wrylac

Babelfish didn't make the characters used in the documents change.

Sometimes repetition or taking a differnt approach is what it takes to get an idea across. Also, it may seem like repetition when you aren't as intimately involved with the subject.

Nice dodge on my "Moral Rights" arguement. Hey, you're finally starting to think like me. Now you're just being smarmy. BW doesn't own the 'trilateral' figure.

No, what I was referring to is the fact that I'm still not convinced that BigWest was only granted moral rights and Tatsunoko was granted everything else. Your explanation for this seems, to me, to be lacking. The translation you received did not say that, although you claim that it actually does and that your translator was in error. And then your proof of this is a connect-the-dots theory based on, of all things, a Babelfish translation. I know the CHARTS (no need to yell) don't lie. I wasn't arguing that at all. It's just that I don't believe your theory that BigWest was only granted moral rights and nothing else. Hence, I find any theory you base upon that evidence as faulty. Sorry, caps were meant to emphasize the charts link and not to yell. How about the fact that the Japanese characters used in both the Copyright website and in the court's ruling to describe denote "Moral Right" are exactly the same. All the word twisiting word change a thing. There are two lines of evidence that indicates BW and /or Studio Nue are the owners of the SDF-Macross story. These two lines are interwined and collaborate each other. The first line is the fact that in the infamous memorandum, TP is expressly forbidden from creating derivatives of SDF-Macross or licensing others to do so. It is even well known that this is the reason why the RT: The Sentinels had such drastic changes in character appearance as well as the complete lack of newly animated VF-1 footage. All VF-1 footage in the Sentinels were taken from SDF-Macross to be reused. The second line of evidence is the plethora of SDF-Macross derivative stories that BW has authorized. So as long as you try to bend the semantics of a translation in your favor, you will always ignore the truth that is in front of you. Who owns the story of SDF-Macross? Why Studio Nue, of course! Even TP has acknowledged it. Why won't you? vinnie You might want to rethink your 'intertwined' line of reasoning, because your first argument is fundamentally and factually wrong. No where has it been shown that TP cannot make derivatives of "SDF Macross." I don't understand why you think that the memorandum says that, but if your referring to the first court ruling then you misunderstand the ruling. The court ruled that TP cannot make derivatives of the line art it made no such expression about the show. Now you might argue that without making derivatives of what is called the VF-1 in SDF Macross you don't have a "Macross" show. But, that's another argument all together. I'm not bending any sematics about an translation. I went to the original Japanese document of both the copyright law and the language used in the Jan03 ruling and found that the characters used in both instances are exactly the same. That's not twisting, that's fact. Crediting someone for their idea and acknowledging ownership aren't exactly the same thing.

No, what I was referring to is the fact that I'm still not convinced that BigWest was only granted moral rights and Tatsunoko was granted everything else. Your explanation for this seems, to me, to be lacking. The translation you received did not say that, although you claim that it actually does and that your translator was in error. And then your proof of this is a connect-the-dots theory based on, of all things, a Babelfish translation. I know the CHARTS (no need to yell) don't lie. I wasn't arguing that at all. It's just that I don't believe your theory that BigWest was only granted moral rights and nothing else. Hence, I find any theory you base upon that evidence as faulty. Sorry, caps were meant to emphasize the charts link and not to yell. How about the fact that the Japanese characters used in both the Copyright website and in the court's ruling to describe denote "Moral Right" are exactly the same.

The problem is that some people come in and out of this debate and others are new, I think its only fair that matters get cleared up when repeated questions are asked. It's better than ignoring someone and making them feel unwanted.

Edit: Hm--I guess that depends on the whether the memorandum with BW and Nue gave TP full author's right outside of Japan. Likely they could have, but they didn't and never have so who knows. It's not like HG is looking to modify any further Macross into RT.

It seems that you're trying to emulate me by making one of those wild "leaps." Tatsunoko has never said, or done anything to give anyone the idea, that they planning on enforcing what you claim is their copyright*. For you to say so in such a definite manner leaves much more to be desired than my self-proclaimed personally held theories and conclusions. In the long run, I highly doubt that Tatsunoko will ever try to stop BigWest from releasing Macross derivatives. I also doubt that they'll do anything if BigWest licenses further Macross products outside of Japan. I do, however, think that HG will always try to make a stink if BigWest tries to license further Macross products in North America. But only for North America. *(I say this because you still haven't provided evidence supporting your "moral rights/exculsive rights" assertion) I simply stated some facts in that earlier post. I made no assertions. Draw what you will from that. But, if you're confused about these facts check out the CHARTS link in my sig.

I believe that's a very strong possibility.

So doesn't that bring this whole thing back to square one? If I am to interpret your last statement at face value, you are essentially saying that BW simply doesn't own anything related to Macross...with the exclusion of the line art, right? And that could technically include any derivative based on the series (like FB 2012)? I'm being specific to "SDF Macross." The line art it's self doesn't carry any specific name with it, it's just a stack of very good drawings with no further connotation. I'll go back to my example of fan art. You are allowed to create as much fan art and derivative work as you want based on "SDF Macross." When you do create fan art, assuming you paid for and all the materials and no one commissioned you to do it, you are the creator of that art and you own that art. No one could ever say that you didn't create that art, no one could ever force you to display that art, and no one could ever force you to sell that art. However, once you try to commercialize your art and try to make money from it you start to step over the line into infringement. I consider BW's derivatives the same way I see fan art. They own their derivatives of "SDF Macross" and for a time got away with exploiting those derivatives. But, no matter how you look at it they were infringing on TP's "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" derivatives. TP has now said enough, probably due to a lot of prodding by HG, and now wants to enforce their copyright. How far back can they go? How much can they enforce? We don't know for sure yet. But, since it now seems that TP is willing to enforce their copyright, I think that Macross Zero will tell us a lot.

That article was written before the Jan 03 ruling and before the Tokyo High Court upheld that ruling a few weeks ago.

You wouldnt have to worry, as long as you include the copyright and give credit to the author and publisher, as for your not making money on it and strictly ussing it for informational purposes. Anywho, Everything is up in the air untill the appeals and court cases are settled. Since all of this is in court, dont plan on seeing a resolve for a while, and for that matter products released as part of macross in the US without a HG logo on them. The rights are basically noones right now untill resolved in court. all that is known is the facts that Studio Nue owns the copyrights to the 1st series and may not even own the film, as that is still pending What appeals cases are you talking about? There can't be any unless the Japanese Supreme Court takes up the case (highly unlikely). TP was granted copyright to the 36 "animation movies" excluding only the "Moral right." What does the copyright include besides "Moral right?" "Economic Rights" and some "Neighboring Rights." What rights does "Economic Rights" include? The "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" "Derivative Works." Now, the court did not exclude the "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" "Derivative Works" in it's ruling like it did exclude the "Moral Right." and BW "filed this lawsuit to claim copyright ownership to the drawings" used in SDF Macross. They were given copyright to those drawings only. So far, outside the memorandum, it has been established BW owns nothing that is called "SDF Macross."

You guys should really check out deepdiscountdvd.com they've got free shipping and the best prices around.

I was up hiking around in Simi Valley today, took some pics... Out towards Simi Valley

The way I see it..... Studio Nue owns the story. Meaning.... the copyrights are split into 3 parties not 2. It may seem that way, but the court's decision certainly doesn't indicate any seperation of story from the copyright of the show. Also, we have very little knowledge of how the story was changed (as happens in the development of every series or movie) in order to create the series. Much of the story was likely developed during the production. Given the differences between DYRL and SDF Macross it could be argued that Kawamori's vision of the original "rough story note of all 39 episodes" (as it is described by the court) differed from Noboru Ishiguro's final product.

Yup, live right on the corner there in the dorms. I used to live in bld. 2. About 5 years ago.

Lassen and Lindley huh...

Just these two...

I hope no one minds, I was out tonight taking some pics up in Porter Ranch.

Smart ass. Since the first and second paragraph basically contradict each other I'd say that it is inconsistent in and of itself. All I'm saying is that both companies have tried to spin the facts and take advantage of the ignorant in order to make themselves look good.

The problem is that the letter itself is varying and inconsistent.

I'm on the boarder of Chatsworth and Canoga Park, I was up near Rocky Peak today and the smoke is pretty intense. I've got some friends that have a house in one of the newer tracks in Simi pretty much up against the foothills but last I heard they're ok.

Here's the thing. WDC is saying that HG has made 'varying and inconsistent' remarks about their "ownership" of Macross. That the statements HG has made are at the very least 'calculated' to mislead the poor ignorant RT fans. What I've hopefully have just done is exposed BW to have done the exact same thing to Macross fans. Their letter was too designed to placate Macross fans and 'implies' that they own SDF Macross. In fact this letter does have a flat out lie in it, BW never, "brought a lawsuit against Tatsunoko Production to confirm our copyright ownership of TV anime "The Super Dimension Fortress-1 Macross" which has been broadcast in Japan since 1982." Their lawsuit was about the designs not the show. My proof is the effect it had on the fan base and the ensuing rhetoric at the time. It might not have fooled you and me but it did most people. Some here would say that that statement isn't misleading because BW has never challenged TP's int'l distributorship. Yet turn around and say that HG's statement about their "worldwide rights" is misleading, even though HG/TP have never challenged BW design copyright. Don't get me wrong I'm not upset about any of it. It's just part of this whole game we're involved in. Besides since when does the term "worldwide rights" mean anything in particular? Does it mean "ownership," "copyright," "distributorship?" It seems like HG is just 'making a general statement' about their int'l hold on Macross. edit: wow, I really can't spell

I don't get it from anywhere except that we know that TP and HG have a close relationship and that TP wouldn't be releasing something like that with out some sort of understanding from HG. Dude, you keep saying how you know so much about the entertainment industry, and yet seem to think it's perfectly acceptable that a company would willingly let someone else profit off of their product. If HG owns (or co-owns with Tatsunoko) the int'l rights to SDF: Macross, they wouldn't just say "OK, Tatsunoko, go ahead and release our product all by yourself and make the money off of it." If they did have any int'l stake in releasing SDF: Macross, HG's name would be on the box. Considering that after the ruling on the Memorandum which solidified the fact Tatsunoko has the right to distribute SDF: Macross outside of Japan, I don't think they'd really give a damn if HG cared or not. See, when I say "understanding" I also mean some sort of compensation. Why should BW do anything about it? BW should no more care about TP releasing SDF Macross in Korea than they should about HG granting Animeigo rights to release it in the US. When you consider the timing of the release compared to the timing of BW's lawsuits and their claims in that lawsuit, making the leap that some here make, you would think that they would have done something about the release at the time, unless they knew they couldn't do anything about it at a time when they were claiming that they could. Seriously, don't play stupid. You know as well as any of us that BigWest has never contended Tatsunoko's right to distribute the SDF: Macross program overseas. So is there a reason you are suddenly asking why BigWest didn't do anything to stop Tatsunoko from distributing SDF: Macross outside of Japan? Tatsunoko's ability to distribute the program overseas is one of the things no one here has ever questioned. It's HG's empty claims of ownership that are the problem. The fact that Tatsunoko has released SDF: Macross somewhere without HG, AND the fact that AnimeIgo was only granted a license to release Macross in North America (Region 1) lends credibility to the theory that HG does only possess a license for SDF: Macross in North America. I don't doubt that HG slipped by the Macross footage as Robotech into the international market because it was re-copyrighted as Robotech. I bet that if HG tried to release something as Macross outside of R1 without obtaining a license for it, they'd fetch some kind of trouble for it. I'm just basing my comments off of what BW said in the open letter to Macross fans after the Feb02 ruling and then applying the same logic being used here against HG. That's all. Are you saying that the comments BW made in that letter are perhaps not entirely true, even misleading?

I don't get it from anywhere except that we know that TP and HG have a close relationship and that TP wouldn't be releasing something like that with out some sort of understanding from HG. Why should BW do anything about it? BW should no more care about TP releasing SDF Macross in Korea than they should about HG granting Animeigo rights to release it in the US. When you consider the timing of the release compared to the timing of BW's lawsuits and their claims in that lawsuit, making the leap that some here make, you would think that they would have done something about the release at the time, unless they knew they couldn't do anything about it at a time when they were claiming that they could.