Abombz!! Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 The YF1R is an animation mistake that is in one of the late SDF macross episodes. Actually, the animation mistake is simply a VF-1A with two small lasers coming off of the side. The YV-1R as interpreted by Tommy Yune and HG is a derivitive because they have taken creative license and made their own version of that mistake. The "mistake" VF-1A and the YF-1R are clearly different heads, albeit on the same theme. I know. I'm simply pointing out that, regardless of its name, the monstruosity is still in SDF Macross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 After all we have seen that Big West will do nothing to help Tokyopop. Thin I’m wrong? Well does anyone remember Su-----ds in 2002? Well no one was going to rake in millions off Macross 7 Trash. However this deal could have been a bridge for future deals that could have brought more products over (B---ai, Ya---to, Ha----ga, et. al.) which would have brought millions for Big West. Now its gone…. 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 First of all, you are crediting bankofkev's quote to me which is incorrect. As for editing the companies names in some of these posts, robotech.com can be pretty damn picky in regards to the names of companies who manufacture official Macross merchandise for Big West showing up on the rt.com boards (ie. Yamato, Bandai, Sunwards, etc.). Some of us skirt that by putting dashes in place of some of the letters of those company names. As for Sunwards, whether it was a truly serious attempt by Yamato to sell their Macross goods here in the US or to just send up a trial balloon to guage Harmony Gold's reaction (they did spend hard cash for advertisement in Toyfare magazine), the whole Sunwards deal is pretty much DOA unless something miraculous happens on the licensing front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 guys. What has to happen for Big West to releqase stuff here legally? Sorry if I am out of the loop but I have bene searcing back and just don't get it. Also that is cowardly for BOk to diss you guys from another board. Does bandai really have what it takes to shut HG up and put the nail in the coffin? I don't want tog et my hopes up since I did that 3 years ago and ended up buying my yammies imported. oh well. Can't wait forever. I too wonder what happened with Sunwards but since graham is mum on it and yamato doesn't tell him much about it I wonder whats up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 OK that's it, this whole licence thing is really starting to piss me off. I'm going put togeather a small group to raid the hg building and find this infamous memo or the contract and settle finnaly settle this crap... Who wants to come with...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 After all we have seen that Big West will do nothing to help Tokyopop. Thin I’m wrong? Well does anyone remember Su-----ds in 2002? Well no one was going to rake in millions off Macross 7 Trash. However this deal could have been a bridge for future deals that could have brought more products over (B---ai, Ya---to, Ha----ga, et. al.) which would have brought millions for Big West. Now its gone…. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BankofKev. Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) bankofkev posted the below content at robotech.comThough I may have some disagreement with some of what he says in this (namely overlooking Harmony Gold's faults in this mess), I think there is some validity to it. One of the interesting aspects of the debate that is brought up by Macross Purists is the idea that HG does little to promote Macross products or go out and produce new product licenses. Here is good example of that sentiment on MW: muswp1 Posted: Sep 27 2003, 02:39 PM HG has had opportunities to show their support for both series and they haven't done anything about it. The only thing they have done is continually pump life into Robotech and try to bury any awareness over here of Macross, a great example of that is the lawsuit threats over imported Macross toys last year. While I do not agree with this statement I’m reposting it here as a illustration of the feelings shared by many in the purist movement on this issue. Well during the 2003 SDCC Robotech Panel it was disclosed by Tommy Yune that: "And a big new announcement for this Comic-Con. We're very, very pleased to announce that ToykoPop, starting next April, ToykoPop will start releasing Haruhiko Mikimoto's popular Japanese manga series Macross 7 Trash. Many of you may have picked up the Japanese or French Mangas from different sources, but here we are very, very happy to finally announce an authorized English language release for the U.S. market." Also here is the official Statement form Tokyopop: TokyoPop to Publish MACROSS 7 TRASH Manga Highly Anticipated and Coveted Series will Debut in April 2004 Author: Kristien Brada-Thompson FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Comic-Con, San Diego, CA (July 18, 2003) - Further solidifying its position as the leading U.S. manga publisher, TOKYOPOP Inc. is pleased to announce the addition of Macross 7 Trash to its 2004 manga release schedule. The legendary and complex Macross universe is seminal in the history of anime and manga. There have been thousands of Macross TV anime episodes, movies, manga volumes, toys, and videogames, spanning multiple distinct series. Macross - which was released worldwide by Harmony Gold - recently celebrated its 20th Anniversary and is known to many television viewers as Robotech. One of the most popular incarnations of this franchise is Macross 7. The fan-favorite Macross 7 Trash manga is known as a side-story to the anime - set in the same world, but featuring different themes, characters and tone. Created by Mikimoto Haruhiko (Gundam 0080, Orguss), Macross 7 Trash features a complex, layered, character-driven narrative that adds immeasurably to the overall richness and diversity of the Macross experience. The story was originally serialized in Japan's Shounen Ace magazine from 1994 to 2001. "TOKYOPOP looks forward to not only sharing this compelling series with its existing fanbase here in America, but also to introducing a whole new audience of readers to Macross 7 Trash," said the company's President & COO John Parker. I thought this was a good deal for all parties involved in fact here is what I said at the time on 8/21/03 typos and all! I would like to say that I fully support this deal. In fact this deal benfits everyone , even the macrosspurists: How? 1. Big West gets one of its Macross Derivites into the US and thus gets revenue from the interantional market. 2. HG is able to protect its exclusive ownership of Macross along with protecting its licencees rights and thier future projects. 3. Tokyopop gets to release a manga that Robotech fans would love to see. PLUS they have the full backing (not to mention blessing)of HG and its marketing via Robotech.com 4. The Macross Purists get what they been screaming for: Macross Derivitves easily availble to them with out having outragoues import fees or fear by reatilers of vists by HG legal... I firmly believe this then and I still believe it now. HG staffers have repeatedly said that there door is open to a deal. Well we have seen that this is not idle chit chat but HG backs it up with actions! Great news for everyone…. Well just as things were starting to look good a new (or as could be the case old) monkey came in with a blowtorch to screw this up… Recently Tokyopop had taken down its press release about Macross 7 trash. White Drew Carey sent them a e-mail asking what was up well on 9/23/03 he got a response: I got a response: From: "Info Info" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2003 08:26:45 PM US/Eastern To: "Jeff Sorley" 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! I’m sure many of you have seen that HG has taken down the press release also. Now we do NOT know what the delay is. I suspect it is one of two things. 1. There are production problems with the manga. 2. BW has pulled the license from Tokyopop. Sadly my gut feeling is that it is number 2. Now I must point out that there has been NO official statement from any party (BW, HG , Tokyopop) as to why there is this delay and I ask that you keep this in mind as you read what I write below. I would love to be wrong on this one…. IF Big West has pulled the the M7Trash license from Tokyopop then this battle between Big West and Harmony Gold has taken a dark turn. Why? 1. There is no chance you will see a approved translation here in the US thanks to Big West. Folks Tokyopop is not going to to release this without HG approval. Why? Tokyopop knows who is the trademark owner of SDF:Macross here in the US and internationally (except Japan) and it is Harmony Gold. Why should Tokyopop risk a legal engagement with HG that Tokyopop would lose? After all we have seen that Big West will do nothing to help Tokyopop. Thin I’m wrong? Well does anyone remember Su-----ds in 2002? Which leads me to… 2. Big West has lost its chance to gain entry into the international market. HG controls the keys to the international kingdom. The Jan 2003 only strengthens HG argument. HG is the owner of SDF:Macross thus any macros derivative must get clearance from them to be released outside of Japan. BW gave up its international merchandising rights to Tatsunoko in 1982 (disclosed by HG at the 2002 AX RT panel). HG controls the keys to this kingdom and BW knows it. However BW has really hurt themselves because: 2. It is doubtful that any US company will do business with Big West to release new Macross products. Tokyopop has pretty much lost whatever money it has put into this deal. As I stated before Tokyopop cant release this without a legal challenge from HG, unless there is a agreement. Why should any company go out and pay money to BW to get rights for Macross merchandise if BW forbids them to work with HG? No US company is going to engage in a costly legal battle with HG for BW benefit when there is little chance of success. Which leads me to: 3.Big West has just lost millions in international revenue. Well no one was going to rake in millions off Macross 7 Trash. However this deal could have been a bridge for future deals that could have brought more products over (B---ai, Ya---to, Ha----ga, et. al.) which would have brought millions for Big West. Now its gone…. 4. Big West just screwed over its fans big time. Macross Purists (who have fought for BW here on line in the US) have lost their chance to get Macross products widely available at cheap prices thanks to BW. I ask the purists to explain to me how this action (if it was big west who pulled the plug) helps their cause? Just the opposite has occurred for reasons I stated above. HG is not affected if this does not happen but you are… If Big West has pulled the plug on this deal they have screwed Tokyopop, Macross Fans and any chance to end this war in the near future. Once again I must state that we do not know if Big West pulled the plug. There is NO official statement from anyone as to why this is happening. I personally would love for this to be a simple production distribution problem. If it is I will gladly say I was wrong. However if its not…. Harmony Gold answered the fans call…It appears Big West doesn’t want to listen. Bankofkev One of the resons why as to my lack of posting here is the fact that there has been a impostors using various SN's pretending to be other people. Well somebody Hijacked my Bok SN... However I knew that If I posted my thoughts over on RT.com you guys would know its really me... If you want to send me a PM this is the SN to do it at. Yes Roy even you too.... BankofKev. 100% pure BankofKev. But hey you knew that already! Edited October 3, 2003 by BankofKev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) 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. SPOT NES Claim of Intellectual EstateHeisei 15 (2003) January 20 District Court of Tokyo Civil Suit of Copyright Heisei 13 (2001) The number 6447 Claim on Confirmation of Copyright Final day of Oral Defense Heisei 14 (2002) October Decision Plaintiff - Corporation of Tatsunoko Productions Representative Lawyer: Ono Mikinori Toshiko Kubaki Takayuki Shioya Yuko Chiyda Defendant – Studio Nue Corporation Big West Corporation Representative lawyer of defendants: Katuyoshi Niyasu Tadashi Kinihiro Yuko Gomi Assistant of Representative lawyer: Koichiro Ikeda Main Sentence 1. Confirm that the plaintiff has the copyright (excluding moral right) of the animation movie in attached sheets 1-36 between the defendant and plaintiff. 2. Dismiss the rest of claim of plaintiff 3. Expenditure of suit is divided into 10, and the defendant has to bear 9 of it, and the plaintiff has to bear the remainder. Fact and Reason No. 1 – Claim 1. Confirm that the plaintiff has the copyright (copyright and moral right) of the animation movie in attached sheets 1-36 between defendants and the plaintiff. 2. The defendants must not prevent the plaintiff from showing the animation movie in attached sheet 1-36 in public and distribute by replicas. No. 2 – Summary of Fact This case is the proposal that the plaintiff confirm to the defendants that the plaintiff has the copyright about the animation movie and the plaintiff ask the defendants to discontinue obstructing the showing of the animation movie in public. 1. Facts Undisputed 1. The plaintiff is the company of making animation movies, and he made “Ace in Space,” “Mach Go Go Go,” “I’m Guzura,” “The Devil of Sneeze,” “Hachi in Insect Story,” “Gatchaman, Scientific Team,” etc., that are animation moives and released them. The defendant, Studio Nue, is a projective company of supplying public relations, accounting, interviewing and so on for authors, partners and cartoonists. The defendant, Big West, designs and projects advertisements of TV and Radio. 2. The plaintiff concluded with The Mainichi broadcasting station over production and broadcasting about the animation movie. It were Shyowa 57 (1982) September 30 (Episodes 1-21) and Shyowa 58 (1983) March 10 (Episodes 22-36). The animation movie was broadcasted from Shyowa 57 (1982) October 3 until Shyowa 58 (1983) June 26 on the Mainichi Broadcasting Station. On the contract which related to the above agreement, it mentioned that the plaintiff has duties to produce the animations and supply it according to given schedule, and if the plaintiff violate the above agreements, the Mainichi broadcasting station can cancel the agreement and claim damages. 2. Main Issue 1. Whether the plaintiff got the copyright (included moral right) about the animation movie by the Copyright Act (below “law”) Article 15, Section 1? 2. Whether the plaintiff got the copyright about the animation movie by the law, Article 29, Section 1? 3. Litigant’s Insistences about issues The Plaintiff’s insistences 1. Premiere Insistence (get the moral right and copyright) 1. Grounds (Article 15, Section 1) 2. Creator At the animation movie, P as producer and Q as a field producer are “who contributed to the formation of the animation movies as a whole creatively.” They draw up the animation movie as people who are engaged in the plaintiff’s business. But, if the defendants, Big West and Studio Nue, took parts in the production of the animation movie, they could not be “who contributed creatively to the formation of the animation movie as a whole.” 3. Titular of the Announcement In the animation movie, the plaintiff had decided to publish it under his titular. And actually the animation movie was published under the plaintiff’s name. They are the name of the Mainichi Broadcasting Station, Tatsunoko Productions and Anime Friend on the credit line in each story without the defendant’s titular. And they have never protested it. 4. Conclusion Therefore, the plaintiff got the moral right and the copyright about the animation movie by the law Article 15, Section 1. 2. The side insistence (getting the copyright by the law, Article 29, Section 1) 1. Grounds On the 29th article, Section 1, when the author promises “a movie maker” to take part in making the author’s movie, the movie maker has the copyright. “A movie maker” was determined as “A person who has ideas and a responsibility.” 2. A Movie Maker The following show that the plaintiff is “a movie maker” about the animation movie. The plaintiff produced the animation movie by the plaintiff’s decision based on agreement with the Mainichi Broadcasting Station. This agreement is on prerequisite condition that the plaintiff has the right that the plaintiff televise the animation movie exclusively in Japan. It is on the agreement that the plaintiff takes the responsibility and expense for it. Also, the plaintiff bared all cost without the cost from the Mainichi Broadcasting Station, and the defendants bared nothing. (each episode 5,500,000 yen) The plaintiff employed about 200 people to make the animation movie and paid all to them. So the plaintiff bared economic responsibility to make the animation movie. 3. The Promise of Participation Even if R instead of P and Q had made the animation movie, the plaintiff could get the copyright. Because R promised the plaintiff as a movie maker to take part in making the animation. And the plaintiff concluded with the defendant about a right and distribution of profits that were accrued from the animation movie. The conclusion was premised that the plaintiff was vest with the copyright, and the defendants appreciated it. 4. Conclusion Consequently, the plaintiff got the copyright about the animation move by provision of the law, article 29, section 1. The Defendants Objection 1. Against the Preparer’s Insistences (get Moral Right and copyright) 1. Admit or Deny The defendants deny the plaintiff’s insistences. 2. The Creator The people “who contributed creatively to the entire formation of the animation movieas a whole” is R who is from the Art Land and people who engaged in the defendant’s business as follows. In this animation movie the proposal of story structure, the image of composition and the original design of main characters had been already complete before the plaintiff took part in the production. At the beginning, the defendant was planning the Art Land to work about production of the animation work. But when it comes to the serial, it is difficult for only the Art Land. Therefore, the defendant’s just asked the plaintiff the participation to work concretely. Then, after the plaintiff participated, R directed the animation movie as a general director. And S who was from Studio Nue drew out almost all of pictures. The defendants have not been instructed from the plaintiff and the Anime Friend which is a subsidiary in the plaintiff. 3. Titular of Announcement The animation movie is not planned to publish under the plaintiff’s name. And expression which means the person has the copyright was Big West, the defendant. 4. Conclusion Therefore, the defendants got the moral right and copyright about the animation movie. 2. Against the insistences (getting the copyright by the law, Article 29, Section 1) 1. Admit or Deny The defendants deny the plaintiff’s insistences 2. The Movie Maker The defendant, Big West, and the defendant, Studio Nue produced the animation movie under a collective idea and responsibility as follows. At first in the animation movie, a former president in the defendant, Big West, found the defendants, Studio Nue, the plot. The defendants decided a sponsor, broadcasting station, title and so on. Therefore, the animation is “the idea of the defendants’” Big West received the payment of ad rate from the sponsor and paid 48,000,000 yen of broadcasting fee to Mainichi Broadcasting Station every month. And Big West paid deposit of 50,000,000 yen as an assurance of the payment. By way of parenthesis, Manichi Broadcasting Station paid 5,500,000 yen as an expense of production for each episode to plaintiff. This expense is from the above 48,000,000 yen which is dispersed from Big West. So, Big West took responsibility for payment 48,000,000 yen of televising fee to Mainichi Broadcasting Station every month. And Big West had a risk that he couldn’t receive money from the sponsor. In the concern with sponsor, the defendant took a responsibility of a completion and a televising about the animation movie, too. 3. The Promise of Participation The above mentioned R is the person “who contributed creatively to the formation of animation movie as a whole.” But he has never made a promise to participate in production. It is supposed that the defendant, Big West, is author because expression which means the person who have a copyright is Big West in the animation movie. 4. Judgement of the Court 1. Concerning the Main Insistence First it examines the person “who contributed creatively to the formation of animation movie as a whole.” 1. Factual Recognition A. The Progress of the Plan The defendant, Studio Nue, projected new animation Shyowa 55 (1980). This content is that citizens liven in a big spaceship and they battle against a big military alien in space. Main character takes particular combat plane which is possible to convert. And T who is a representative, S and U who are employee, teamed up together, and they started to produce it. (here in after called “the project”) S noticed the picture of a character which was made by V, who is a friend of S. And S took charge of the project S belongs to Art Land which relates to Studio Nue. At the beginning the defendant, Studio Nue, had planned to execute the project with a third party and asked some toy companies. But it refused it. Thereafter Studio Nue decided to execute the project alone. From Shyowa 55 (1980), S worked a proposal of a whole story design of combat planes and the like. U worked design of space ship and hostile troops. V worked design of characters. They started to produce the story and design of this project. In Shyowa 56 (1981), February, the defendant, Studio Nue, got a cooperation of the defendant, Big West, about the project. O, who is a representative in Big West, considered that the project was televised. O thought that they needed to sell the character product and magazine related to the story and get cooperation from toys companies early to succeed in the project. In Shyowa 56 (1981) August, O showed the design and samples of machines which is possible to convert to toy companies and proposed a possibility for sale and asked them to be a sponsor when the animation was televised. Besides, he negotiated with publishing companies for kid’s to have serial stories. In Shyowa 57 (1982) January, O secured the time to televise the animation movie in Mainichi Broadcasting System from October. Until then, O could find sponsors for toys, plastic model, candy and so on. So, he expected the expense for televising. So he decided to step forward about a telecast in the project and titled the animation “Macross.” B. Making the original story and the original drawing of the beginning of the animation movie. Until Shyowa 56 (1981) November, S made a rough story note of all 39 episodes, and until Shyowa 57 (1982), January, he made a structure of the story on the basis of it. Subsequently the episodes was remade into all 26 episodes. (After broadcasting started, continuation was decided to 36 episodes) S worked on the design of machines. From Shyowa 56 (1981) onward, S forwarded making the design of the battle machine which was possible to convert called “Valkyrie” and until December S made the original drawing of “Valkyrie”. It is not only airplane but also robot. The master was drawn around Shyowa 57 (1982) March. March, U worked the design of space ship, which is called “Macross.” Also, design for trilateral figure and mechanical for the “Macross.” He delivered it to manufacture April. V worked the design of characters. For example, “Hikaru Ichijo,” “Lin Minmei,” “Misa Hayase” and so on. They are based on the stories made by S. Until Shyowa 56 (1981) December he a lot of rough sketches and until Shyowa 56 (1981) he made original drawing of characters without “Hikaru Ichijo.” Almost at the same time he made rough sketch of character settings for the story. C. Participation of the Plaintiff in the Project At the beginning, the defendant, Studio Nue, planned to entrust the work of making the animation movies to Art Land which related in cooperation. But the number of animators in Art Land was not enough. So Shyowa 57 (1982) April, O asked the plaintiff to participate in making the animation movie, and the plaintiff accepted it. Because the plaintiff had many animators. From the viewpoint of holding the schedule and the urging work, the Mainichi Broadcasting Station hoped for agreement with the plaintiff that had a good records of making animation. Therefore, the Mainichi Broadcasting Station and the plaintiff as parties concerned, contracted about making the animation movie. (the contract is exchanged officially Shyowa 57 (1982) September, 30) On the basis of the agreement the plaintiff as a producer of the animation movie elected P belonging to the defendant, and entrusted making the animation to Anime Friend, which is a subsidiary of the defendant. In Shyowa 57 (1982) April 27, the first staff meeting between the plaintiff and defendants took place. Q who is from Anime Friend was to become producer and he attended the meeting. He was explained the content of the project and the feature of the machines by T, U, S and V. From May onward Anime Friend started to make the animation. D. Concrete Operation of Making the Animation Movie 1. The operation of making an animation is composed of concrete setting (characters, machines, colors, arts) a structure of a story making a scenario, background, dressing (painting), filming, cutting, dubbing, fitting films to music and sound. In the project, the producer are P, the field producer Q, the chief director R, T story editor, V character designer, S and U mechanical design, W acoustic producer and Z other mechanical drawings. Below is a content of each part 2. S made scripts on the basis of story structures and continuities, and made pictures on the basis of original drawing of machines and characters, and made animations on the basis of it. But, actually parts of script, continuities and interpretation are irregular every transmission. Because it was going on at the same time as the production of the series. In the scenario Q, R, and T made a final scenario with a playwright’s help. In the picture (1) S made pictures of the “Valkyrie” and animators were directed by S or he himself finished it. (2) U completed the picture of “Macross” which is a big spaceship with animators who were directed by U. (3) V made and completed the pictures of characters himself. 3. Mostly the Art Land and the Anime Friend made animators on the basis of the above mentioned pictures. V made many storyboards which explained characters and correlation of them not to cause errors. R and S who was directed by R cut the scenes which use machines and battles. 4. R checked and edited the film after filming. R, Q, and T witnessed dubbing and determined it. 5. P who was a producer and Q who was a field producer mainly worked about negotiation with sponsors, televising station and advertising agency. And they never had directed about the concrete way of making the animation. E. Payment of the Cost and Division of Profit 1. Shyowa 57 (1982) September, the defendant, Big West concluded memorandum about the cost of televising with Mainichi Broadcasting Station. Big West received payment of advertisement from sponsors, and at the end of the next month Big West paid 48,000,000 yen monthly as expense of television to the Mainichi Broadcasting Station. (24,050,000 yen production expenses, 22,445,000 yen air wave charges, 1,505,000 yen micro expenses. Deducted was 5,242,600 yen commission for Big West) Moreover, Big West paid a deposit of 50,000,000 yen as an assurance of the payment. According to the agreement about the animation movie and televising between the plaintiff and Mainichi Broadcasting Station, Mainichi go the exclusive televising right between a termination of televising and 2 years later. Mainichi Broadcasting Station had obligation to pay 5,500,000 yen per episode as an expense of a production in the animation movie. 2. From Shyowa 57 (1982) May, onward, it is the time to participate in making the animation movie. The plaintiff paid money to Anime Friend, the defendant, Studio Nue, and Art Land for their work. But before starting to televise the animation the plaintiff complained to the defendant, Big West, that the above mentioned expense of televising which was paid through the Mainichi Broadcasting Station is not enough. Because the cost of making was more expensive than the prospect at the beginning. At that Shyowa 57 (1982) October 1, the plaintiff and the defendants conclude the memorandum which said to give the right of sale to program and the right of goods about the animation movie, overseas. And part of profit from domestic goods to plaintiff. The defendant, Big West, had the right of making character goods and the right to sell the program at the time of televising in Japan. The plaintiff had the right to sell published matter and music for children 12 years and younger and the right to sell the programs and goods overseas. The defendant, Studio Nue, had the right to sell published matter for 12 years and older. They could wield the right to each other. F. The Expression of Copyright and so on 1. Before televising the animation, from Shyowa 57, July to October there are the name of the defendant, Studio Nue, and the plaintiff together as the expression of copyright on all magazines about the animation. 2. In the opening credit title during televising the animation movies the project is O, the original is the defendant, Studio Nue, the design of characters is V, and the design of machines is U and S. The project, the original, the cooperation of the original, the structure of series, chief director and editorial supervisor indicate the name of the defendants and Art Land. And producer indicates P and Q. In both the opening credit title and the ending credit title the production indicates the Mainichi Broadcasting Station, the plaintiff and Anime Friend. 3. From Shyowa 58 (1983) August to October when the books about informations during the making the animation and the recollection of staff were issued, the defendant, Big West and Mainichi Broadcasting Station are indicated by expression of copyright on all these books. And the books mention that defendant, Studio Nue, worked the original, T worked structure of series and V worked the design of characters. 4. Heisei 5 (1993) April, 30th Anniversary collected works of the defendant were issued. In the there is no expression of copyright on part of other animations which were made by the plaintiff, but there is the name of the defendant, Big West as an expression of copyright. And the books mentioned that the animation movies were made creatively by the defendant, Studio Nue, V worked on the design of characters, U and S worked the design of machines and S took part in interpretation and scenario. 5. Heisei 10 (1998) February the books of animation history were issued. Animations on books were supervised by the plaintiff. There is the name of plaintiff as an expression of copyright on most of the books. But there is no expression of copyright which indicated the plaintiff on other parts. On latter parts there is only the name of defendant, Studio Nue, as the expression of copyright. But the animation movie is classified into latter parts. And the books mention that the animation movie is the first original work for the defendant, Studio Nue, S, who worked the design of the machine, participated in interpretation and scenario and V who worked on the design of the characters flourished the animation movies. 2. Judgment of the Court 1. About the Premiere insistence of the plaintiff The plaintiff insists that P and Q in the side of the plaintiff are people “who contributed creatively to formation of the animation movie as a whole.” Because the plaintiff has the moral right and copyright. Because they are as people who engaged in the plaintiff’s work made the animation movie. But the insistences of the plaintiff has no reason. The main staffs about the animation movie are the producer P, the field producer Q, chief director R, structure of series T, the designer of character and making the picture of it producer V, designer of machine S and U, the director of music W and the director of making picture machine Z. R played a part in all kind of works about making the animation movie and took final responsibility about its workmanship. The chief director R determined finally about making the animations, cutting the battle scenes, checking the film and editing the film. So, R is allowed to be a person who “contributed creatively to formation on the animation movie as a whole.” By comparison, P as the producer and Q as the field producer worked mainly negotiations with sponsors, a television station and advertising agencies. And they didn’t participate in the creative side and never directed the staff. Here in before the plaintiff insistences lacks the prerequisite condition because P and Q can’t say that they participate creatively in making the animation movie as a whole. Therefore the plaintiff doesn’t get the moral right and the copyright by the law Article 15, Section1. 2. Concerning the Side Insistences Now it examines who is the “movie maker” of the animation movie. 1. Factual Recognition Acknowledgment of facts of the first insistence are right. 2. Judgment of the Court 1. About the “movie maker” of the animation movie A. The defendant, Studio Nue, planned the animation movie originally and the defendant, Big West, O exerted to secure the sponsors and the time of program in television station. When deciding the televising in Mainichi Broadcasting Station, Big West, asked the plaintiff which have track records to make the animation by the request of the Mainichi Broadcasting Station. Shyowa 57 (1982), April, the plaintiff contracted with the Mainichi for making it and started to make it with the subsidiary Anime Friend, from May. Anime Friend, the defendant, Studio Nue, and staffs of Art Land worked actual making. But the plaintiff paid all cost of making after he participated. The plaintiff had the obligations that he made the animation movie and supplied it because of contract with Mainichi. (On the other hand, the defendant doesn’t have the same obligations like that to Mainichi Broadcasting Station.) So, the plaintiff had obligations about a supervision of process and perfection. The plaintiff decided to make the animation movie because of the above contract with Mainichi, and made it by own cost, and had obligations about supervision of process and a perfection. So the idea and the responsibility of the animation movie are the plaintiff’s. Consequently the plaintiff is “the movie maker of animation.” B. As compare to it, the defendants insist that (1) the animation movie is the idea of the defendants. Because the defendant, Studio Nue, projected it, and O of the defendant, Big West, planned to complete it. (2) The defendant, Big West, paid 48,000,000 yen as a cost of televising to the Mainichi Broadcasting Station monthly. And Mainichi paid 5,500,000 yen as a cost of making the animation movie per episode to the defendant from the above cost. So the defendant, Big West, had responsibility of televising payment. So, Big West had the responsibility of making the animation movie. But the insistence of the defendants has no reason. First, having the idea means not planning the project at first but having a mind of making a movie because of request of a third party. The plaintiff had the mind of making the animation movie because of the contract with the Mainichi Broadcasting Station. Consequently, the (1) insistence of the defendant cannot be accepted. And from Shyowa 57 (1982) May which was the time of the plaintiff starting to make the animation, the plaintiff paid money to the staffs. From October the Mainichi paid cost of making to the plaintiff. So payment of the Mainichi was not enough for the plaintiff to make the animation movie. So the plaintiff tried to contract about the right of characters good with defendants. Because of these facts, the plaintiff had an economic risk about the animation movie. Consequently (2) of the defendant’s insistence cannot be accepted. 2. About the Promise of Participation Making the animation movie consists of producer P, a field producer Q, chief director R, structure of series T, designer of character and director of making character pictures V, designer of machines S and U, director of music W and director of making machine pictures Z. But, R who is a chief director contributed creatively to the formation of the animation movie as a whole. And R as chief director participated in making it and got pay through Anime Friend from the plaintiff after he knew that the plaintiff made the animation movie because of the contract with the Mainichi Broadcasting Station. Because of those facts, it is certified that R promised the plaintiff to participate in making the animation movie. 3. In Summation For above the plaintiff got the copyright about the animation movie by law, Article 29, Section 1. The defendant’s opinion cannot be accepted by above. 3. The right of the petition for Elimination Nuisance The plaintiff ask that the defendant must not prevent the plaintiff from showing the animation movie in attached sheet (1-36) in public and distribute by replicas. Because it is a nuisance that the defendants take legal action about the copyright belongs to the defendants. But the defendants’ actions, that the defendant took legal action about the copyright, belongs to the defendant and is not sabotage. So this part of the plaintiff’s insistence has no reason. 4. Conclusion Consequently, the copyright concerning the animation movie belongs to the plaintiff (excluding moral right). Tokyo 29th District Court Civil Department Chief Justice Tashiaki Imura Judge Michinari Ehoto Judge Makoto Saho Edited October 6, 2003 by wrylac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 The problem with all of that, BoK., is that it's only Big West's fault if Harmony Gold's claims to the Macross franchise are legitimate. We, the fans, simply do not know. Perhaps they do have a legitimate claim, or perhaps Tatsunoko's at fault for a poorly worded contract with HG. We do not know. The Tokyo Court rulings, as I understand them, seem to indicate that Big West has sole ownership of the designs and the authority to create derivatives, which would probably mean ownership of those derivatives. While it does not specifically say that, it heavily leans in that direction. IF Harmony Gold's claims are not valid, then Big West has every right do pull the plug on such a deal between Tokyo Pop and Harmony Gold. Not only the right, but it's in their best interest if they wish to persue the international market. It's also in the interest of Macross fans, but only if Big West does persue litigation to open up their claims to the international distribution of derivatives and the merchandising thereof, as splitting profits with HG would mean higher prices for us fans. Unfortunately, in the meantime we fans to get the worst of things. I must reiterate that all this is purely speculation, and without all of the neccessary facts. HG's claims might be valid, and maybe BW is just being greedy. Perhaps HG's claims are valid according to their contract with Tatsunoko, but Tatsunoko sold them rights that Tatsunoko themselves didn't have. Perhaps both HG and BW honestly believe they're in the right, but the contracts between them and Tatsunoko were translated in such a way as to not convey specific ownership of the derivatives, or the contract was mistranslated alltogether. All I can say is that if Big West and Harmony Gold are going to continue to fight over rights like this, I hope Big West does persue the international market in such a way (even if it means legal action) that will clear the uncertainties surrounding all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radd Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Wow, Wyrlac, I just read that entire thing. I see no reason to question the authenticity of the document at this point, but I must admit that I read it very differently than you apparently did. I got from the document that Tatsunoko got the right to SDF Macross, they own the show as a whole, which is how I've always interpreted the case to be. However, I also got out of the document that the designs and story were created before Tatsunoko's involvement, and that Big West retained the rights to all the designs, and the Author's Copyright to the show. I'm doing further research before I determine what this means, but it does not state anywhere in the document anything that would lead me to believe that Tatsunoko has any rights to the derivatives. If my understanding of the copyright terms are correct, then the document does specifically state that Tatsunoko does not have those rights, and that they rest soley with Big West. Again, I'm doing further research on the topic, though I welcome further input from other board members that may be more knowledgeable on Japanese copyright terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperOstrich Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 That translation is VERY difficult to read. No offense to Naoko, but I think her English needs more than a little work. This case is the proposal that the plaintiff confirm to the defendants that the plaintiff has the copyright about the animation movie and the plaintiff ask the defendants to discontinue obstructing the showing of the animation movie in public. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 That translation is VERY difficult to read. No offense to Naoko, but I think her English needs more than a little work.This case is the proposal that the plaintiff confirm to the defendants that the plaintiff has the copyright about the animation movie and the plaintiff ask the defendants to discontinue obstructing the showing of the animation movie in public. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druna Skass Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 OK so does this thing tell us anything new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justvinnie Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I think your friend needs a better grip of English. On the basis of the agreement the plaintiff as a producer of the animation movie elected P belonging to the defendant, and entrusted making the animation to Anime Friend, which is a subsidiary of the defendant. In Shyowa 57 (1982) April 27, the first staff meeting between the plaintiff and defendants took place. Q who is from Anime Friend was to become producer and he attended the meeting. He was explained the content of the project and the feature of the machines by T, U, S and V. From May onward Anime Friend started to make the animation. AnimeFriend is a Korean subsidiary of TP, who is the plaintiff not the defendants. Anyways, I poured over the document and I really don't think there is anything new here. This case dealt specifically with the copyright to the animated footage and not the designs which were already confirmed as belonging jointly to BW and TP. Also TP did not get author's right. What is the author's right. It's really important! Here you go: Author's Right What does bother me is the term individual as it can be interpretted differently. The fact that TP did not get author's right (which includes the ability to make derivatives for those of you who don't want to read the Japanese Copyright Laws) though means that BW must have gotten them. vinnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justvinnie Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) OK so does this thing tell us anything new? Quite frankly, no. It's the same ruling that has been made public for sometime now and no amount of word twisting is going to change the court findings: SDF-Macross the animated footage belongs to TP and SDF-Macross the design elements are property of SN. vinnie EDIT IN: Here are some of my thoughts now that I have showered. A. The Progress of the PlanThe defendant, Studio Nue, projected new animation Shyowa 55 (1980). This content is that citizens liven in a big spaceship and they battle against a big military alien in space. Main character takes particular combat plane which is possible to convert. And T who is a representative, S and U who are employee, teamed up together, and they started to produce it. (here in after called "the project") S noticed the picture of a character which was made by V, who is a friend of S. And S took charge of the project S belongs to Art Land which relates to Studio Nue. At the beginning the defendant, Studio Nue, had planned to execute the project with a third party and asked some toy companies. But it refused it. Thereafter Studio Nue decided to execute the project alone. From Shyowa 55 (1980), S worked a proposal of a whole story design of combat planes and the like. U worked design of space ship and hostile troops. V worked design of characters. They started to produce the story and design of this project. In Shyowa 56 (1981), February, the defendant, Studio Nue, got a cooperation of the defendant, Big West, about the project. O, who is a representative in Big West, considered that the project was televised. O thought that they needed to sell the character product and magazine related to the story and get cooperation from toys companies early to succeed in the project. In Shyowa 56 (1981) August, O showed the design and samples of machines which is possible to convert to toy companies and proposed a possibility for sale and asked them to be a sponsor when the animation was televised. Besides, he negotiated with publishing companies for kid's to have serial stories. In Shyowa 57 (1982) January, O secured the time to televise the animation movie in Mainichi Broadcasting System from October. Until then, O could find sponsors for toys, plastic model, candy and so on. So, he expected the expense for televising. So he decided to step forward about a telecast in the project and titled the animation "Macross." B. Making the original story and the original drawing of the beginning of the animation movie. Until Shyowa 56 (1981) November, S made a rough story note of all 39 episodes, and until Shyowa 57 (1982), January, he made a structure of the story on the basis of it. Subsequently the episodes was remade into all 26 episodes. (After broadcasting started, continuation was decided to 36 episodes) S worked on the design of machines. From Shyowa 56 (1981) onward, S forwarded making the design of the battle machine which was possible to convert called "Valkyrie" and until December S made the original drawing of "Valkyrie". It is not only airplane but also robot. The master was drawn around Shyowa 57 (1982) March. March, U worked the design of space ship, which is called "Macross." Also, design for trilateral figure and mechanical for the "Macross." He delivered it to manufacture April. V worked the design of characters. For example, "Hikaru Ichijo," "Lin Minmei," "Misa Hayase" and so on. They are based on the stories made by S. Until Shyowa 56 (1981) December he a lot of rough sketches and until Shyowa 56 (1981) he made original drawing of characters without "Hikaru Ichijo." Almost at the same time he made rough sketch of character settings for the story. C. Participation of the Plaintiff in the Project At the beginning, the defendant, Studio Nue, planned to entrust the work of making the animation movies to Art Land which related in cooperation. But the number of animators in Art Land was not enough. So Shyowa 57 (1982) April, O asked the plaintiff to participate in making the animation movie, and the plaintiff accepted it. Because the plaintiff had many animators. From the viewpoint of holding the schedule and the urging work, the Mainichi Broadcasting Station hoped for agreement with the plaintiff that had a good records of making animation. Therefore, the Mainichi Broadcasting Station and the plaintiff as parties concerned, contracted about making the animation movie. (the contract is exchanged officially Shyowa 57 (1982) September, 30) On the basis of the agreement the plaintiff as a producer of the animation movie elected P belonging to the defendant, and entrusted making the animation to Anime Friend, which is a subsidiary of the defendant. In Shyowa 57 (1982) April 27, the first staff meeting between the plaintiff and defendants took place. Q who is from Anime Friend was to become producer and he attended the meeting. He was explained the content of the project and the feature of the machines by T, U, S and V. From May onward Anime Friend started to make the animation. D. Concrete Operation of Making the Animation Movie 1. The operation of making an animation is composed of concrete setting (characters, machines, colors, arts) a structure of a story making a scenario, background, dressing (painting), filming, cutting, dubbing, fitting films to music and sound. In the project, the producer are P, the field producer Q, the chief director R, T story editor, V character designer, S and U mechanical design, W acoustic producer and Z other mechanical drawings. Below is a content of each part 2. S made scripts on the basis of story structures and continuities, and made pictures on the basis of original drawing of machines and characters, and made animations on the basis of it. But, actually parts of script, continuities and interpretation are irregular every transmission. Because it was going on at the same time as the production of the series. In the scenario Q, R, and T made a final scenario with a playwright's help. In the picture (1) S made pictures of the "Valkyrie" and animators were directed by S or he himself finished it. (2) U completed the picture of "Macross" which is a big spaceship with animators who were directed by U. (3) V made and completed the pictures of characters himself. 3. Mostly the Art Land and the Anime Friend made animators on the basis of the above mentioned pictures. V made many storyboards which explained characters and correlation of them not to cause errors. R and S who was directed by R cut the scenes which use machines and battles. 4. R checked and edited the film after filming. R, Q, and T witnessed dubbing and determined it. 5. P who was a producer and Q who was a field producer mainly worked about negotiation with sponsors, televising station and advertising agency. And they never had directed about the concrete way of making the animation. E. Payment of the Cost and Division of Profit 1. Shyowa 57 (1982) September, the defendant, Big West concluded memorandum about the cost of televising with Mainichi Broadcasting Station. Big West received payment of advertisement from sponsors, and at the end of the next month Big West paid 48,000,000 yen monthly as expense of television to the Mainichi Broadcasting Station. (24,050,000 yen production expenses, 22,445,000 yen air wave charges, 1,505,000 yen micro expenses. Deducted was 5,242,600 yen commission for Big West) Moreover, Big West paid a deposit of 50,000,000 yen as an assurance of the payment. According to the agreement about the animation movie and televising between the plaintiff and Mainichi Broadcasting Station, Mainichi go the exclusive televising right between a termination of televising and 2 years later. Mainichi Broadcasting Station had obligation to pay 5,500,000 yen per episode as an expense of a production in the animation movie. 2. From Shyowa 57 (1982) May, onward, it is the time to participate in making the animation movie. The plaintiff paid money to Anime Friend, the defendant, Studio Nue, and Art Land for their work. But before starting to televise the animation the plaintiff complained to the defendant, Big West, that the above mentioned expense of televising which was paid through the Mainichi Broadcasting Station is not enough. Because the cost of making was more expensive than the prospect at the beginning. At that Shyowa 57 (1982) October 1, the plaintiff and the defendants conclude the memorandum which said to give the right of sale to program and the right of goods about the animation movie, overseas. And part of profit from domestic goods to plaintiff. The defendant, Big West, had the right of making character goods and the right to sell the program at the time of televising in Japan. The plaintiff had the right to sell published matter and music for children 12 years and younger and the right to sell the programs and goods overseas. The defendant, Studio Nue, had the right to sell published matter for 12 years and older. They could wield the right to each other. F. The Expression of Copyright and so on 1. Before televising the animation, from Shyowa 57, July to October there are the name of the defendant, Studio Nue, and the plaintiff together as the expression of copyright on all magazines about the animation. 2. In the opening credit title during televising the animation movies the project is O, the original is the defendant, Studio Nue, the design of characters is V, and the design of machines is U and S. The project, the original, the cooperation of the original, the structure of series, chief director and editorial supervisor indicate the name of the defendants and Art Land. And producer indicates P and Q. In both the opening credit title and the ending credit title the production indicates the Mainichi Broadcasting Station, the plaintiff and Anime Friend. 3. From Shyowa 58 (1983) August to October when the books about informations during the making the animation and the recollection of staff were issued, the defendant, Big West and Mainichi Broadcasting Station are indicated by expression of copyright on all these books. And the books mention that defendant, Studio Nue, worked the original, T worked structure of series and V worked the design of characters. 4. Heisei 5 (1993) April, 30th Anniversary collected works of the defendant were issued. In the there is no expression of copyright on part of other animations which were made by the plaintiff, but there is the name of the defendant, Big West as an expression of copyright. And the books mentioned that the animation movies were made creatively by the defendant, Studio Nue, V worked on the design of characters, U and S worked the design of machines and S took part in interpretation and scenario. 5. Heisei 10 (1998) February the books of animation history were issued. Animations on books were supervised by the plaintiff. There is the name of plaintiff as an expression of copyright on most of the books. But there is no expression of copyright which indicated the plaintiff on other parts. On latter parts there is only the name of defendant, Studio Nue, as the expression of copyright. But the animation movie is classified into latter parts. And the books mention that the animation movie is the first original work for the defendant, Studio Nue, S, who worked the design of the machine, participated in interpretation and scenario and V who worked on the design of the characters flourished the animation movies. Note that I highlighted how the whole project started out, mechanical and character designs and story structure (what happens in each ep). Note also that TP was NOT involved in any of this. Here is my conclusion then. TP was award the copyright to the animation of SDF-Macross because they are the "movie maker" having bore some of the cost but more importantly the risk of making the series. However, they were not able to obtain all of the author's right (hence the individual rights aforementioned). The reason for this is because the intellectual properties for the story and designs were already made prior to their participation. That's why the copyright is split between the companies. Edited October 3, 2003 by justvinnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Not to further muddy the waters, but I was chatting with my lawyer friend who said something very interesting: (Note, this is an unofficial opinion and in no way represents a complete and final interpretation of the law) On thing which was mentioned was the subject of derivitives. While not having a complete understanding of Japanese law, the possibility was brought up that BigWest has essentially been granted all derivitive rights anyhow, and that no court will say otherwise. Why? Because both BigWest and Tatsunoko have been actively in business, where Macross is concerned, for the past 20 years. If Tatsunoko ever felt that they had any rights to derivitives, they definitely should've said so by now. The recent court rulings which state that Tatsunoko paid a majority of production costs for SDF: Macross was proof enough to give them the copyright to the series. But the simple fact that BigWest has been footing the bill for everything else and has been actively promoting the franchise since then would grant them franchise rights. As stated before, this is broad generalization of events with a basic understanding of Japanese law, but apparently situations similar to this have panned out this way in the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Because both BigWest and Tatsunoko have been actively in business, where Macross is concerned, for the past 20 years. If Tatsunoko ever felt that they had any rights to derivitives, they definitely should've said so by now. I've brought this up before. HG may claim that they were "asleep at the wheel" during the years that Macross II, Plus and 7 were produced, but surely Tatsunuko was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Because both BigWest and Tatsunoko have been actively in business, where Macross is concerned, for the past 20 years. If Tatsunoko ever felt that they had any rights to derivitives, they definitely should've said so by now. I've brought this up before. HG may claim that they were "asleep at the wheel" during the years that Macross II, Plus and 7 were produced, but surely Tatsunuko was not. Yeah, I've been saying the same thing. It's the same thing with DYRL, MII and M+ being released internationally. If Tatsunoko had the int'l rights, I'm sure they would've said something. Wrylac- I still don't understand where this ruling gives Tatsunoko int'l rights to the derivitives. Simply put- Court documents are VERY specific (even to the point of insanity to us laypersons). Unless it directly states ownership of int'l rights to either the whole franchise (which is still too generic of a term for legal purposes) or lists each Macross production individually, then stating complete ownership is an erroneus statement. This court case was simply in regards to the TV series of SDF: Macross and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twich Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 before this gets any further....let me make this statement. Wrylac, I appreciate your efforts in translating and clearing up this ongoing discussion. Despite what you may, or may not think....most of us here are more interested in the truth of the matter and are keeping an open mind about this. I have been following this thread since before we had Quadrano's translation of the events. I have read both translations, and they both seem to say the same thing....that TP owns the animation show SDF:Macross TV which aired in 1982 in Japan. I think that most of us accepted that after reading the decision. I think that the major point of contention that exists(as far as I have been able to understand after having read all of this thread and the one on the old board) Is that we are trying to determine who legally has the right to the derivatives....and as it was mentioned before by RADD and JustVinnie, it seems that this just states that BW/SN has the "rights of Author" which seems to imply, based on Justvinnies link, that BW/SN have the rights to derivatives. I think that most of us are looking for this in plain black and white, so that if they so chose...Yamato and Bandai and others could release their toys and animation(Macross 7, Macross 0) internationally, here in the states. By having said legal finding in black and white....there would be nothing that could interfere with that(No HG interference) I think that we are going to have to adopt a wait and see approach to this....we can hope for the best, but don't be surprised if the "worst" happens. Once again, thanks for your efforts Wrylac...I know you think passionately about this issue, as do many here on this board...but I think that things are going to remain the same....but who knows, we may get the answer tomorrow? Let us remember to keep an open mind first and foremost. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 From what I gathered from Wrylac's translation is that Tatsunoko was not granted individual rights of author. This could mean any number of possible divisions or that both BigWest/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko were both granted the same level of rights. Sadly, the translation (and quite possibly the court document itself) does not elaborate further on the possibly division of rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justvinnie Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 From what I gathered from Wrylac's translation is that Tatsunoko was not granted individual rights of author.This could mean any number of possible divisions or that both BigWest/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko were both granted the same level of rights. Sadly, the translation (and quite possibly the court document itself) does not elaborate further on the possibly division of rights. Agreed. The actual division of the copyright is sadly lacking. As for BW producing all the Macross derivitives for 20 years, this is a point that has been brought since before any ruling was made. And most of us think that had TP even have legal rights to the Macross franchise, they've basically given it up. That said, I like this translation a lot. Aside from some small errors and a rather odd phrasing and grammatic syntax, it is very technical and to the point. vinnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewilen Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I have kind of a crazy question. Does American law fully respect all the distinctions of Japanese copyright law? Let's take as given that TP only has rights to the animation of SDF Macross, while BW has rights to the designs and the right to produce derivatives--in Japan. Now, this would imply that TP could only sell HG an exclusive license to use SDF Macross, the animation. That much translates cleanly into American law. But does the separation of "right of authorship" translate? Is it possible that under American law, HG's possession (effectively) of rights to the SDF Macross animation carries an implied right to make merchandise and derivatives--possibly even an exclusive right? (This note on American copyright law says that copyright owners have exclusive rights to derivatives. There must be an international treaty relating to this. Hm...checking the Berne Convention...nothing certain so far, but articles 6bis and 12 might give BW the right to pull the plug on Robotech: Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. Authors of literary or artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effect Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) Thanks for the translation Wrylac. B) The fact that BW has been active, producing, editing, creating Macross items for the past 20year does throw a twist into the works. Also there is the situation of Tatsunko also being very active in the business over the past 20years as well and haven't voiced their concerns during that time. HG can only be granted what Tat has. Question wasn't the Macross 2 RPG release at the same time as the RT RPG? Did HG have any role in that or did whoever released it get the rights from BW? Also does this fit in during the time they say no one was minding the store? Also if they were still granting licenses to make products wouldn't that be considered being active in the business, even if it was only one person granting companies the rights to make items, make that excuse not really work? Reason I ask is that RT comics were still being released over that time, same with the novels. I think up till 1996 but I'm not sure. Edited October 3, 2003 by Effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Border Red Devil Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Agreed. The actual division of the copyright is sadly lacking. As for BW producing all the Macross derivitives for 20 years, this is a point that has been brought since before any ruling was made. And most of us think that had TP even have legal rights to the Macross franchise, they've basically given it up. Perhaps the lack of elaboration is intentional? As for TP....we don't know that they hadn't been sending word to BigWest to stop producing stuff past Flash Back 2012. They could easily have sent a cease and desist to BW once Macross II became a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 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. Source:Mainichi Shimbun.In a serious legal blow to Studio Nue, widely perceived as the original creators and rightful owners of Macross, the Tokyo district court today ruled that the rights associated with authorship, the "author's right," for the first Macross series, belong to Tatsunoko Productions, not Studio Nue. Head judge Toshiaki Inamura explained, "After Studio Nue planned the project, the general director was engaged creatively in producing the series entirely. Tatsunoko made a contract with each staff member and managed the production." Japanese copyright law gives ownership to the company when the body of work is created by its employees (or by people under contract) as a part of their duties. Therefore, the property right are guaranteed to the production company, not the planner(s) nor the director(s). In October 2002 the Tokyo district court ruled that the rights to the design of the Valkery belong to Studio Nue. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abombz!! Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) As for TP....we don't know that they hadn't been sending word to BigWest to stop producing stuff past Flash Back 2012. They could easily have sent a cease and desist to BW once Macross II became a reality. That would sound right, but if that really happened, after BW ignored TPs request to stop making Macross derivatives, they would've really thrown their weight in and got BW in court. That didn't happen untill a few years ago. And now that they "know" their rights.... why not stop the production of Macross Zero? Or even ask for their share of the sales money? You got to admit that its a bit on the odd side that TP didn't really make BW stop if they felt they had some saying over the derivatives. OT question for Wrylac, your friend Naoko, how long has been studying english and how long did it take her to translate all this? Edited October 3, 2003 by Abombz!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperOstrich Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 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. 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? It sounds to me like you're just saying the same thing you've always said, but now you have a poorly translated document to show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) 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. 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. Edited October 3, 2003 by wrylac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 I don't want to start a fight. Yes you do. That's why you're here in the first place. Jeeze, and you wonder why nobody takes you self-proclaimed "trolls" seriously anymore? Otherwise, I agree with Super O 110%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) Perhaps the lack of elaboration is intentional? 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)... Japanese copyright law gives ownership to the company when the body of work is created by its employees (or by people under contract) as a part of their duties. Therefore, the property right are guaranteed to the production company, not the planner(s) nor the director(s). ...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. Edited October 3, 2003 by the white drew carey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) As for TP....we don't know that they hadn't been sending word to BigWest to stop producing stuff past Flash Back 2012. They could easily have sent a cease and desist to BW once Macross II became a reality. I forgot to respond to this part... Although this is a possibility, I highly doubt it's a probability. If something like this had happened in the past, we'd know about it. I doubt that Tatsunoko sent a C&D letter to BigWest. IF they had, it definitely would've either A- gone to court, or B- been settled outside of court. In either case one could safely assume that the WHOLE matter of the Macross franchise would've been ironed out way back then. The only other option is C- that BigWest simply ignored Tatsunoko. But this one is near impossible because Tatsunoko, unlike their North American buddies, HG, probably wouldn't send a C&D letter and then not follow up. Edited October 3, 2003 by the white drew carey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Perhaps the lack of elaboration is intentional? 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)... Japanese copyright law gives ownership to the company when the body of work is created by its employees (or by people under contract) as a part of their duties. Therefore, the property right are guaranteed to the production company, not the planner(s) nor the director(s). ...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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) 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. The thing is that I'm assuming that you're assuming this is the intent of the court's decision not to grant Tatsunoko individual right of author. The statement is ambiguous enough that it can be left open to our inexpert interpretation. Tell me, does it exactly say "Tatsunoko is granted Economic Rights. BigWest is granted Moral rights"? No, it does not. I'm not the one saying that this is what the court document means, while you are. And, as of yet, you have not provided evidence backing up your statement. To me, it is solely based on how you interpret the document. 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. With no evidence to back up this statement, it becomes simply your opinion that this is why "individual right of author" was excluded. Edited October 3, 2003 by the white drew carey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 There is no ambiguity in this statement. the Tokyo district court today ruled that the rights associated with authorship, the "author's right," for the first Macross series, belong to Tatsunoko Productions, not Studio Nue. Is this right or wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basara Nekki Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 In everything I've seen so far I can pretty much confirm that TP/HG has the rights to the animation SDF Macross and maybe rights to produce their own merchandise from that animation. But the court rulings also say that BW/SN have claim to the designs, characters, and story. But this is all said and done without knowledge of HG's legendary super contract with TP. Geez, you figure if this contract/memo or what-have-you were so great that HG would have revealed it long ago and stole the derivative macross animations for use in some new Roboyuck venture.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) In everything I've seen so far I can pretty much confirm that TP/HG has the rights to the animation SDF Macross and maybe rights to produce their own merchandise from that animation. But the court rulings also say that BW/SN have claim to the designs, characters, and story. But this is all said and done without knowledge of HG's legendary super contract with TP. I'd like to see where in the court ruling you find that. Here's why I think you're wrong: Making the animation movie consists of producer P, a field producer Q, chief director R, structure of series T, designer of character and director of making character pictures V, designer of machines S and U, director of music W and director of making machine pictures Z. But, R who is a chief director contributed creatively to the formation of the animation movie as a whole. And R as chief director participated in making it and got pay through Anime Friend from the plaintiff after he knew that the plaintiff made the animation movie because of the contract with the Mainichi Broadcasting Station.Because of those facts, it is certified that R promised the plaintiff to participate in making the animation movie. 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. Edited October 3, 2003 by wrylac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.bc0aa3d6a43314c42575bd21a0963db5.jpg)
Recommended Posts