the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 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? According to the translation provided by you, it's wrong. This is the main sentence from your translation: Main Sentence1. Confirm that the plaintiff has the copyright (without individual right of author) 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 derided into 10, and the dependant has to bear 9 of it, and the plaintiff has to bear the remainder. So which source are you choosing is the right one now? Mainichi's news report or your translation. They both say different things. I'm assuming the exclusion of individual right of author is due to the fact that most of the aspects contained under the Economic Rights were already divided and determined by the Memorandum. It could also be that the exclusion is more aimed towards the fact that Tatsunoko has no stake at all in derivitives. The court document doesn't say so, but if we're assuming outcomes based on our interpretations of simple statements, it's as good as any. Simply put, the court document does not clarify the reasons or the specifics of why Tatsunoko was not granted individual right of author.
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) Both are correct and I've explained why. Basically, Naoko, not being familiar with the proper legal term, interputed it more literally. I'm going to try and contact her and find out her thoughts. Edited October 3, 2003 by wrylac
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 Both are correct and I've explained why. No, it's wrong- Because it's "shoddy reporting" that does not clarify the statement. If it was right, it would say something along the lines of "Tatsunoko was granted the rights of author, but was not granted the individual rights of author." To be right, it would have to include all available facts. Otherwise, it's a misleading statement. Not any better or worse than the ANN news report you so readily lambasted. Or is your translation wrong in stating not once, but twice that Tatsunoko was not granted the individual right of author?
the white drew carey Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 Basically, Naoko, not being familiar with the proper legal term, interputed it more literally. I'm going to try and contact her and find out her thoughts. Oh... so you've decided to re-interpret her translation due to her unfamiliarity with the proper term? And how did you come to conclusion (or even find out) that she was interpreting it too literally? And how did you find out the correct interpretation? Are you second-guessing your own translator? If memory serves me correctly, we had someone here once who knew English AND Japanese quite well, who was also quite good at not only translating, but also interpreting between the two (there is a difference). Hmmm... But you second guessed her as well.
Abombz!! Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 Basically, Naoko, not being familiar with the proper legal term, interputed it more literally. I'm going to try and contact her and find out her thoughts. Oh... so you've decided to re-interpret her translation due to her unfamiliarity with the proper term? And how did you come to conclusion (or even find out) that she was interpreting it too literally? And how did you find out the correct interpretation? Are you second-guessing your own translator? If memory serves me correctly, we had someone here once who knew English AND Japanese quite well, who was also quite good at not only translating, but also interpreting between the two (there is a difference). Hmmm... But you second guessed her as well. Touche!
Druna Skass Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 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. I remeber reading a second arcticle Mainichi, in the old thread released shortly after this one. I can't exactly rember what it was about but I remember them saying it wasn't as bad for BW as they thought, it's like they almost did an about face with this statement Wrylac likes to quote a lot. Does anyone have a copy of the second report?
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) Basically, Naoko, not being familiar with the proper legal term, interputed it more literally. I'm going to try and contact her and find out her thoughts. Oh... so you've decided to re-interpret her translation due to her unfamiliarity with the proper term? And how did you come to conclusion (or even find out) that she was interpreting it too literally? And how did you find out the correct interpretation? Are you second-guessing your own translator? If memory serves me correctly, we had someone here once who knew English AND Japanese quite well, who was also quite good at not only translating, but also interpreting between the two (there is a difference). Hmmm... But you second guessed her as well. I think this translation pretty much verifys the validity of the concerns I had about the previously posted, incomplete translation. Edited October 3, 2003 by wrylac
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 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. I remeber reading a second arcticle Mainichi, in the old thread released shortly after this one. I can't exactly rember what it was about but I remember them saying it wasn't as bad for BW as they thought, it's like they almost did an about face with this statement Wrylac likes to quote a lot. Does anyone have a copy of the second report? That was not a Mainichi article but a rehash of the thread that was started on the old boards in reaction to the ruling done by Anime News Network. We went over that recently check back a few pages in this thread.
Druna Skass Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 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. I remeber reading a second arcticle Mainichi, in the old thread released shortly after this one. I can't exactly rember what it was about but I remember them saying it wasn't as bad for BW as they thought, it's like they almost did an about face with this statement Wrylac likes to quote a lot. Does anyone have a copy of the second report? That was not a Mainichi article but a rehash of the thread that was started on the old boards in reaction to the ruling done by Anime News Network. We went over that recently check back a few pages in this thread. What page? I've been going through this thread from the start, I guess I missed over it...
wrylac Posted October 3, 2003 Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) 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. I remeber reading a second arcticle Mainichi, in the old thread released shortly after this one. I can't exactly rember what it was about but I remember them saying it wasn't as bad for BW as they thought, it's like they almost did an about face with this statement Wrylac likes to quote a lot. Does anyone have a copy of the second report? That was not a Mainichi article but a rehash of the thread that was started on the old boards in reaction to the ruling done by Anime News Network. We went over that recently check back a few pages in this thread. What page? I've been going through this thread from the start, I guess I missed over it... Page 10. It pretty much wraps up on page 11 with justvinnie's comment. Edited October 3, 2003 by wrylac
JELEINEN Posted October 3, 2003 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: The Berne Convention basically says that the signers will recognize the copyrights of the other signing countries. In theory, the recent court ruling should hold up in the US, but last I checked, the Berne Convention has never actually been tested. There are some constitutional issues with the treaty centering around whether or not the US government has the authority to enforce the laws of other countries.
Yamato Lover Posted October 4, 2003 Posted October 4, 2003 The most unfortunate thing for us in the US about this whole mess, is that Harmony Gold will continue to blockade every attempt at international Macross releases no matter what happens. The only "acceptable" course of action that HG seems like it would agree to is if Big West hands over ALL rights to Macross (Mac +, Mac II, DYRL?, etc.) to Tatsunoko, thereby giving full access to the derivatives as well.
Pat Payne Posted October 4, 2003 Posted October 4, 2003 Well, they can try, but if the mess gets cleared up to a court's satisfaction in BW's favor, if they keep pushing it, a court may put an injunction on them doing it. But's that's stiull iffy and WAY, WAY out in the future.
Yamato Lover Posted October 4, 2003 Posted October 4, 2003 Basically, Naoko, not being familiar with the proper legal term, interputed it more literally. I'm going to try and contact her and find out her thoughts. Oh... so you've decided to re-interpret her translation due to her unfamiliarity with the proper term? And how did you come to conclusion (or even find out) that she was interpreting it too literally? And how did you find out the correct interpretation? Are you second-guessing your own translator? If memory serves me correctly, we had someone here once who knew English AND Japanese quite well, who was also quite good at not only translating, but also interpreting between the two (there is a difference). Hmmm... But you second guessed her as well. That's what it sounds like to me, actually. Just from reading the old thread and this one, I'm kind of in agreement with white drew carey on this. It almost seems that if the translator is: A. female B. of Japanese descent* C. can read/write/speak Japanese* ...then wrylac tends to not fully trust the translation that has been proffered before him. Oh well. But the bottom line is that Quad's translation and this other Japanese chick's translation say the same thing. This is nothing new that we haven't already known since way back at the beginning of the year when the first translation was given to us. * B and C seem to be interchangable
justvinnie Posted October 4, 2003 Posted October 4, 2003 Everyone seems to have forgotten something important. Something that NO court will overrule. That something is the fact that TP cannot make derivatives of Macross by the original contract made between BW and TP. This alone is enough to prove that the Macross franchise belongs to BW SINCE they and only they alone can make Macross derivatives. We can argue who owns what in the SDF-Macross copyrights, but where the rights to the derivatives are concerned, there is no question. All BW needs to do now is take TP to court over the derivative rights, something I'm sure is down the pipeline. vinnie
the white drew carey Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 (edited) Everyone seems to have forgotten something important. Something that NO court will overrule. That something is the fact that TP cannot make derivatives of Macross by the original contract made between BW and TP. This alone is enough to prove that the Macross franchise belongs to BW SINCE they and only they alone can make Macross derivatives. We can argue who owns what in the SDF-Macross copyrights, but where the rights to the derivatives are concerned, there is no question. All BW needs to do now is take TP to court over the derivative rights, something I'm sure is down the pipeline.vinnie I didn't forget. In fact, I'm always mentioning that whatever rulings have been made as to actual ownership, the Memorandum itself spells out the division of rights to everyone involved. edit: dyslexia Edited October 5, 2003 by the white drew carey
wrylac Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 (edited) Chapter 2, Section 3, Subsection 2 of Japanese Copyright Law is titled "Moral rights" on the english version of the Japanese Copyright website. Subsection 2 When I go to a Japanese text version of Japanese Copyright Law (here) and translate the title of Subsection 2 (which is the title right above Article 18) through babelfish I get this as a translation: "2nd Š¼ literary work person personality right." The original Japanese text of the Jan 03 ruling taken from the Main Sentence paragraph 1 that Naoko translates as "without individual right of author" is translated by babel fish this way: "Literary work person personality right is excluded." "individual right of author" = "Literary work person personality right" = "Moral Right" Edited October 5, 2003 by wrylac
wrylac Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 Everyone seems to have forgotten something important. Something that NO court will overrule. That something is the fact that TP cannot make derivatives of Macross by the original contract made between BW and TP. This alone is enough to prove that the Macross franchise belongs to BW SINCE they and only they alone can make Macross derivatives. We can argue who owns what in the SDF-Macross copyrights, but where the rights to the derivatives are concerned, there is no question. All BW needs to do now is take TP to court over the derivative rights, something I'm sure is down the pipeline.vinnie I'm trying to find out why you say that TP cannot make derivatives of SDF Macross. I know that TP can't make animation's based on the designs used for SDF Macross. But, I've yet to see anything that says TP cannot make a derivative work of SDF Macross.
91WhiskeyM6 Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 I'm curious..which company is making more money selling Valks? Yamato or MPC ?
91WhiskeyM6 Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 Well, this whole HG vs Yamato selling in the US is moot then since alot of us order international via Ebay or some merchant toy company. Come to think about of it, I've never bought a Macross figure/Valk at a local store. Thank God for the Internet and boards like this to enlighten us. Screw HG
VF-19 Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 Well, this whole HG vs Yamato selling in the US is moot then since alot of us order international via Ebay or some merchant toy company. Come to think about of it, I've never bought a Macross figure/Valk at a local store. Thank God for the Internet and boards like this to enlighten us. Screw HG Harmony Gold considers Yamato's valks an illegal product, as it doesn't have their stamp of approval on it. Still... I want, no. I NEED to see the contract between HG and TP. Isn't a contract supposed to be able to be viewed by the public?
wrylac Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 (edited) Well, this whole HG vs Yamato selling in the US is moot then since alot of us order international via Ebay or some merchant toy company. Come to think about of it, I've never bought a Macross figure/Valk at a local store. Thank God for the Internet and boards like this to enlighten us. Screw HG Harmony Gold considers Yamato's valks an illegal product, as it doesn't have their stamp of approval on it. Still... I want, no. I NEED to see the contract between HG and TP. Isn't a contract supposed to be able to be viewed by the public? Couple of things. I've never seen where HG has said Yamato valks were illegal products. According to HG selling them in the U.S. through the grey market is illegal, but Yamato making valks is not illegal nor is a private individual importing one for their own personal use. Second, neither BW nor HG are a publicly held companies, they don't have to show anything to anyone. Besides, seeing a contract between HG and TP is moot, the real issue is the the contract between BW and TP and neither company has been forth coming. What we do have it the portion of the contract as interputed by the court (ie the Feb 02 ruling on the copyright of the designs and the Jan 03 ruling on the copyright of the show). Edited October 5, 2003 by wrylac
the white drew carey Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 Still... I want, no. I NEED to see the contract between HG and TP. Isn't a contract supposed to be able to be viewed by the public? No. It doesn't need to be made publicly available. A strong level of doubt has been cast upon a HG because they CLAIM to own all of the international rights to Macross (excluding Japan), and have even threatened several retailers who sell imported Macross merchandise with legal action. But when one of the retailers retained a lawyer who asked HG to prove their claims by providing evidence of their ownership, they refused and basically said that everyone should "take their word for it." So, in the end, a company doesn't need to make their contracts and agreements publicly available. But when public scrutiny falls on said company due to claims they've made, some say it would be wise for them to provide the proof and settle the matter. Something with which HG has refused to do. This, coupled with questionable decisions and statements made by HG employees and associates past and present have led many Macross-fans to questions HG's motives and actual commitment to the Macross franchise. It has also given rise to theories that HG was simply "pulling the collective leg" simply to hamper incoming Macross merchandise in order to clear the market for their revival of RT. p.s.- Some of the more RT-friendly members here also tend to cite the case of Playmates/HG vs. FASA foor the use of Macross-derived designs as a time when HG won. A statement like this is inherently wrong because the case itself was settled out of court and all parties involved signed a non-disclosure agreement. Therefore, for anyone to say which party won is simply a guess, since we can be quite sure that they actually aren't privy to any part of the out of court settlement.* *I have a theory of what actually went on in this court case, but it's not as exciting as any of us wish it could be. eh...
the white drew carey Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 According to HG selling them in the U.S. through the grey market is illegal... It's true, HG has said this. Once again, the thing to remember is that they refused to provide evidence as to whether or not it IS, in actuality, illegal.
Abombz!! Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 (edited) Everyone seems to have forgotten something important. Something that NO court will overrule. That something is the fact that TP cannot make derivatives of Macross by the original contract made between BW and TP. This alone is enough to prove that the Macross franchise belongs to BW SINCE they and only they alone can make Macross derivatives. We can argue who owns what in the SDF-Macross copyrights, but where the rights to the derivatives are concerned, there is no question. All BW needs to do now is take TP to court over the derivative rights, something I'm sure is down the pipeline.vinnie I'm trying to find out why you say that TP cannot make derivatives of SDF Macross. I know that TP can't make animation's based on the designs used for SDF Macross. But, I've yet to see anything that says TP cannot make a derivative work of SDF Macross. Because they haven't done any yet? Because they haven't tried to stop BW yet? If you feel TP is in charge of derivatives, why haven't they stopped Macross Zero? Why haven't they taken BW to court to get their share out of Macross 7 and Macross Plus? Edited October 5, 2003 by Abombz!!
Effect Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 Its things like this that really cast a shadow of doubt on HG's claims. Anyone can see this. HG aren't going to say they are in the wrong, neither is BW. Granted we are only looking from the outside in, and there are things we don't know but it is very hard to ignore these things.
Hurricane29 Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 (edited) Well, someday I hope that Big West gets involved and takes HG to court. With the power that Bw has, it would burn HG at the stake! Edited October 5, 2003 by Hurricane29
91WhiskeyM6 Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 Harmony Gold considers Yamato's valks an illegal product, as it doesn't have their stamp of approval on it. Yeah??? You mean all my superb Valks are bootlegs ? cool!!
wrylac Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 (edited) Everyone seems to have forgotten something important. Something that NO court will overrule. That something is the fact that TP cannot make derivatives of Macross by the original contract made between BW and TP. This alone is enough to prove that the Macross franchise belongs to BW SINCE they and only they alone can make Macross derivatives. We can argue who owns what in the SDF-Macross copyrights, but where the rights to the derivatives are concerned, there is no question. All BW needs to do now is take TP to court over the derivative rights, something I'm sure is down the pipeline.vinnie I'm trying to find out why you say that TP cannot make derivatives of SDF Macross. I know that TP can't make animation's based on the designs used for SDF Macross. But, I've yet to see anything that says TP cannot make a derivative work of SDF Macross. Because they haven't done any yet? Because they haven't tried to stop BW yet? If you feel TP is in charge of derivatives, why haven't they stopped Macross Zero? Why haven't they taken BW to court to get their share out of Macross 7 and Macross Plus? Actually, the appeal by BW of the Jan 03 ruling just failed on Sept 25, the reason for the recent Yahoo! Japan article, we haven't seen any of the repercussions of this ruling yet. Edited October 6, 2003 by wrylac
VF-19 Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 Harmony Gold considers Yamato's valks an illegal product, as it doesn't have their stamp of approval on it. Yeah??? You mean all my superb Valks are bootlegs ? cool!! Yup! By that technicallity, they're the worlds best bootleg! If HG blocks Yamato and doesn't provide the evidence to prove it has the right to block Yamato, can it still block them for trying to distribute "illegal" merchandise?
Omni Existence Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 ...then wrylac tends to not fully trust the translation that has been proffered before him. Oh well. I don't think Wry trusts anyone's translation other than his own .....but that's just me.
Abombz!! Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 Everyone seems to have forgotten something important. Something that NO court will overrule. That something is the fact that TP cannot make derivatives of Macross by the original contract made between BW and TP. This alone is enough to prove that the Macross franchise belongs to BW SINCE they and only they alone can make Macross derivatives. We can argue who owns what in the SDF-Macross copyrights, but where the rights to the derivatives are concerned, there is no question. All BW needs to do now is take TP to court over the derivative rights, something I'm sure is down the pipeline.vinnie I'm trying to find out why you say that TP cannot make derivatives of SDF Macross. I know that TP can't make animation's based on the designs used for SDF Macross. But, I've yet to see anything that says TP cannot make a derivative work of SDF Macross. Because they haven't done any yet? Because they haven't tried to stop BW yet? If you feel TP is in charge of derivatives, why haven't they stopped Macross Zero? Why haven't they taken BW to court to get their share out of Macross 7 and Macross Plus? Actually, the appeal by BW of the Jan 03 ruling just failed on Sept 25, the reason for the recent Yahoo! Japan article, we haven't seen any of the repurcussions of this ruling yet. I'm not talking about now. BW has been making derivatives for a long time, why didn't TP go after them back then? Why didn't TP stop the licensing of Plus and 2, and specially DYRL? ? After all.... while HG might not have been minding their stuff.... TP sure as heck was. <_<
the white drew carey Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 If HG blocks Yamato and doesn't provide the evidence to prove it has the right to block Yamato, can it still block them for trying to distribute "illegal" merchandise? So far the closest attempt at Yamato valks here in the states was Sunwards, a decidedly odd, and apparently unsuccessful attempt ("apparently" only by the proposed possibility that it was an experiment to test the waters). As of yet, matters haven't "come to a head" yet to the point where all parties will have to show their cards. If and when Yamato makes a concerted effort to release their valks here in the U.S. and HG makes concerted effort to block them, then, in all possibility, will we see, or at least get a concrete idea, of who's got the best hand.
Basara Nekki Posted October 5, 2003 Posted October 5, 2003 I've read the translations and what it seams to say(I'm no lawyer) is that TP/HG own the rights to the original animation series and the rights to maybe make dirivatives like toys from it. Everything I've read in that document on the character, mecha, and other designs within the series implies that BW/SN own the designs. What I can't understand is why BW hasn't attempted to set up shop yet in the US to see how HG reacts like they did with Sunwards.
.thumb.jpg.bc0aa3d6a43314c42575bd21a0963db5.jpg)
Recommended Posts