wrylac

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.

Chapter 2, Section 3, Subsection 2 of Japanese Copyright Law is titled "Moral rights" on the english version of the Japanese Copyright website. Subsection 2 When I go to a Japanese text version of Japanese Copyright Law (here) and translate the title of Subsection 2 (which is the title right above Article 18) through babelfish I get this as a translation: "2nd Š¼ literary work person personality right." The original Japanese text of the Jan 03 ruling taken from the Main Sentence paragraph 1 that Naoko translates as "without individual right of author" is translated by babel fish this way: "Literary work person personality right is excluded." "individual right of author" = "Literary work person personality right" = "Moral Right"

I remeber reading a second arcticle Mainichi, in the old thread released shortly after this one. I can't exactly rember what it was about but I remember them saying it wasn't as bad for BW as they thought, it's like they almost did an about face with this statement Wrylac likes to quote a lot. Does anyone have a copy of the second report? That was not a Mainichi article but a rehash of the thread that was started on the old boards in reaction to the ruling done by Anime News Network. We went over that recently check back a few pages in this thread. What page? I've been going through this thread from the start, I guess I missed over it... Page 10. It pretty much wraps up on page 11 with justvinnie's comment.

I remeber reading a second arcticle Mainichi, in the old thread released shortly after this one. I can't exactly rember what it was about but I remember them saying it wasn't as bad for BW as they thought, it's like they almost did an about face with this statement Wrylac likes to quote a lot. Does anyone have a copy of the second report? That was not a Mainichi article but a rehash of the thread that was started on the old boards in reaction to the ruling done by Anime News Network. We went over that recently check back a few pages in this thread.

Oh... so you've decided to re-interpret her translation due to her unfamiliarity with the proper term? And how did you come to conclusion (or even find out) that she was interpreting it too literally? And how did you find out the correct interpretation? Are you second-guessing your own translator? If memory serves me correctly, we had someone here once who knew English AND Japanese quite well, who was also quite good at not only translating, but also interpreting between the two (there is a difference). Hmmm... But you second guessed her as well. I think this translation pretty much verifys the validity of the concerns I had about the previously posted, incomplete translation.

Both are correct and I've explained why. Basically, Naoko, not being familiar with the proper legal term, interputed it more literally. I'm going to try and contact her and find out her thoughts.

I'd like to see where in the court ruling you find that. Here's why I think you're wrong: All aspects of the creation of SDF Macross went through the chief director, Ishiguro Noboru and thus are attributed to TP all other sources about this are irrelevant.

There is no ambiguity in this statement. Is this right or wrong?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if actual clarification of the division of Author's Rights is still forthcoming. Wrylac- Here's what I'm curious about. You post this chart... ... on which you've handily circled what rights BigWest has been granted. But you still have not clarified how you've come to the conclusion that BigWest was only granted the Moral Rights of Author. Does it say that in Naoko's translation? The problem is that you seem to be making a leap here and, I may be stupid, but I simply cannot see how you've come to this conclusion. Also, this quote from Mainichi is very ambiguous (being a short news blurb)... ...and mentions only Property Rights, not Economic Rights as you've sectioned in the above chart. From everything I've found (and according to WIPO) Property Rights seem to be a catchall term for Intellectual Rights (patents, etc.) and Copyrights. As I read the Mainichi quote, that's what I take from it. So by using that as a base for stating that BigWest is only granted Moral rights and Tatsunoko gets everything else seems to be wrong. Then I ask you this Drew, is the Mainichi article wrong or does TP own the entire "author's right?" The statement you quote may be ambiguous but the statement about TP owning the "author's right" is not ambiguous. The "moral right" only allows for a person to be properly credited for their work, their work cannot be attributed to any other person which is why the "individual right of author" was excluded from TP copyright.

Why do research when I can have you do it for me? With all of your "research," I'm willing to bet your knowledge is barely higher than mine when it comes copyright law in Japan (basically, next to nothing). Are you saying that you get more out of this translation than what we already knew? I don't want to start a fight. Let's just drop this. I wll say that this ruling certainly lends more weight to the TP/HG argument.

Actually, let's take a look back. The Mainichi news article helps us understand the proper division of the "author's right" for SDF Macross. This article states that the "author's right" was granted to TP. According to the translation "without individual right of author." Which is the "Moral Right" which according to Japanese law can never be transfered to any other individual. Here is that graph I made earlier to help explain.

Er...what? Anyhow, the general idea can be received from this, and that general idea seems to be that Tatsunoko won this decision and owns the rights of the Macross TV series. I can't really get anything more than that out of this translation. Basically, TP wants it to be confirmed to BW that TP holds the copyright to SDF Macross and TP asks that BW stop obstructing their trying make available Macross product to the public. No offense, but it's probably get very little from it because you haven't done nor care to do the amount of research that some of us have done regarding Japanese copyright laws. Everyone knows that the implications of a ruling are just as important as the actual ruling itself. In this case it has established a set of facts that, wether one would like to admit or not, does have implications on the derivative works.

Many of you know that I’ve been searching for a way to get a complete translation of the January 2003 Tokyo Court ruling, and thanks to my new friend Naoko, here it is… But in the interest of full disclosure, I’m first going to share the story behind this translation even though I know some of you will just dismiss me out right. But, before you do, as some may in retaliation, remember, I had tangible evidence that the previous translation posted here was not comprehensive, I asked questions of the translator to help clarify my concerns before I made my judgments. I hope to get some of the same courtesy. I was at a Dodger game with some friends, Hideo Nomo happened to be pitching and whenever that happens there are more Japanese fans in the stands than usual, I happened to sit next to a group of them. I’d been running low on leads that I had on people who might have done the translation for me, so when I noticed that the group of fans sitting next to me were all speaking Japanese to each other I took the opportunity to start a conversation, that’s how I met Naoko. Naoko’s a very nice Japanese girl that has only been in the U.S. since March. She came here to go to school to learn the airline business. At the time, however she was attending English classes at a local academy. Turns out this Academy is only 2-3 miles from where I live. I talked to her about wanting to pay someone to translate a document for me, but she would have none of it, she said she would do it for no charge. I insisted on buying her dinner. We met for dinner and I gave her the Japanese document that I got from cwbrown and basically I told her that two companies were fighting over the rights to an anime called Macross. I did not want to influence her in any way as to how to look at the document. The result is what I’m about to post for you. Please realize that Naoko is not a law student and her English is still needs some work, but I’m very pleased at the work she did and I think the translation came out very nicely. My analysis: The portions of the document that I think has the most weight are the distribution of court costs to 90% being paid by BW, the court’s interpretation of the production of SDF Macross and the court’s reasoning behind its decision. As we all know, BW owns the copyright to the design work of SDF Macross based on the Feb. 02 ruling, and TP owns the copyright to SDF Macross. In fact no where in the document does the court even distinguish a difference between the copyright of the “animation” and SDF Macross as a whole. However, I think the court definitively gives a definition to the term “animation” and puts to rest the notion that TP owns only the “animation” of SDF Macross. It all boils down to who paid of the work to be done, in the summary of facts as recognized by the court Section E Paragraph 2, the court clearly states that TP paid all parties for their involvement. Also, as far as the creation of the work, in the court’s decision on the second complaint the court clearly sides with TP stating that despite all the pre-production BW did for the show and although there were many hands that put together the show that would become SDF Macross the ultimate responsibility and ultimate direction of the series came from Ishiguro Noboru an employee of TP thus crediting TP as being the originator of the series. This I believe clearly indicates that TP are the copyright owners to the storyline to SDF Macross. And by default, which needs no further court clarification, granted international distribution rights to all derivative work of SDF Macross via the contract they agreed to when dividing the profits. In my opinion, all the questions about who did what in the past are now moot. The only thing that now matters is what happens now that this decision has been made. Later, I'm going to do some formatting work to help make this more readable, however right now I'm tired. Anyone wanting a completely formatted MS Word verion of the translation feel free to e-mail me.

Want to ask two things (the first of which may be a newbie question but here goes) 1 - Are the posts on rt.com edited to leave out the names of the manufacturing companies?!?! I can understand no posting of websites to obtain bootleg items, but editing a company name? (Like anyone couldn't figure the names out) Doesn't sound like the kind of thing a certain "fluffy bunny of a fan friend" company (HG if ya couldn't tell by the dripping sarcasm) would do now does it? 2 - What ever happened to Sunwards anyhow? Any past thread I've missed? I wish BW would take on HG in a court battle, there really is no case if you look at the facts Actually, I don't edit their names when I post. And my posts never get deleted. You just have to know how you can use them. For instance, I would mention that Yamato or Bandai had Macross products available in Japan, but I avoid being specific as to what those products are.

I was planning a rather lenghty rebuttal to that notion but you seem to clear it up very concisely. People got that idea from some bad information given out in Jan and finally someone else but me is saying so.

I got a response: From: "Info Info" <xxxx@tokyopop.com> Date: Tue Sep 23, 2003 08:26:45 PM US/Eastern To: "Jeff Sorley" <xxxx@theroots.org> Subject: RE: Macross 7 Trash Hi, Macross 7 is temporarily on hold. More information regarding it will be issued as more information comes in. Thanks for your patience! Make of it what you will. Sounds to me that BW didn't like TokyoPop involving HG. What ever the outcome it seems to me that HG has more than proven that they're willing to have Macross and RT co-exist.

The other problem is that HG has been known to be less than truthful. Nobody here believes them, even if we hear it from them directly. Now why would they lie about whether or not their name is on a book? Despite all your guy's pessimism, it's pretty damn believable that they are putting their name on Trash. Why would they lie about the metal content of their MPCs? Why would they lie about exactly what rights they hold? Why would they lie about anything they lie about? Simple. The same reason most people lie, because it suits them and their goals. I'm not saying that their definitely BSing people about this, but they don't exactly have the best track record. Them being full of $hite is just as believable as them putting their name on Trash. (that is funny. ) In the interest of being accurate: Toynami are the ones who lied about metal content, and they came through on the subsequent releases of the MPC. And, there's no definitive evidence that HG has lied about their rights. Besides, since when is having an opinion one way or another about their rights a lie? BW doesn't have the copyright to SDF Macross, was it a lie when they said to the court that they did? Actually... no, since in court they were making their case. They presented arguments that support their point of view. How the ruling came out has nothing to do whether they "lied" or not is irrelevant at that point in time. As for HG, whether they've "lied" or not is at best boarderline. What is true, is that they've certianly embelished the "truth"(at least from their point of view) by quite a bit. Then you and I are in agreement. That just might be a first.

The other problem is that HG has been known to be less than truthful. Nobody here believes them, even if we hear it from them directly. Now why would they lie about whether or not their name is on a book? Despite all your guy's pessimism, it's pretty damn believable that they are putting their name on Trash. Why would they lie about the metal content of their MPCs? Why would they lie about exactly what rights they hold? Why would they lie about anything they lie about? Simple. The same reason most people lie, because it suits them and their goals. I'm not saying that their definitely BSing people about this, but they don't exactly have the best track record. Them being full of $hite is just as believable as them putting their name on Trash. (that is funny. ) In the interest of being accurate: Toynami are the ones who lied about metal content, and they came through on the subsequent releases of the MPC. And, there's no definitive evidence that HG has lied about their rights. Besides, since when is having an opinion one way or another about their rights a lie? BW doesn't have the copyright to SDF Macross, was it a lie when they said to the court that they did?

My car

Simple, Big West would refuse to hand over any materials (ie. films, line art, reference materials, etc.). It can also tell companies like Bandai and Yamato not to play ball with HG (as in releasing their Valk toys under the Robotech name) because it would negatively effect their business relations... otherwise saying, Big West may no longer give licenses to any company that goes over its head to work with Harmony Gold. If some of us are correct, Toykyo Pop may have put itself in this situation and may have a difficult time directly getting any kind of future rights or exclusives from Big West. I agree, this has been going on for sometime already.

No, my question was specific about having their logo on the cover.

LOL!!! This is so damn funny! And yet... so damn true. I knew someone would get a laugh out of that.

The other problem is that HG has been known to be less than truthful. Nobody here believes them, even if we hear it from them directly. Now why would they lie about whether or not their name is on a book? Despite all your guy's pessimism, it's pretty damn believable that they are putting their name on Trash.

Actually, you couldn't. It would be hearsay. Well, unless one of the exceptions applied, but we won't get into that. Not to the truthfulness of the statement but, I could testify that he made the statement.

Could you please point me to this evidence? Besides TokyoPop's press release and Effect's online chat, the only thing I've ever heard is when you stated you asked Alan Letz if HG's name would be on it and you stated that he said: "Yes." To my knowledge, there has not been any official confirmation from HG that they're name would be on it. Oh, is that all... Geeze, I asked the question I got an answer, I mean Graham comes here all the time with Yamato info and his word is considered holy. I've got a personal direct experience with a HG employee who would know. If I were in a court of law I could testify to what that person said, do I need to put my hand on a Bible or something?