The real deal with Harmony Gold and DYRL

[Noyhauser]

Then don't. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything you don't want to. Just stick with your Yamato's and leave everyone else to make their own choices about what to spend their money on.

Unfortunately that would be a correct statement if HG wasn't preventing us from aquirng what we want, but they are. My local hobby store won't carry this Hasegawa VF models because the distributer is unable to carry the product due to HG. What does HG have that is even equivalent? nothing. I don't want toys I want my models. If I did want toys why shouldn't I be able to buy Yamatos? Until HG stops forcing me to buy their products I and most people on this board are going to bitch about it because we are getting the shaft.

[Renato]

Keith--thanks, I'll check on that.

Pat Payne--you're making a common mistake when you say that HG's admission that they don't own DYRL conflicts with what they previously said about M+. As far as I can tell, outside Japan, HG claims to own the right to distribute and merchandise SDF Macross stuff (and now DYRL merchandise) as well as the exclusive right to distribute any other "Macross derivatives". The exclusivity part means that other people can't sell "Macross derivatives" without their permission. It does not mean that they have the "positive right" to use any and all Macross intellectual property which may exist.

Renato--you've got me all wrong. Look in the legal thread and you'll see that I've found a court case (11/11/2003) which was decided this year regarding TP suing Bandai and BW for selling products with "Macross" in the title (such as Macross Zero). The judgment includes a description of the roles various parties played in the making of DYRL and their respective rights. I'm aware that TP worked on DYRL. What I'm not so sure about is whether TP owns or owned the right to allow third parties to translate/distribute it. My reading of a machine translation is that the answer is "no, TP doesn't have the right". If you'd like to look at the text, I'd appreciate seeing your opinion of what it says. (My comments on the case and a link were around Feb. 20 '04.)

Oh, OK. Sorry!

[Renato]

Here's the truth, fact fans -- Tatsunoko and Animefriend were the main production houses for DYRL, boys and girls.  I don't often show off, but I've been to the Tatsunoko studio, so I know what I'm talking about.  Even if you don't believe me, just look at all the proof.  Look at production credits, look at the storyboards look at the production cels (they got TATSUNOKO PRO stamped all over 'em).

I don't doubt that TP animated the movie, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. Pixar animated all those nice CGI movies, yet Disney still basically owns them. DYRL was BigWest's project and to state otherwise is folly.*

But as far as contracts are concerned, Studio Nue, Big West and Tatsunoko had to sell the international distribution rights in order to get the bloody show made in the first place (Studio Nue couldn't pay Tatsu, so they outsourced the production of some episodes, but they STILL couldn't cover the costs)...

This statement is a tad inaccurate. BW/Studio Nue/MBS DID pay Tatsunoko Productions, and work started on the show. It wasn't until about the 3rd or 4th episode (IIRC), when TP said it was costing too much and they needed something more in order to continue. THAT is when TP was granted int'l distribution rights and certain merch rights as well.

What did BigWest and the boys get for it? Some good work, true. Some really good work, yeah. But also A LOT of some of the crappiest animation and artwork for the time.

And this one's even better, check it out: If Tatsunoko hadn't sold the international rights, there would have been no original series.

Yeah, this statement is COMPLETELY wrong. The show was well into it's run, (maybe even over) by the time TP actually sold the Int'l rights to anyone. Stop messing with the new kid's heads.

*p.s.- Never use the phrase "Here's the truth..." when listing facts. Truth is subjective to ones viewpoint, facts are solid information. Truth: Robotech Sucks. Fact: Robotech has caused a strong and varied reaction from anime fans over the years.

Thanks, WhiteDrew: For the first couple of points, yeah, that's kind of what I wanted to say. I was just crap at expressing it.

As for the last one, I don't think it's "completely" wrong. I was always under the impression that they used the money they got from the sale of the intl. rights to finish off the episodes, and/or reimburse their debts.

But of course I can't remember where I read this, and no way I'm going back into the offiial HG debate thread while I'm still young.

[Renato]

* Nobody knows what happened to the Megaroad.

Tell us, oh wise one, what DID happen to the Megaroad?

It became the Miniroad?

Hehe.

Yeah, you know, that black hole thing. Misa says, "Hey wonder what that is?" and they all die.

Seriously now, SOMEBODY PLEASE scan the booklet for the SegaSaturn game so we can bury this beaten, dead horse.

[ewilen]

For anyone who wants to see what I believe may be the most complete accounting of who was assigned what rights among the various companies which made DYRL, here is the judgment of 11/11/2003:

http://www.translan.com/jucc/precedent-2003-11-11.html

It's in Japanese. The key section is the fourth subsection of the finding of fact. I wrote my interpretation on Feb. 20 in the license debate thread and concluded that TP's rights in regard to DYRL consist of a share of the overall profits, getting their name in the credits, and possibly ownership of the master print (though not the right to copy/distribute the movie). I can't be entirely sure since I don't know Japanese and had to rely on a machine translation.

I'm posting this basically to help out people who don't want to wade through the legal thread. Questions about the court case or arguments about the translation and legal details should probably be posted there.

[LordSixx]

Unfortunately that would be a correct statement if HG wasn't preventing us from aquirng what we want, but they are. My local hobby store won't carry this Hasegawa VF models because the distributer is unable to carry the product due to HG. What does HG have that is even equivalent? nothing. I don't want toys I want my models. If I did want toys why shouldn't I be able to buy Yamatos? Until HG stops forcing me to buy their products I and most people on this board are going to bitch about it because we are getting the shaft.

THANK YOU!!! I should be able to buy WHAT I WANT without getting jacked!

[Roy Focker]

* Nobody knows what happened to the Megaroad.

Tell us, oh wise one, what DID happen to the Megaroad?

It became the Miniroad?

Hehe.

Yeah, you know, that black hole thing. Misa says, "Hey wonder what that is?" and they all die.

Seriously now, SOMEBODY PLEASE scan the booklet for the SegaSaturn game so we can bury this beaten, dead horse.

I agree. Someone please do that.

[Blaine23]

Wow. So we're basically arguing about HG's making DYRL licensed products when 99% of us don't like HG's licensed products anyway?

Hmmm... what can HG make from DYRL? Coffee mug? Hat? Toynami Masterpieces?

No thanks. I've got plenty of great DYRL merchandise and I can't think of a single thing they could make that I'd ever want to buy.

As for the rest, whatever.

[TheLoneWolf]

Yeah, you know, that black hole thing.  Misa says, "Hey wonder what that is?" and they all die. 

Seriously now, SOMEBODY PLEASE scan the booklet for the SegaSaturn game so we can bury this beaten, dead horse.

Hey man, I offered to scan them a few months ago, but you never replied, so I never bothered to go ahead with it. Anyways, here are a couple of pages. I could scan the rest of the booklet later, but it's just characters bios and mecha listings, at least as far as I can tell.

If you need higher res scans for clarity, just say so.

[Keith]

Woah now. How does Big West contracting the creation of Macross II make them anywhere near as shady as HG.

-Original Macross productiosn by Big West...many!

-HG....zip! (the sentinels doesn't even count as that was never completed).

[wrylac]

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.

[Radd]

HG is a business, anyone wanting to make money with their business, would do the exact same thing.

Spoken like a true Cynic... wait, why am I getting this bizzare Deja-vu sensation?

I'm realistic.

Cynics like to say that, but they're about as far from realistic as your average idealist, just in the opposite direction. Saying that all business are just as bad as the next, that they're all out to screw everyone else over, is just like assuming every other human being, even your own boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife/whatever is out to stab you in the back the moment you're not paying attention.

[Keith]

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.

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!

[Radd]

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.

Though I do actually agree with a lot of that, I'd argue that comic books are very much a derivative production in the same way as movies, tv shows, and whatnot. With the amount of storytelling in many videogames these days, I'd say that's a fine line as well. If I write a comic and a show is made from it, the show would be a derivative of the comic. The comic itself would be the source material, not merchandise like a toy or a t-shirt. Someone claiming otherwise is akin to a company that only has the merchandising rights to a show, and not the distribution rights, yet still sells DVDs of the show claiming the DVDs are merchandise. Writing a sequel, prequel, or a side story to something and then selling it as a comic does not change the fact that it is a derivative work, not merchandise.

Of course, despite my reasoning, many people do disagree with me on that one.

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).

Everything I've seen and heard about this new series does lead me to believe that HG is trying to move as far away from Macross as possible and stick to MOSPEADA which they do have creative rights to, through Tatsunoko.

In the eyes of many Macross fans, and I must admit I fall into this category as well, Harmony Gold simply claiming that they own the designs and concepts to Macross was not just stepping over the line, but prancing across it and doing a little jig over on the other side of the line.

[Ladic]

HG is a business, anyone wanting to make money with their business, would do the exact same thing.

Spoken like a true Cynic... wait, why am I getting this bizzare Deja-vu sensation?

I'm realistic.

Cynics like to say that, but they're about as far from realistic as your average idealist, just in the opposite direction. Saying that all business are just as bad as the next, that they're all out to screw everyone else over, is just like assuming every other human being, even your own boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife/whatever is out to stab you in the back the moment you're not paying attention.

trust no one.

[EXO]

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.

UGH... I've never seen a company stretch the meaning of "merchandising rights". As far as I know, merchandising means sell our products, not "steal it from under us and everything else we've worked on."

I don't remember being miserable watching Robotech. I quite enjoyed it as a kid. But they're mishandling of the title and all out intention own everything Macross makes it hard to get that feeling back.

For some reason I had the feeling that they were going to release DYRL. I was at the panel but there was so much talking and the Q&A was so short it was hard to get anything straight... there was only time for ONE question... And it looked almost orchestrated too. They were sure adamant about taking that guy's question first.

[Nightbat]

If Tatsunoko was smart they would've taken back the license the moment HG

became unable/unwilling to do anything with it and give it to someone who would

(like Big West did after Bandai started losing interest)

[Kamjin 639]

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.

[wrylac]

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.

Edited July 6, 2004 by wrylac

[Anubis]

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.

[wrylac]

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.

[JB0]

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.

As did zentradi Regulds, if I recall.

[ewilen]

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."

Edited July 6, 2004 by ewilen

[bsu legato]

Hey, I found some Video of HG's presentation at AX. Who is that guy? Tommy Yune?

[Gaijin]

Hey, I found some Video of HG's presentation at AX. Who is that guy? Tommy Yune?

Damn you! I fell for it!

[Radd]

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.

I believe what he means is HG's claim that they owned all the designs of Macross, and the concepts behind Macross, creative rights, and used those claims to back up their legal threats about Macross derivatives and merchandise not directly related to the tv series.

That could be construed as "HG trying to claim creative rights to anything related to Macross" and "HG trying to exploit Macross in a manner only the creators would have the ability to".

However, I suspect you mean specifically in HG trying to create their own Macross derivatives, which is why I brought up mainly their comic books, videogames, and even the novels would fall into this category.

[daeudi]

(JB0 @ Jul 6 2004, 03:41 PM)

(daeudi @ Jul 6 2004, 01:54 PM)

(Right of preserving the integrity)

Article 20.  (1) The author shall have the right to preserve the integrity of his work and its title against any distortion, mutilation or other modification against his will.

While HG bought the right to air the series, I think everyone here can agree that they distorted, mutilated and other modification against SN/Kawamori's will.

Based on what they bought from TP, Did HG have the right to do that?

In other words, did TP have the right to mutilate it?

As far as I know, Tatsunoko only had distribution rights.

While debatably they could have done mild editing for purposes of making it acceptable to air, I very seriously doubt that distribution rights includes the abiity to rewrite the program to any signifigant degree.

Now how is "any distortion, mutilation or other modification against his will" different from the "derivative work" that HG has done? Where is the proverbial line?

Edited July 6, 2004 by daeudi

[wrylac]

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.

Edited July 6, 2004 by wrylac

[treatment]

errr, uhh, you know, license-debates and stuff goes to

http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=153

[ewilen]

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.

Please go back and read the ruling and/or the article in IP/Cyberlaw Watch (2003, Autumn) which summarizes the Macross lineart and TV series cases.

All the judgment says is that Tatsunoko owns the copyright to SDF Macross. The judgment did not explicitly determine who owns the author's moral right, except to state that Tatsunoko doesn't own it. The judgment also did not rule that Tatsunoko owns "everything else" internationally or otherwise. It merely contains, in the finding of facts, a summary of the memorandum contract between BW and TP. The summary isn't terribly specific; it refers to TP having international distribution and "merchandising" rights, but it doesn't say anything about sequels.

So beyond that, we have to speculate.

If you believe that the various sequels and adaptations of Macross (video games, books, drama recordings, etc.) are derivatives of SDF Macross, then TP might have rights to them (in some sense). However, the lineart ruling clearly shows that SDF Macross itself is a derivative of underlying artwork, and there are indications that the original Macross story would also be considered a previously existing work, on which SDF Macross and all other Macross films, publications, etc. are based.

This view is buttressed by the fact that TP lost the 11/11/04 ruling on trademark; in the court's view, the word "Macross" as an element of a title does not belong to TP. This reinforces the view that the roots of the Macross franchise aren't the property of TP; instead, TP owns only one branch: SDF Macross.

Now for Harmony Gold. They have not, apparently, claimed "ownership" of any Macross intellectual property which they didn't themselves create, other than SDF Macross. Until now, that is: all of the sudden, they seem to have discovered that they have the right to create certain kinds of derivatives of DYRL (i.e., toys). But although their "positive" claims have been limited in terms of what they can use, their "negative" claims have been expansive. HG has claimed that no one other than HG can sell any kind of Macross derivative outside of Japan.

Now, it isn't clear how HG would back up this claim of exclusivity in terms of the law. It could rest mainly on trademark (the Japanese trademark ruling doesn't necessarily mean anything for the US market, since trademark is more fragmented geographically than copyright), or Keith could well be right that HG is trying to claim ownership of copyright on the "story" or "universe". That certainly appears to be what you are claiming on HG's behalf--but as I've just explained, that claim is at best unproven, and most likely incorrect.

(Treatment--it seems to be par for the course that announcements with legal implications generate a fair amount of legal aftershock in the same thread. Don't know what to do about that. Maybe a mod can speak to the issue or even merge the threads.)

Edited July 7, 2004 by ewilen

[Jolly Rogers]

Hey, I found some Video of HG's presentation at AX. Who is that guy? Tommy Yune?

LMAO! "All your Macross are belong to us!"

[the white drew carey]

Hey, I found some Video of HG's presentation at AX. Who is that guy? Tommy Yune?

Now that is terribly funny!

[Knight26]

aargh, its not working for me

[LordSixx]

That guy in the Video looks like Carl Macek...hahahahahahahahaha!!!

[ewilen]

The judgment did not explicitly determine who owns the author's moral right, except to state that Tatsunoko doesn't own it.

Correction: it looks like the judgment did rule that Big West has the author's moral right. Also, there's been another court judgment. Details in the legal thread shortly.