personally, since as director he was judged to be the person who oversaw the entire project. Had he performed his directing work as an employee of Tatsunoko, then TP would have obtained the Moral Right. I am guessing that Ishiguro was officially an employee of BW, or was doing "work for hire" for Big West during the Macross production. According to Japanese copyright law, BW would therefore get the rights.

A note about Moral Right: in another thread, wrylac wrote that it's something given "only to the creators of a concept or idea". This is incorrect. Having a concept or idea does not give you the Moral Right. In general, Moral Rights automatically belong to the original author of a work. Having an idea doesn't make you an author. Turning it into words, pictures, etc. does. Those words or pictures are a work. The Moral Right gives you the right to control the work's display to the public, the right to be recognized as the author, and the right to protect the integrity of the work. You retain these rights even if you sell the copyright to the work (although there is some implied consent regarding display).

I'll give you that the Jan 2003 ruling does not specify who has the Moral Right to SDF Macross. My assumption has always been that it belongs to Studio Nue.

Yes, I understand Moral Rights granted to the creator of a work, I guess I've forgotten how nitpicky things can be around here.

There seems to be some confusion due to the use of the terms "merchandise" and "creative rights".

First, many people seem to think that "merchandising rights" are a well-defined legal category. As I've explained in the licensing debate thread, with references, they aren't. Here is the post. And again I would point you to this page which should make fairly clear that as far as the law is concerned "merchandise" is simply derivative works (based on copyright), or products which use trademarks associated with the work being "merchandised". It's useless to go from saying "company X has merchandising rights" to arguing about whether X has the right to sell or distribute a particular product, because the answer is going to be found in specific terms of the contract which define exactly what kinds of "merchandising" are allowed.

Second, wrylac, "creative rights" is a vague term. I've seen it used in various contexts but to my knowledge the term is not defined in legal codes. For example, it is used by the Director's Guild of America to mean a set of rights enshrined in a private contract, the DGA Basic Agreement of 1999, concerning working conditions and subsequent editing/use of a film. Please explain which rights you are referring to either in US law or Japanese law when you write, "I've never seen HG try to claim creative rights to anything related to Macross."

You're right I should be specific. I am refering to exactly what the Japanese court ruled in the January 2003 ruling. That BW's claim to the copyright of SDF Macross are the Moral Rights given only to the creator's of a concept or idea. The same ruling basically said that internationally TP has everything else.

Again, I do agree that it seems HG went out of their way to redesign the Macross characters for their Robotech counterparts' appearances in Sentinels (though I believe some VF-1 Valkyries do show up somewhere in the animation, I might be misremembering that though).

Although it could be interpreted as Harmony Gold covering their own butts from prosecution, I really think that, if you look at The Sentinels, the characters are SO changed that one couldn't really argue to the contrary. (Though I always found it interesting to think of Max's look in The Sentinels juxtaposed with his look in Macross 7...)

Oh, and about the VF-1?--The original Valkyrie series never showed-up in The Sentinels animation, only the Alpha-Beta/Legioss-Tread series. Hmm...Kinda gives notice once again to the idea that Harmony Gold had worked to use the material (at least in animation) to which they hold rights, and not challenge mighty Big West to a legal duel.

Actually the VF-1 did make an appearance in the Sentinels during the wedding piece.

When HG decided to release the footage of the failed series as a direct to video movie they included footage from the original Macross series in order to fill in some vacant spots.

I've never seen HG try to claim creative rights to anything related to Macross.  SN did sue to get the design work issue claified, sure. But, I've never heard of an instance where HG tried to exploit Macross in a manner only the creators would have the ability to.  Even when HG attmepted to produce the Sentinels they did what was necessary in order to avoid infringing on the original work.  And even now, HG is producing an animation that is based on a work that they can exploit, Mospeada, and not Macross.

Except for that time that HG tried to claim no one can release tranforming Valkyrie toys in the U.S. because they own designs like the VF-1 & the U.N. Spacy insignia.... Or the time that HG said no one can release Macross sequels in the U.S. becasue they own them all....no HG has never tried to interere with anything creative in Macross!

Those issues don't involve creative rights. What you are talking about are distribution and merchandising rights. Creative rights is a very specific term with legal significance.

Aside from directing you over to the licensing debate, the gist of it is this:

Big West is the actual creating company (as they have Studio Nue in tow), and the rights they fight for are the rightful creative rights such as designs, concepts, stories, etc.

HG was involved in none of this, they got their rights from Tatsunoko whom paid for the production, but none of that included giving them ownership to creative copyrights, just distribution of what they helped pay to make (i.e. selling the TV series pre-existing animation, and apparently DYRL's as well). What they're trying to turn that into is that they own creative rights, and not just distribution rights (i.e. since they paid to help produce the animation from Macross, they somehow own the concepts, designs, & story there in, while all they actually own is just the produced product).

So yes, is this matter Big West is the "nobler" side.

I've never seen HG try to claim creative rights to anything related to Macross. SN did sue to get the design work issue claified, sure. But, I've never heard of an instance where HG tried to exploit Macross in a manner only the creators would have the ability to. Even when HG attmepted to produce the Sentinels they did what was necessary in order to avoid infringing on the original work. And even now, HG is producing an animation that is based on a work that they can exploit, Mospeada, and not Macross.

Let's see them release the film on DVD with a superb transfer and perfect subs. Then you'll see a reaction. Otherwise, meh.

Hah, you say that like it's possible to write a sub track that everyone will be pleased with. There's no such thing.

The AX panel today claified that the movie rights are still in limbo. Merchandising however...

last one

front

no. 3

another

Surprised I there aren't any pics from AX. I'll post a few of the production model Toynami had on display. The Harmony Gold panel had one on hand for fans to handle and play with. I didn't want to fight the crowd waiting to touch the thing. But, I'm highly impressed. Something I never said about the Macross MPCs.

So why is it forbidden to say their names when talking about valks on Robotech.com then? Not where to buy them but just to say their name. Toynami having all the toy rights doesn't seem to show that they want to work with other companies. Nor does it seem room for them to work with the other companies if given the chance. Just something I noticed.

As of right now they are still competitors. That seems like reason enough. And I don't know that Toynami has all toy rights. Even if they did, there could be a way for Toynami could act as a distributor. Besides, the fact that they've said as much past.

Even if there's a settlement, the bickering won't stop unless and until the situation improves with respect to getting quality Macross stuff outside of Japan. If HG/Toynami facilitate the distribution of the good stuff, instead of trying to prevent it, people are going to be happy. OTOH, if all they do is pay BW for rights to DYRL and then churn out superposables and MPC versions of the DYRL designs, people are going to remain pissed off. (But some of the anger will also be directed at BW for abandoning the US Macross fans.)

HG has always said that they would love to deal with Yamato and Bandai. The hold up on that hasn't been on their end.

I'm going on vacation the day it comes out. I hope you all are going to still have a torrent available for me to DL when I get back from Hawaii.

yyyyyyyyaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnn...

wha...somebody say something...right...just keep the q-tip out of your mouth before you cut yourself...*zonk*

I hope this doesn't put a damper on the potential popularity of Yamato Valks.

why would it? We want quality products, not crappy bootlegs.

I was thinking more about expectations from the production end of things. I know they're popular with consumers, but production on items like these always seems to underestimate demand. Yamato, HG, Toynami aren't the only ones to do this, just recently Wizkids ended up with a major fiasco on their hands with their Heroclix Galactus.

hahaha, now why did they cancel these? Legal problems? Too many complaints?     

My money is on a lack of interest. As much as they've been discussed around here, I don't think too many people actually planed on buying them.

That's my initial thought also. They're still going to be called DYRL Superposeables, but I never saw any interest in these really. The pre-orders prolly weren't good at all. I hope this doesn't put a damper on the potential popularity of Yamato Valks.

Surprisingly they must not be minding the store again because the Robotech Pool Cleaner is still in business.

Could be that Robotech Pool Cleaners was registered during the period between 1992 and 2001. I would imagine they would be grandfathered into having the ability to use the name. I suppose the pool cleaner company could have challenged the Robotech Trademark, but obviously it went through so they probably didn't care or they did and that's why it took 2 years for the trademark to register, in any case it belongs to HG now.

Not completely.

They have it in areas where tehre isn't a pre-existing user.

If Harmony Gold ever wants to make a Robotech pool cleaner, they can't.

I don't see where we disagree, but thanks for the follow-up anyway.