ewilen

I think he's talking about the Japanese anime version of Starship Troopers, for which Studio Nue did the designs. (A very similar powered suit also appears in one of the Daicon videos.) As for Megaroad..."Battle City Megaroad" was the name of the original project that became Macross. Then after SDF Macross and DYRL, they named the SDF-2 the "Megaroad" just to confuse you. Read The Macross That Might Have Been, by Egan Loo, and all will be clear(er). Miscellaneous note of relevance to this discussion: as Egan mentions in the Animeigo liner notes ( http://www.animeigo.com/Liner/MACROSS.t ),

Here are pictures of a few iterations of the Valk prototypes. http://www.yellowlightman.com/macross/features/megaroad/ And a tip o' the hat to our yellowlightman!

It's very easy to get the replacement DVD. Just send an email to ADV and they'll get one out to you quickly. I too prefer SC to Mospeada, although I found that I enjoyed Mospeada much more in the original than in the Robotech version. SC has a few bad moments, but it also has some great moments. (One of my favorites is the scene where Jeanne (Dana) confronts Siefriet (Zor) in the hospital.)

I think that was a conscious design decision to improve visibility of the battroid. They should probably be thought of as invisible, not missing. The game is frustrating. There are several places where you have to do something exactly right or you'll fail. This makes it feel almost more like Pacman or Mario Bros than an immersive semi-simulation. Not to mention, in some places, beating the mission isn't hard, but it requires you do something that's boring either repeatedly or continuously for a long time. And furthermore, many of the missions consist of an easy-but-long-and-boring part, followed by a short-and-incredibly-hard part. So after you fail the hard part, you have to go back and go through all the drudgery again. As a representation of Macross, Ido has pointed out some additional flaws. In general, the battroid and the gerwalk aren't maneuverable enough, and the fighter is often hampered by ceilings. I find I spend most of my time in gerwalk due to the availability of missiles and auto-targeting of the gun. Fighter is useful in the air/space, also at moments where you need to get somewhere fast, and sometimes where I need to do a lot of missile damage even though I'd prefer to be moving at gerwalk speed. (Which reminds me--there's another artificiality.) I think battroid is pretty useless due to lack of missiles and slow movement. I only choose it when I want to walk/boost backwards or if I have a sniping opportunity. In spite of the frustrations, though, I'm still playing the game because it has entertainment value, combined with the "I'll be damned if I'm going to let this stupid game beat me" factor.

On the Toho release of the english-dubbed laserdisc, I think I've found the Shogakukan logo. It's at the bottom right of the front and the bottom left of the back. The same logo is on the perfect edition laserdisc, at the bottom left of the front. Next to it is the Bandai Emotion logo. If you look at the perfect edition DVD (see below), only the Emotion logo is visible. This all backs up what you say, but I don't have any guesses better than yours. It does support the notion that Shogakukan was involved in the Super Space Fortress Macross dub. Also note the Big West logo on the back of SSFM. I really think that Tatsunoko didn't have much of anything to do with the dub. It was probably done by Shogakukan (which either had BW's approval or thought it did) and distributed by Toho. Then I would guess that Toho got the idea that either their cinematic distribution rights or their video distribution agreement allowed them to license translated versions of DYRL to Kiseki/Celebrity.

That would make sense. The findings of fact for the 11/11/03 and 7/1/04 trademark ruings both state that Tatsunoko was responsible for the actual animation. (Not to mention Renato keeps saying the saying the same thing.) That's why I'd expect their name (or at least the names of some employees) to be in the credits. But in this case I'm looking for the basis of Keith's comment that there's a connection between TP and the English-language releases of DYRL. So far, I think he's most likely misremembering the Toho copyright that appears on some of them. Or, less likely, he saw TP in the credits of one of the English releases and mistook that to mean TP was specifically responsible for that version. Either way, I don't see any evidence that TP ever tried to claim any more rights to DYRL than what they got in the DYRL contract (see 2/20/04 posts above): basically just a share of the profits and possibly custody of the master print. Doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Just means I haven't seen any. This is a very niggling point. I was just trying to see if there was any precedent at all for HG's claim that they've somehow discovered or obtained the right to make DYRL toys.

Since it's RT, not Macross, it would have gone in the Other Animation section. If there's nothing there now, it may be because all the discussion predated the switch to new board software.

Over at http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...40entry169842 Keith wrote: So far I haven't been able to confirm this. Probably all versions of DYRL list Tatsunoko somewhere in the credits, but I doubt that's what you're referring to. Could it be that you're remembering seeing Toho credited? Take a look at these: http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/...rossldfront.jpg (top left) http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/...crossldback.jpg (bottom left) http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/kiseki_dyrlb.jpg (barely visible bottom middle panel) http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/kiseki_clashb.jpg (barely visible bottom middle panel) http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/mvc-020s.jpg (barely visible bottom right) http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/mvc-027s.jpg The Best Film version of CoB has the Big West copyright marked on it though. I'm guessing that Toho overstepped their bounds. From the findings of fact in the recent trademark judgments, it appears that Toho only had a cinema distribution contract. I'll bet they thought they had the right to distribute on LD and VHS, resold the "rights" to Kiseki/Celebrity, and that was the origin of the DYRL international licensing mess. Edit: This article says that Toho had an option to release DYRL in US back in 1986. But that may have only pertained to cinematic release, so it's still possible/probable that Toho didn't have the right to sell the international video rights. Meanwhile this FAQ from rec.arts.animation states that the Super Space Fortress dub was commissioned by Shogakukan. It's also possible that the Toho logo on some of the above releases is due to Toho distributing the video in cooperation with Shogakukan, who (according to the 11/11/03 findings of fact) did have the video rights.

Please see the legal debate thread, where I'm posting a followup on this.

Ah, I may have misinterpreted wrylac's last post(s) slightly, and/or I overthought things, leading to my making a correction when none was needed. As above, since the animation case ruled that TP has the copyright to SDF Macross, and since the memorandum contract only assigned certain domestic rights to companies other than TP, it follows that TP does indeed have the entire copyright for SDF Macross internationally. But I'll stick to my opinion that SDF Macross is itself a derivative work based on previously-existing artwork and story. So owning copyright of SDF Macross doesn't translate into owning the exclusive right to other Macross products.

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_...s/Megaroad.html http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronology/2010/ See September 2012. http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronology/2013/ See 2016 entry. I assume the SegaSaturn booklet has some information bearing on what is known about the Megaroad-01's disappearance.

Looking at all those nested quotes makes me dizzy.

Okay, wondering what Gonzo-art is. I guess it's stuff like on this page: http://www.gonzo.co.jp/english/titles/index.html From those examples, I say: some of it looks nice ('wish you were here') but a lot of it is too big-eyed. Any particular designers? And/or I'm just curious and would appreciate if you could elaborate on the wow-effect.

Yes, I'm sure that feedback/synergy between toys and TV shows is a factor in Gundam's success and Macross's more moderate success. But I think it would be interesting to know what, exactly, are the indispensible elements of Macross that need to be repeated/retained in a series in order to satisfy the fanbase. Mikimoto? Not in M+ or Zero, but maybe that was a mistake. Idol singers? Well, a music theme is always there. War as the main background? Not in M+. A mistake? A big alien army to fight? Not in M+ or Zero. Mistake? Let's not forget transforming mecha...yeah. And Protoculture/mystery of life kind of stuff. It's in everything but M+, although it might be possible to form a connection with Sharon. And a love triangle. Seems to be in every series, though I haven't seen enough of M7 to be sure. Of the lot, I could really do without the triangles. The repetition is obvious. Some love interest is advisable, though, in the sense that Macross always has an element of Romance. Personally, I've been weaned off Mikimoto by the excellence of M+ and M0. Yes, I know most of you hate Roy in M0. War/big bad aliens? Nearly as repetitious as the triangles, and not necessary in my opinion. I think they could take things in another direction if they wanted while keeping a lot of action. Mainly, I think they could do something more exploration-oriented. Transforming mecha have to be there. Protoculture is an important background element, and if M0 doesn't exhaust it completely, I think it could be used further. See above re: exploration. Idol singers: it's a hard plot point to retain without becoming repetitious and ridiculous. M7 and M0 are trying to find a way to connect the music to the Protoculture theme, but how long can they keep it up? Basically, the main rut Macross is in danger of running into is the "enemy of the week" syndrome, though spread across multiple series. Also the "idol singer of the week" syndrome and the "love triangle of the week". Add in Mikimoto, and you've got Macross II. But maybe with better execution, the could just keep recycling those ideas. I'd prefer to see them use the other key elements, which in my opinion form the real background of the Macross universe instead of clichéd plot points. So that leaves us with transforming mecha and Protoculture. Music has now been more or less explicitly connected to the PC, though. So they might have to retain music as an explicit foreground element. This might be a good thing if the music is good. Otherwise, they'd need to find a way to gently separate music from the protoculture.

(Oops. Didn't catch this edit when I made my last post.) Well, no. The ruling says that TP has the copyright to SDF Macross. This would be the "primitive copyright" that came into effect at the moment the work was created. However, as stated in the findings of fact, the memorandum contract assigned various rights to different parties. Since copyright can be transferred in whole or part by contract, the significance of the judgment is that TP owns those portions of the copyright which were not explicitly assigned by the memorandum. The earlier line art case should be viewed the same way: BW/SN were judged to have the primitive copyright on the line art, but this doesn't invalidate the assignment of rights contained in the memorandum. What does the memorandum say? Apparently, that TP gets overseas merchandising rights (I'll make the caveat that "merchandise" isn't a legal term and is slightly vague) and overseas distribution rights for the TV show. There may also be something in there about overseas "publication" rights, which I would take to mean the right to create printed adaptations such as comic books. TP certainly got the domestic rights for printed publications targeted at children in the sixth grade and below. Studio Nue got domestic rights for printed publications targeted at older audiences. Big West got domestic rebroadcast and merchandising rights. (Rights to profits were defined separately from licensing/distribution rights. Profits from overseas sales went entirely to TP; TP was also given a share of domestic profits even though it didn't control the licensing on most categories; Mainichi Broadcasting also got a share of the domestic merchandising profits.) Only after you subtract these contractual assignments do you get the rights that BW/SN and TP own by "default" from their ownership of the line art and animation copyrights, respectively. Bringing this back to the DYRL superposables, something I may have mentioned before: I suppose it's conceivable that the "merchandise" portion of the memorandum may have been worded in such a way as to give TP the right to use any and all Macross-franchise designs in overseas merchandise. At least, this could be the legal argument on which HG bases its current claims about the DYRL Super-posables. But that's just speculation in an effort to fill in the gaps, since it no longer appears that BW and TP have reached an agreement. If that's the line HG is taking, then BW probably disagrees, since they told Toycom that TP didn't own exclusive rights (probably not any rights) to DYRL. (From http://www.valkyrie-exchange.com/news/toynami/1242001.html )If BW still feels this way, I wouldn't be surprised to see negotiations and/or a lawsuit to clarify the point.

Okay, sorry for that. My main point is that it's difficult to advance things if we have to keep rehashing points of fact. Now that this thread is at the top of the "recent threads" list, maybe we can move the DYRL toys discussion here. Although, personally, I don't have anything to add for the moment. I'll just echo TWDC and others by saying that I'm very skeptical of HG claim of newly-discovered rights. Maybe further reporting will help clarify.

I'll take everyone's word for it re: Gundam (haven't seen much myself), but isn't it funny that "war is bad", yet the real message of Gundam and Macross is that you can portray war as kickass cool, provided you slap on a "war is bad" message?

They need to be nitpicky when you keep making arguments based on incorrect descriptions of copyright law and incorrect reporting of the facts. If you write things like, "Creative rights is a very specific term with legal significance," you should be prepared to be called for blowing smoke. When you write, "The same ruling basically said that internationally TP has everything else," you are making a false assertion. In an exchange with you (link), I've already pointed out that the ruling didn't say anything about the international market for anything other than SDF Macross.

I think you're referring to this: at http://www.toynami.com/macross.htmlThe act of attaching a TM to a name has a clear intent: you're saying the name is a trademark that belongs to you. Attaching a copyright notice to a name really doesn't mean anything at all. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html In other words, a copyright notice is placed on the copy of the thing on which you are claiming copyright. (All this is aside from the fact that US law no longer requires any kind of notice. But if you're going to use one, it's not really meaningful unless it's on the thing.) So, on what is HG claiming copyright? Obviously not the name. The notice is meaningless at worst, ambiguous at best. While they may be trying to give the impression that they have copyright on the movie, the most they've actually claimed (according to the beginning of this thread) is copyright on the designs they're using to make the DYRL superposables. My best guess at the "real" meaning of the notice is that they're claiming the right to create "merchandise" (toys, clothing, etc.) based on the line art designs from DYRL. That would include pictures of mecha, ships, and characters.

Another judgment has been issued by the Tokyo District Court, dated July 1, 2004. This judgment is very similar to the judgment of November 11, 2003 which I posted about back on February 20. The earlier judgment apparently concerned a request for an injunction by Tatsunoko against BW and Bandai, to prevent them from using the term "Macross" in various products (such as DVDs including Macross Zero). Tatsunoko lost that judgment. This new judgment concerns a suit by Tatsunoko against BW and Bandai for 685 million yen (about $6.3 million) because BW and Bandai have been using the term "Macross" in the titles of various products including Macross II, Macross Plus, Macross 7, Macross Dynamite 7, and Macross Zero. As in the previous judgment, Tatsunoko lost and was assigned all the legal costs. One detail worth mentioning: while arguing this case, Big West said that the earlier judgments of 1/20/2003 and 9/25/2003 found that BW owns the Author's Moral Right to SDF Macross. I didn't see this spelled out in the texts of those judgments-- they seemed to say that TP didn't have the Moral Right, without specifying who did have the Moral Right. I thought that the Moral Right could conceivably belong to Noburo Ishiguro personally, since as director he was judged to be the person who oversaw the entire project. Had he performed his directing work as an employee of Tatsunoko, then TP would have obtained the Moral Right. I am guessing that Ishiguro was officially an employee of BW, or was doing "work for hire" for Big West during the Macross production. According to Japanese copyright law, BW would therefore get the rights. A note about Moral Right: in another thread, wrylac wrote that it's something given "only to the creators of a concept or idea". This is incorrect. Having a concept or idea does not give you the Moral Right. In general, Moral Rights automatically belong to the original author of a work. Having an idea doesn't make you an author. Turning it into words, pictures, etc. does. Those words or pictures are a work. The Moral Right gives you the right to control the work's display to the public, the right to be recognized as the author, and the right to protect the integrity of the work. You retain these rights even if you sell the copyright to the work (although there is some implied consent regarding display). If you create a work in the course of normal duties as an employee, or if you create it as "work for hire", then the employer gets whatever rights you would be entitled to, including Moral Right. A movie is a special case: the Moral Right goes to the person involved in the entire creative process--typically the director or producer--while the copyright goes to whoever financed the making of the movie. Here is a link to the latest court case: http://courtdomino2.courts.go.jp/chizai.ns...cf?OpenDocument alternate link: http://courtdomino2.courts.go.jp/chizai.ns...CF?OpenDocument translan version: http://www.translan.com/jucc/precedent-2004-07-01.html

Kamjin 639, you're mistaken. Sorry. A detailed answer would rightly belong in the legal debates thread. Basically, your assumptions are partly contradicted by some of the legal cases, and partly contradicted by a contract between BW and TP (whose exact terms are secret but which has been summarized in various places). They've also been further challenged by TP in other legal cases, though unsuccessfully so far. Once again, I would point you to the IP/Cyberlaw Watch article for information on earlier judgments regarding copyright, and to my posts from Feb. 20 onwards in the legal debates thread for the most recent judgments on trademark. Hiriyu, I think your speculation is very much on the mark. However, what HG has been establishing is not copyright, but trademark. You don't establish copyright by selling products: copyright exists at the moment a work is created, and it can be then be sold or transferred in a very clearcut fashion. Trademark on the other hand is established by using a mark in commerce. Also, there was no need initially to look at an obscure contract clause. HG's ability to use SDF Macross is uncontroversial; what was new (as you say) was that they were marketing stuff using the Macross name instead of Robotech (including DVD's and an earlier special run of Super Posables). Now HG is trying to expand its trademark claims to another title--DYRL. But in order to use the title in commerce, HG had to come up with some DYRL merchandise. Thus the new SP's, and thus the claim that an obscure clause lets them use the DYRL designs, even though the copyright on those designs apparently belongs to Big West.

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.

Even wrylac has acknowledged that the re-editing of Macross into Robotech could be seen as a violation of the author's moral right. He suggested it might be too late to raise the issue, which may be right. While there's no statute of limitations on copyright, and you don't lose it for not defending it (as with trademark), I think there may be an out in the "equitable" concepts of "laches" and "equitable estoppel". In other words, HG might be able to argue that it's not fair for someone to raise objections twenty years after the fact. (Insert standard "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer.)

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.)

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."