wrylac

Yes. And it's true too, sadly. Public skoolz rawk! HELL YEAH BABY WORLD POWER OVER ALL Were such a bunch a dummies (10 yr old Americans) The really sad part is that most of those 10 year olds are probably smarter than most Americans adults. I can't think of any possible reason that can justify not giving any credit at all. What was their reason? I think just some of those reasons have been articulated already in this thread. 1. RT is a combination of 3 shows not just Macross. Adding all the credits to the intros and endings would have made further cuts to the episodes of all the shows necessary. 2. Creating one intro for all three parts limits the amount of confusion among viewers. 3. Crediting TP as a whole does give credit to those working for TP. 4. Noburo Ishiguro was the Chief Director and everyone reported to him. So he would be credited above anyone else on the production level. 5. Crediting only the major players (ie. those in charge of how money was spent) is common in television.

Well, from what I've seen... yes. Anyway, A regular show changing it's intro every season VS Robotech changing it's intro, cast, and storyline would be much more confusing IMHO. That's really even hard to compare the two situations. The story line is still the same. As for changing characters..... RT is not a pioneer at it. And if you keep the intro song and put the name "Robotech" right in the beginning of the intro... not even a kid with the IQ of a tea cup could get its wrong. And besides.... the first episode of the Masters saga was a clip episode, no? isn't that enough to set the kdis straight? And besides.... if RT was really the success ppl claim it was.... kids would be watching it since the Macross saga, and if they saw a new intro, they wouldn't just change the channel, they would stick around to see what the change was all about. I stopped watching RT when the Masters portion started airing, I knew it was RT because of the intro but it really didn't interest me because it was a complete change for the show. I started watching it again when the New Generation portion started airing. I finally knew why they had those other planes in the intro. But, I guess the real issue isn't what anyone else would have done, but how HG chose to handle it. Really, what they did as far as credits go has a perfectly legitimate explanation. I don't fault them for doing it that way.

It looks like a bad lingerie catalogue costume.

Yeah.... but one would think that the mech designer for 1/3rd of the series would. This thread turned stale since someone first got a translationg of the court rulling. As far as what goes here.... no one is arguing.... everyone is simply guessing whats going to happen, whats supposed to happen, and what already happened. I've worked on shows that simply give the copyright title at the end of the show and no one gets credited at all.

It's fairly common in syndicated television that not every aspect of production gets credited.

No, it didn't. Neither decision said anything explicit about the derivatives at all. People here have interpreted the copyright split to come out either way on which company has what rights to make derivatives (and, more to the point, release them internationally). You can read the two district court cases in only the last few pages pretty easily. The oldest one is above, and the newer one is only a few pages back (or look at Wrylac's sig since he links to them both). I'd love to see what cwbrown has to say about what is implied in the Jan03 ruling. Hey wrlac, no flamebaiting please. I really don't want to see this thread get as ugly as the other one did. That was anything but a flame bait. cwbrown and I have a good relationship, he was the very first person to see the translation Naoko did for me, and he knows that my post was simply an attempt to draw out a legal analysis on the Jan03 ruling from him, as he is a lawyer.

No, it didn't. Neither decision said anything explicit about the derivatives at all. People here have interpreted the copyright split to come out either way on which company has what rights to make derivatives (and, more to the point, release them internationally). You can read the two district court cases in only the last few pages pretty easily. The oldest one is above, and the newer one is only a few pages back (or look at Wrylac's sig since he links to them both). I'd love to see what cwbrown has to say about what is implied in the Jan03 ruling.

Welcome to real life, EVERYONE does that. It's not just limited to RT.com, I assure you. Are you referring to the Roy FAST Packs because they never released packs for the Rick MPC? Actually, they're considered Rick fast packs to go with the Skull-01 because Roy was dead before the development of the fast packs was complete.

Since the old boards are down:

exactly But they have no say over Robotech toys based directly (MPC) or indirectly (YF-1R) on SDF Macross designs? Just to be clear... The Feb02 ruling confirmed that TP could develop their own merchandise for overseas distribution. I think I'll have to repost that translation since the old boards are down for now.

exactly

Let's take the M7 Trash situation as an example. The way I understand it, TokyoPop licensed M7 Trash from BW. TokyoPop, knowing that if they tried to release M7 Trash without involving HG they'd get a lawsuit coming their way. So, they work things out with HG and all is fine and dandy. Except that BW doesn't feel that HG should be involved in any way. BW shuts down the release. HG can't force BW to give up that merchandise. Remember for all those products BW still has the "Moral right," which grants them the ability to determine when those products get released to the public. In Japan BW can just go ahead and release any Macross related product they want, but as HG contends, BW gave up the right to release Macross products int'ly, they must go through HG. Here's another example, if you or I were to create some Macross related art, it doesn't mean that HG can automatically exploit that art. HG first has to get your permission before they could use that art for their purposes. However, if you were to try and exploit that art, you would be infringing on HG's rights. There you go, in order for HG to get a hold of the products BW has created/licensed BW must be willing to work with them.

It's a common misconception that when HG says they have rights to everything Macross, it means that they can have a wholesale access to anything BW/SN has created in regards to Macross. That simply is not true. BW still must be cooperative and grant permission (ie. get paid) for TP/HG to use what they (BW) have created. TP/HG simply holds the position that they have the exclusive right to exploit those creations in the int'l market. BW and TP must work together in order for us to see all of Macross released int'ly. edit to clarify "they"

It's a misquote. The actual saying is "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting." In other words, something's worth can only be told through actual experience. I'd always heard it as: "The Proof of the Pudding's in the Crust." Anyhoo, I doubt that TP is going to seek damages now, unless they try to push the issue. The case ain't over, as all the rulings talk about right now is the TV series itself, which is -- all together now -- BW/SN gets designs and author's rights, TP gets rights to footage and international distro of same. Nobody's gone into who has what right to make what derivative. And everyone who says otherwise right now on this thread is really going out on a limb. Pat BW doesn't have the "author's right." They have only a portion of "author's right", the "moral right." The "moral right" doesn't give them any "economic rights." And, TP has more than just the footage, they have the copyright to SDF Macross as a whole. You can check the link I provide in my sig for the definition of "moral" and "economic" rights.

But, this was not the Circuit Court ruling this was a High (Superior) Court ruling.

Is that because the series were called Macross, aside from that and a few story line elements like references to Space War I, I don't see how that is so. This is making me think of the dilema that the Xenosaga creators had since they're working for a diffrent company now then when they made Xenogears. They can't make direct references to Gears but have slight hints like names or character designs. The Zohar is still in it and two three characters bear a VERY strong resebelance to three Gears characters. Yes, it's because BW has used the Macross name as a means to market these products.

Actually, Tatsunoko can't air SDF: Macross on TV or sell the DVD's in Japan. Regardless of the rights they have they are still bound by the Memorandum which basically puts BigWest in charge of the broadcast of the TV Series in Japan and Tatsunoko in charge of the int'l broadcast rights. What he said...

I've said in the past that HG's excuse isn't the most concrete of reasons why they wouldn't have protected those rights. But, if you click the link I've provided to Japanese copyright law, it expressly says that the owner of the copyright has exclusive right to create derivaties. As far as I'm concerned TP now has the ability to seek damages from BW.

you must be running out of grounds to thread on. That was either the silliest or the most stupid post you have ever made. vinnie Maybe you can tell me why you think it's silly.

You can use the same criteria for HG in what they do for RT and licensing it out. I think you understand the point I was getting at in regards to BigWest's handling of the franchise, but you are intentionally being obtuse. Let's try again, shall we? What has been done, internationally, for Macross while under BigWest's control? DYRL. Macross II. Macross Plus. License of Macross Plus toys to Toycom. Attempt to release VF-X2 in North America by Bandai (mind you, this was an actual working GAME, not a failed attempt like Crystal Dreams). Sure, this is only a spattering of the multitude of products released under the Macross license under BigWest's control. True, most of which were never licensed internationally. In case you doubt, go to MW Main and click on Ads, Books, Collectibles, Games, Magazines, Models, Music, Video, Toys or Unreleased. Then try to tell me that BigWest hasn't done a lot for the Macross franchise. Now, why wasn't all of this licensed internationally before? Probably because anime was simply a niche genre outside if Japan, especially here in the U.S. until the late 90's. I wouldn't doubt that the industry here in the states has grown tenfold, if not more, since then. Before that, only the biggest titles received a legitimate release (hmm... MacII and Mac+?). Other than that us fans had to rely on bootlegs and fandubs/subs. But now, even titles 20 years old are being picked up and released officially here in the U.S. Sounds like a perfect chance for Macross to really go international, eh? But right about the time that anime became mainstream (as well as extremely profitable) in the U.S. and Macross started gaining a surge in popularity, HG suddenly chimes in... ...FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER SINCE THEIR INVOLVEMENT WITH MACROSS... ...and suddenly says that they own everything Macross outside of Japan. DYRL, MacII and Mac+ simply "slipped by." Does that sound a little convenient to you? Because it sure does to me. I'm well aware of the multitude of Japanese products available for Macross, as well as the spattering of products that have been made available int'ly. You seem to be upset about when HG became interested in Macross. Yet you make a very good case as to why they became interested in it at that time. TP/HG can simply say that up until the late '90s there was very little int'l interest in Macross as a franchise and saw little reason why they should invest time and resources into it. A court of law isn't going to tell them how they should have run their buisness. HG waiting for a market to develop is just good buisness sense. I don't see how the timing of when HG showed interest in Macross matters to wether or not their interst is legitimate.

I don't think that BW has done as much with the Macross derivatives, at least not on an int'l scale. They've released very few things and have done little more than grant a few license. All the marketing and advertiment would have come out of the licencee's budgets. And production costs could easily be covered by any agreement they made with TP as well as any other costs about the toys or whatever. It's the int'l distribution that is in question not what's been happening in Japan.

I'm trying to find out why you say that TP cannot make derivatives of SDF Macross. I know that TP can't make animation's based on the designs used for SDF Macross. But, I've yet to see anything that says TP cannot make a derivative work of SDF Macross. Because they haven't done any yet? Because they haven't tried to stop BW yet? If you feel TP is in charge of derivatives, why haven't they stopped Macross Zero? Why haven't they taken BW to court to get their share out of Macross 7 and Macross Plus? Actually, the appeal by BW of the Jan 03 ruling just failed on Sept 25, the reason for the recent Yahoo! Japan article, we haven't seen any of the repurcussions of this ruling yet. I'm not talking about now. BW has been making derivatives for a long time, why didn't TP go after them back then? Why didn't TP stop the licensing of Plus and 2, and specially DYRL? ? After all.... while HG might not have been minding their stuff.... TP sure as heck was. <_< Well, actually what's happening now is what's important. If the court felt that TP had abandoned the franchise it would have ruled that they no longer can control the copyright to SDF Macross. For what ever reason, I think it's Japanese cultural sentiment, TP has now challenged BW and won. Why they didn't in the past? Again, maybe they never felt that there was much of a Int'l market for Macross, as RT pretty much was known worldwide, maybe they never thought they could get BW to cooperate with them, but really we don't know. But, it was the failure of BW's appeal finally on Sept 25 that has secured TP's copyright of SDF Macross, anything that happened before that is moot.

I don't think Wry trusts anyone's translation other than his own .....but that's just me. Funny... specially considering this is his translation. The translation is good, but in this case a specific term wasn't translated in a legal sense, I've proven my assertion to be correct. "individual right of author" = "Moral right" In fact I feel comfortable changing the translation to reflect that. I've formatted the ruling for an easier read. Those of you that might have had a hard time understanding might want to take another look. Again, if you want a fomatted translation in MS Word just e-mail me.

I'm trying to find out why you say that TP cannot make derivatives of SDF Macross. I know that TP can't make animation's based on the designs used for SDF Macross. But, I've yet to see anything that says TP cannot make a derivative work of SDF Macross. Because they haven't done any yet? Because they haven't tried to stop BW yet? If you feel TP is in charge of derivatives, why haven't they stopped Macross Zero? Why haven't they taken BW to court to get their share out of Macross 7 and Macross Plus? Actually, the appeal by BW of the Jan 03 ruling just failed on Sept 25, the reason for the recent Yahoo! Japan article, we haven't seen any of the repercussions of this ruling yet.

Harmony Gold considers Yamato's valks an illegal product, as it doesn't have their stamp of approval on it. Still... I want, no. I NEED to see the contract between HG and TP. Isn't a contract supposed to be able to be viewed by the public? Couple of things. I've never seen where HG has said Yamato valks were illegal products. According to HG selling them in the U.S. through the grey market is illegal, but Yamato making valks is not illegal nor is a private individual importing one for their own personal use. Second, neither BW nor HG are a publicly held companies, they don't have to show anything to anyone. Besides, seeing a contract between HG and TP is moot, the real issue is the the contract between BW and TP and neither company has been forth coming. What we do have it the portion of the contract as interputed by the court (ie the Feb 02 ruling on the copyright of the designs and the Jan 03 ruling on the copyright of the show).