wrylac

I'm only suggesting that where BW deserves to be compensated HG would be more than willing to be fair with BW.

The problem with this is the fact that HG has constantly claimed to own all of the rights. If they start paying BigWest them that's essentially saying that they were either A.) Wrong, or B.) Lying through their teeth. HG doesn't want to pay to use merchandise for the Japanese market because that would cut into their profits. They're more than happy to say that they own all of the rights and then have Toynami pay them a licensing fee to produce toys. Also, at this time, with the popularity of Anime and Manga, it would make more sense for BigWest to work with a company with whom they have a good relationship and also has a secure operation set up here in the states, companies like Bandai or Yamato. I would think that if I were Bigwest (which I'm not), I'd rather want to work with them than with a company who is trying to usurp a franchise which I believe is mine and mine alone to deal with. Except that HG has already confirmed that their name would be on the Trash release. Please tell me where I've been dishonest about anything so that you doubt my story. There's no evidence to suggest that HG would refuse BW fair compensation for use of the shows and merchandise. If I were BW I'd protect what I thought I own as far as I could and then do what it took to deal with the reality of the situation. I always assume both companies are just trying to do their best to protect their own interests. Which is why I try to focus on the validity of claims and not question the integrity of those involved.

OK- here's the problem with this whole Macross 7 Trash thing: 1) BigWest, being a business and all, will expect to be paid a licensing fee for Macross 7 Trash. 2) HG has clearly stated, over and over, that they own the international rights (outside of Japan) to Macross and that's that. Now, I highly doubt that BigWest will just give away the Trash license, and I sincerely doubt that HG will actually pay for it. If HG does pay for it, that could be seen as an admission that they were lying about owning all of the rights because no company in their right mind would pay for something they already legally own. This goes for all Macross-related merchandise as well. 1st BRD- Maybe they didn't sell well because no one wanted to pay an exhorbant amount of money for what was, essentially, the same crappy Super-Poseable. AnimeIgo's release of the TV Series sold extremely well. One would think that it sold well enough that HG would consider releasing other Macross titles. You know, because they DO happen to own the rights to all of them, after all. I thought it was pretty well accepted that TPop had gotten approval from BW and then approval from HG. Meaning BW was getting paid for Trash. That's one way it could happen for a lot of the merchandise. Another way would be for HG to pay BW for the different merchandise items and license it out to some one to produce. I don't know where you get the idea that BW wouldn't be compensated. There's no conflict with HG's claim and that idea. Even the Feb02 ruling says that TP need to develope the merchandise they sold overseas, nothing about outright ownership of any merchandise developed. I've not seen HG refuse to include BW in merchandise developement. The easiest way to develope overseas merchandise would be to just pay to be able to use merchandise made for the Japanese market.

You mean aside from granting TokyoPop the right to release Macross 7 Trash? It could also be that HG is trying to get BW to finally cooperate on the Japanese merchandise. What better way to introduce Macross toys than with a HG sanctioned Yamato or Bandai? There's a ton of merchandise in Japan that I'm sure HG would love to get their hands on. That way they wouldn't have to spend too much time developing merchandise. To clarify, in no way do I mean to say that BW wouldn't be fairly compensated for the work they've done.

If you like, take a gander at the thread that inspired the ANN article... Sad Legal News...

Actually, I'm wrong, it's probably that a thread got started in the Series forum as justvinnie's post says, I'll have to check there.

Heh, are you serious? I think you're seeing things the way you want to see them. Interesting, that whole days posts were deleted but justvinnie made this comment: Dated Jan. 21, 2003 Link

It's still on the RT.com website.

In no way should you take me more seriously than ANN. I'm just pointing out that they aren't really any more reliable than any of us. Also, when that article popped up the next day I remember saying to myself this is point by point what was on the MW message boards yesterday. But really, that's not the point.

That second article was written by ANN themselves and was not from a "serious" news source. It is basically the compilation of the speculative arguments that were presented on the old message board when the news was released.

Search animenewsnetwork.com archives for Macross related news. You'll find this: Dated Jan. 20, 2003

Japanese Copyright Law and Charts Actually, I'm remembering the post you're talking about now. It was a misinterpertation of a chart that was only to exlempify the types of works that are protected as an author's right. Looking at the top chart, BW was only granted the Moral Right of authorship, the author's Moral Right gives no economic rights. TP were granted the rest of the copyright. EDITED graphic to represent Drew's note. To clarify, they each own seperate portions of the Author's Right.

Let me pose this question to you all: If it were clear that TP does have the copyright to the story of SDF Macross, meaning BW doesn't, could TP have rightfully made claim against BW for infringing on their property by using the name Macross? I'm not talking about the character designs, I'm talking about using the Macross name and following the general story line, even in one animation keeping the same characters and using them to create a new animation. Also, for arguements sake, although I know they played a small role, let pretend TP had nothing to do with DYRL?. I'm just trying to use this as an example.

It wouldn't be a single term or phrase. The way it would work would the court would describe each individual's responsibility toward the project. Then determine who that person worked for and how this specific show was put together. So what your saying is that potentialy several diffrent companies own the diffrent elements? If that's the case how is any one of the partner companies able to make other projects based off the original with out any sort of involvment of the other? If that isn't what your saying could you provide some sort of example of what you are saying? Damnit I accidently logged with my friend's ID... Druna Skass Actually, it's more like following the chain of command to the top and where the money came from for the production. The person at the top is the one ultimately responsible, having carried most of the risk.

Everyone knows the real moneys in the toys.

It wouldn't be a single term or phrase. The way it would work would the court would describe each individual's responsibility toward the project. Then determine who that person worked for and how this specific show was put together.

It'd be news to me if anyone here did make such a claim. I don't mean to provoke anyone, but I think you're remembering it wrong.

Aren't you undercutting your own premise there? If "TP cannot make animation based on those images," then who can? BW would seem to be the logical answer, if they own the rights to the line art. And say what you will, DYRL and the other shows were original stories. Set in the same universe, yes, but original stories. Tat does have the rights to SDF Macross, that is pretty much granted. But still -- how far do those rights go? Raise your hands if you've seen this memo -- I sure haven't. Same problem. There's a kind of logical inconsistency with what the tone of discussion has been ("HG owns Macross, get over it" is how I see your point of view [and I apologize if this is an unfair abstraction, Wrylac]) and this statement. They have said, and I have heard you and a few others reiterate exactly that HG outright owns the outside-of-the-Japanese-Archipelago rights to any anime property that has the Macross name on it. Gaaaaaaaahhhhh-- WDC-- you said everything I was going to say on this topic, and said it better Actually, the delineation is quite clear. This is why those that say this same argument has been going on for many years are wrong. The argument now is quite different. We never knew that the lineart and show were seperate entities until Feb 02. Here's the reasoning, BW owns these drawings, they want to make a cartoon from these drawings but can't afford to. Things happen, eventually BW grants TP the right to create the show SDF Macross based on thier drawings. TP makes the show we all know and love, and because they were the ones who paid for it all, they now own the show. BW still owns those drawings. When you read the Feb02 ruling ask yourself, what beyond the lineart does the court grant BW? The story? The character personalities? Why did TP allow the creation of derivative works based on a show they owned? Maybe they thought there was no overseas market for it, as RT had pretty much taken over the animation, maybe they since BW really didn't push it too hard on the overseas market which was their territory. But, BW trying to release toys was like poking a stick at a bee hive. There's money in toys. I doubt you can get very far, even on this board, claiming that the subsequent shows on Macross, aren't derivative of SDF Macross. I think I've always made it clear that HG only has a hold on Macross because of their relationship with TP.

HG has said a lot of things and, sadly enough, they've been caught before. If not by outright lying, at least by bending the truth quite a bit (the infamous "No one was minding the store" excuse is a good one). Also, there really isn't any proof that HG actually has talked to Bandai or Yamato. IIRC, Graham asked the guys from Yamato once if this was true and they had no idea what he was talking about. I could possibly think it was true of Bandai, but not very possible. I mean, until the chunky monkey re-issues, Bandai had only done certain VF's from Mac7. Why would HG want to bring those over when there's not a large market or a production to correlate with? And by the time the re-ishes were announced, the whole legal fiasco had begun and even if HG did talk to Bandai by then, I think Bandai would've said the same thing they've always said: "We're gonna wait until things clear up a bit." My allergies are killing me right now. edit:yeah, yeah, yeah... I spell bad. Agent One... strike me down!!! But, the contract does give TP copyright to SDF Macross. All the derivatives are based on SDF Macross, the line art itself (which BW owns the right to) does not inherently contain a story, just images. TP cannot make animation based on those images. BW has been just as unwilling to divulge information. HG's stating its hold on Macross in various ways in no way means that those statements are contradictory. HG doesn't outright own the rights that TP have. TP's lax enforcement of their copyright could be explained by their cultural attitude/laws toward fair use.

Exactly, basing the discussion on the validity of HG's claims is what we should be doing not attacking the motives and integrity of HG employees.

image on box I'd like to know of any variations you like.

Anyone pick one up? I need some help with the color scheme, anyone have a pic I can use as a guide?

HG has said many times that they'd be willing to work with Yamato and Bandai to bring their merchandise over. It's not about insecurity, it's about compensation.

Not going to happen, at least not according to the insight and conversations I've had with some over at HG. Really, the release of M7 Trash, should dispell any such thoughts.

Why stop at the edit button? Let's nuke the board. After all, those hit and run posters can't post those terrible posts without this board up and running. <_< edit for grammar