Robotech and HG license debates

[wrylac]

So far, outside the memorandum, it has been established BW owns nothing that is called "SDF Macross."

So doesn't that bring this whole thing back to square one? If I am to interpret your last statement at face value, you are essentially saying that BW simply doesn't own anything related to Macross...with the exclusion of the line art, right? And that could technically include any derivative based on the series (like FB 2012)?

I'm being specific to "SDF Macross." The line art it's self doesn't carry any specific name with it, it's just a stack of very good drawings with no further connotation.

I'll go back to my example of fan art. You are allowed to create as much fan art and derivative work as you want based on "SDF Macross." When you do create fan art, assuming you paid for and all the materials and no one commissioned you to do it, you are the creator of that art and you own that art. No one could ever say that you didn't create that art, no one could ever force you to display that art, and no one could ever force you to sell that art. However, once you try to commercialize your art and try to make money from it you start to step over the line into infringement.

I consider BW's derivatives the same way I see fan art. They own their derivatives of "SDF Macross" and for a time got away with exploiting those derivatives. But, no matter how you look at it they were infringing on TP's "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" derivatives. TP has now said enough, probably due to a lot of prodding by HG, and now wants to enforce their copyright. How far back can they go? How much can they enforce? We don't know for sure yet. But, since it now seems that TP is willing to enforce their copyright, I think that Macross Zero will tell us a lot.

Edited October 31, 2003 by wrylac

[the white drew carey]

I consider BW's derivatives the same way I see fan art. They own their derivatives of "SDF Macross" and for a time got away with exploiting those derivatives. But, no matter how you look at it they were infringing on TP's "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" derivatives. TP has now said enough, probably due to a lot of prodding by HG, and now wants to enforce their copyright. How far back can they go? How much can they enforce? We don't know for sure yet. But, since it now seems that TP is willing to enforce their copyright, I think that Macross Zero will tell us a lot.

It seems that you're trying to emulate me by making one of those wild "leaps."

Tatsunoko has never said, or done anything to give anyone the idea, that they planning on enforcing what you claim is their copyright*. For you to say so in such a definite manner leaves much more to be desired than my self-proclaimed personally held theories and conclusions.

In the long run, I highly doubt that Tatsunoko will ever try to stop BigWest from releasing Macross derivatives. I also doubt that they'll do anything if BigWest licenses further Macross products outside of Japan.

I do, however, think that HG will always try to make a stink if BigWest tries to license further Macross products in North America. But only for North America.

*(I say this because you still haven't provided evidence supporting your "moral rights/exculsive rights" assertion)

[ewilen]

I'm skeptical of your argument, wrylac, but if you're right, then Tatsunoko is probably going to find itself engaged by Bandai either in negotiations or further legal battles. After all, Bandai is actively involved in producing "Macross derivatives" in the form of an OAV and a video game, and while they may not care about the international market, your interpretation would mean a direct threat to their current investments in the Japanese market.

[wrylac]

I'm skeptical of your argument, wrylac, but if you're right, then Tatsunoko is probably going to find itself engaged by Bandai either in negotiations or further legal battles. After all, Bandai is actively involved in producing "Macross derivatives" in the form of an OAV and a video game, and while they may not care about the international market, your interpretation would mean a direct threat to their current investments in the Japanese market.

I believe that's a very strong possibility.

Edited October 31, 2003 by wrylac

[wrylac]

I consider BW's derivatives the same way I see fan art. They own their derivatives of "SDF Macross" and for a time got away with exploiting those derivatives. But, no matter how you look at it they were infringing on TP's "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" derivatives. TP has now said enough, probably due to a lot of prodding by HG, and now wants to enforce their copyright. How far back can they go? How much can they enforce? We don't know for sure yet. But, since it now seems that TP is willing to enforce their copyright, I think that Macross Zero will tell us a lot.

It seems that you're trying to emulate me by making one of those wild "leaps."

Tatsunoko has never said, or done anything to give anyone the idea, that they planning on enforcing what you claim is their copyright*. For you to say so in such a definite manner leaves much more to be desired than my self-proclaimed personally held theories and conclusions.

In the long run, I highly doubt that Tatsunoko will ever try to stop BigWest from releasing Macross derivatives. I also doubt that they'll do anything if BigWest licenses further Macross products outside of Japan.

I do, however, think that HG will always try to make a stink if BigWest tries to license further Macross products in North America. But only for North America.

*(I say this because you still haven't provided evidence supporting your "moral rights/exculsive rights" assertion)

I simply stated some facts in that earlier post. I made no assertions.

TP was granted copyright to the 36 "animation movies" excluding only the "Moral right." What does the copyright include besides "Moral right?" "Economic Rights" and some "Neighboring Rights." What rights does "Economic Rights" include? The "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" "Derivative Works." Now, the court did not exclude the "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" "Derivative Works" in it's ruling like it did exclude the "Moral Right."

Draw what you will from that. But, if you're confused about these facts check out the CHARTS link in my sig.

Edited October 31, 2003 by wrylac

[Hurricane29]

I never can understand this thread, this issue is going to go on forever until a court ruling is made that spells out every detail. Which is not going to happen because someone is always going to come up with a new argument.

[ewilen]

Regardless of what the courts say, the argument will end if the various parties come to an agreement. I think it'll also probably end if there are any more Macross products released in North America and if HG fails to get them stopped. That is, we can argue about what the courts say (especially when we're trying to decipher translations of Japanese legal writing), but when we see what they do/don't do, we'll have the answers.

Anyway, I may be forgetting what's been said before, but if we agree that Studio Nue possesses the Moral Right of authorship, does that mean that they could stop (retroactively?) the editing and modification of Macross to fit it into Robotech? See Article 20 here.

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

Edit: Hm--I guess that depends on the whether the memorandum with BW and Nue gave TP full author's right outside of Japan.

Edited October 31, 2003 by ewilen

[SuperOstrich]

I swear that this thread better stop repeating itself on every page. At this point, I'm failing to see the purpose of it.

[wrylac]

Regardless of what the courts say, the argument will end if the various parties come to an agreement. I think it'll also probably end if there are any more Macross products released in North America and if HG fails to get them stopped. That is, we can argue about what the courts say (especially when we're trying to decipher translations of Japanese legal writing), but when we see what they do/don't do, we'll have the answers.

Anyway, I may be forgetting what's been said before, but if we agree that Studio Nue possesses the Moral Right of authorship, does that mean that they could stop (retroactively?) the editing and modification of Macross to fit it into Robotech? See Article 20 here.

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

Edit: Hm--I guess that depends on the whether the memorandum with BW and Nue gave TP full author's right outside of Japan.

Likely they could have, but they didn't and never have so who knows. It's not like HG is looking to modify any further Macross into RT.

[wrylac]

I swear that this thread better stop repeating itself on every page. At this point, I'm failing to see the purpose of it.

The problem is that some people come in and out of this debate and others are new, I think its only fair that matters get cleared up when repeated questions are asked. It's better than ignoring someone and making them feel unwanted.

[the white drew carey]

Draw what you will from that. But, if you're confused about these facts check out the CHARTS link in my sig.

No, what I was referring to is the fact that I'm still not convinced that BigWest was only granted moral rights and Tatsunoko was granted everything else. Your explanation for this seems, to me, to be lacking.

The translation you received did not say that, although you claim that it actually does and that your translator was in error. And then your proof of this is a connect-the-dots theory based on, of all things, a Babelfish translation.

I know the CHARTS (no need to yell) don't lie. I wasn't arguing that at all.

It's just that I don't believe your theory that BigWest was only granted moral rights and nothing else. Hence, I find any theory you base upon that evidence as faulty.

[Druna Skass]

But, since it now seems that TP is willing to enforce their copyright, I think that Macross Zero will tell us a lot.

What do you mean by that?

[SuperOstrich]

The problem is that some people come in and out of this debate and others are new, I think its only fair that matters get cleared up when repeated questions are asked. It's better than ignoring someone and making them feel unwanted.

Start referring them to the older threads or something. This thread needs to start progressing. It's been the same thing over and over for the last 10 pages.

It's frustrating to moderate, since I have to read the whole damn thing. I keep reading the same crap.

[Lightning]

can you shorten it then?

or maybe restart it from page 1 with a summary written about what has happened so far?

[muswp1]

The problem is that some people come in and out of this debate and others are new, I think its only fair that matters get cleared up when repeated questions are asked.  It's better than ignoring someone and making them feel unwanted.

Start referring them to the older threads or something. This thread needs to start progressing. It's been the same thing over and over for the last 10 pages.

It's frustrating to moderate, since I have to read the whole damn thing. I keep reading the same crap.

That sums up my feelings too. This thread is way too repetitive for me. Either move forward or don't post.

[wrylac]

Draw what you will from that.  But, if you're confused about these facts check out the CHARTS link in my sig.

No, what I was referring to is the fact that I'm still not convinced that BigWest was only granted moral rights and Tatsunoko was granted everything else. Your explanation for this seems, to me, to be lacking.

The translation you received did not say that, although you claim that it actually does and that your translator was in error. And then your proof of this is a connect-the-dots theory based on, of all things, a Babelfish translation.

I know the CHARTS (no need to yell) don't lie. I wasn't arguing that at all.

It's just that I don't believe your theory that BigWest was only granted moral rights and nothing else. Hence, I find any theory you base upon that evidence as faulty.

Sorry, caps were meant to emphasize the charts link and not to yell.

How about the fact that the Japanese characters used in both the Copyright website and in the court's ruling to describe denote "Moral Right" are exactly the same.

[JB0]

TP was granted copyright to the 36 "animation movies" excluding only the "Moral right."  What does the copyright include besides "Moral right?"  "Economic Rights" and some "Neighboring Rights."  What rights does "Economic Rights" include?  The "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" "Derivative Works."  Now, the court did not exclude the "Exclusive Right" to "create" and "exploit" "Derivative Works" in it's ruling like it did exclude the "Moral Right."

and

BW "filed this lawsuit to claim copyright ownership to the drawings" used in SDF Macross.  They were given copyright to those drawings only.  So far, outside the memorandum, it has been established BW owns nothing that is called "SDF Macross."

Working within your statements...

Then TP is screwed too.

Anything that appears in a new show can be argued to be derivative works of the original line art.

Either the Macross universe "sees the light", quits flying VFs, and buys a lot of Mobile Suits, or TP can't do anything with the license they allegedly own.

Edited October 31, 2003 by JB0

[justvinnie]

Ahem... TP is expressly forbidden to create derivatives based on the design elements of that BW owns. It is explicitly written into the memorandum.

vinnie

[JB0]

Ahem... TP is expressly forbidden to create derivatives based on the design elements of that BW owns. It is explicitly written into the memorandum.

vinnie

'Kay.

Double-screwed, then, by wyrlac's logic.

[justvinnie]

Dammit! How I wish the old forums are working. One of the Japanese member had searched one of the Japanese legal databases and posted a translated copy of the damn memorandum.

vinnie

PS: If you are that member, please post it again.

[the white drew carey]

The problem is that some people come in and out of this debate and others are new, I think its only fair that matters get cleared up when repeated questions are asked.  It's better than ignoring someone and making them feel unwanted.

Start referring them to the older threads or something. This thread needs to start progressing. It's been the same thing over and over for the last 10 pages.

It's frustrating to moderate, since I have to read the whole damn thing. I keep reading the same crap.

I'll volunteer to moderate it. All of Wrylac's posts will suddenly disappear!!!

Just kidding. If I make his posts go away, I'll simply be right all the time (as usual), but no one will know who was wrong!!!

Goodness... I kill me!!!

One thing I'm curious about (and also a reason I don't think BigWest was only granted Moral Rights and barred from the ability to create derivaties):

So, If BigWest/Studio Nue were granted copyright of the design elements but, as Wrylac states, not derivative rights, what the hell good are they then?

The design elements are all fine and dandy if you have the copyright. But if your allowed to make derivative designs (DYRL Valk, anyone... it IS a derivative), but not allowed to create a story with those designs included, it doesn't really matter at all?

In order to use those derivative designs, you'd have to create a whole 'nother story that isn't set in the Macross universe (remember, this is assuming that Tatsunoko owns the story as well). At that point, they wouldn't be derivatives, now would they?

But, here's another interesting point:

The affirmation of Tatsunoko's copyright, as well as HG's sudden realisation of their ownership of Macross, means that they can enforce their rights, correct?

Then I would think that neither HG, nor Tatsunoko, can ever use the Legioss/Alpha design or the design for that tank-thing in Southern Cross.

Why? Because those designs are obviously derived from the Valkyrie design which is owned and copyrighted by BigWest/Studio Nue.

The each have a regular vehicle mode, a GERWALK mode (an idea directly stolen from Kawamori, to say otherwise would be lies) and a Robot mode.

I think a strong enough case could be made that Tatsunoko has created derivatives based on the copyrighted designs by Kawamori.

Now, I'm sure the courts wouldn't aloow them to do anything about past infractions, but if Tatsunoko/HG continues to infringe on BigWest/Studio Nue's rights by using designs so clearly based on Kawamori's, I'd think that they'd have to be stopped. Hmmm?

[justvinnie]

Draw what you will from that.  But, if you're confused about these facts check out the CHARTS link in my sig.

No, what I was referring to is the fact that I'm still not convinced that BigWest was only granted moral rights and Tatsunoko was granted everything else. Your explanation for this seems, to me, to be lacking.

The translation you received did not say that, although you claim that it actually does and that your translator was in error. And then your proof of this is a connect-the-dots theory based on, of all things, a Babelfish translation.

I know the CHARTS (no need to yell) don't lie. I wasn't arguing that at all.

It's just that I don't believe your theory that BigWest was only granted moral rights and nothing else. Hence, I find any theory you base upon that evidence as faulty.

Sorry, caps were meant to emphasize the charts link and not to yell.

How about the fact that the Japanese characters used in both the Copyright website and in the court's ruling to describe denote "Moral Right" are exactly the same.

All the word twisiting word change a thing. There are two lines of evidence that indicates BW and /or Studio Nue are the owners of the SDF-Macross story. These two lines are interwined and collaborate each other.

The first line is the fact that in the infamous memorandum, TP is expressly forbidden from creating derivatives of SDF-Macross or licensing others to do so. It is even well known that this is the reason why the RT: The Sentinels had such drastic changes in character appearance as well as the complete lack of newly animated VF-1 footage. All VF-1 footage in the Sentinels were taken from SDF-Macross to be reused.

The second line of evidence is the plethora of SDF-Macross derivative stories that BW has authorized.

So as long as you try to bend the semantics of a translation in your favor, you will always ignore the truth that is in front of you.

Who owns the story of SDF-Macross? Why Studio Nue, of course! Even TP has acknowledged it. Why won't you?

vinnie

[wrylac]

Draw what you will from that.  But, if you're confused about these facts check out the CHARTS link in my sig.

No, what I was referring to is the fact that I'm still not convinced that BigWest was only granted moral rights and Tatsunoko was granted everything else. Your explanation for this seems, to me, to be lacking.

The translation you received did not say that, although you claim that it actually does and that your translator was in error. And then your proof of this is a connect-the-dots theory based on, of all things, a Babelfish translation.

I know the CHARTS (no need to yell) don't lie. I wasn't arguing that at all.

It's just that I don't believe your theory that BigWest was only granted moral rights and nothing else. Hence, I find any theory you base upon that evidence as faulty.

Sorry, caps were meant to emphasize the charts link and not to yell.

How about the fact that the Japanese characters used in both the Copyright website and in the court's ruling to describe denote "Moral Right" are exactly the same.

All the word twisiting word change a thing. There are two lines of evidence that indicates BW and /or Studio Nue are the owners of the SDF-Macross story. These two lines are interwined and collaborate each other.

The first line is the fact that in the infamous memorandum, TP is expressly forbidden from creating derivatives of SDF-Macross or licensing others to do so. It is even well known that this is the reason why the RT: The Sentinels had such drastic changes in character appearance as well as the complete lack of newly animated VF-1 footage. All VF-1 footage in the Sentinels were taken from SDF-Macross to be reused.

The second line of evidence is the plethora of SDF-Macross derivative stories that BW has authorized.

So as long as you try to bend the semantics of a translation in your favor, you will always ignore the truth that is in front of you.

Who owns the story of SDF-Macross? Why Studio Nue, of course! Even TP has acknowledged it. Why won't you?

vinnie

You might want to rethink your 'intertwined' line of reasoning, because your first argument is fundamentally and factually wrong.

No where has it been shown that TP cannot make derivatives of "SDF Macross." I don't understand why you think that the memorandum says that, but if your referring to the first court ruling then you misunderstand the ruling. The court ruled that TP cannot make derivatives of the line art it made no such expression about the show. Now you might argue that without making derivatives of what is called the VF-1 in SDF Macross you don't have a "Macross" show. But, that's another argument all together.

I'm not bending any sematics about an translation. I went to the original Japanese document of both the copyright law and the language used in the Jan03 ruling and found that the characters used in both instances are exactly the same. That's not twisting, that's fact.

Crediting someone for their idea and acknowledging ownership aren't exactly the same thing.

[wrylac]

One thing I'm curious about (and also a reason I don't think BigWest was only granted Moral Rights and barred from the ability to create derivaties):

Nice dodge on my "Moral Rights" arguement.

So, If BigWest/Studio Nue were granted copyright of the design elements but, as Wrylac states, not derivative rights, what the hell good are they then?

The design elements are all fine and dandy if you have the copyright. But if your allowed to make derivative designs (DYRL Valk, anyone... it IS a derivative), but not allowed to create a story with those designs included, it doesn't really matter at all?

In order to use those derivative designs, you'd have to create a whole 'nother story that isn't set in the Macross universe (remember, this is assuming that Tatsunoko owns the story as well). At that point, they wouldn't be derivatives, now would they?

Hey, you're finally starting to think like me.

The affirmation of Tatsunoko's copyright, as well as HG's sudden realisation of their ownership of Macross, means that they can enforce their rights, correct?

Then I would think that neither HG, nor Tatsunoko, can ever use the Legioss/Alpha design or the design for that tank-thing in Southern Cross.

Why? Because those designs are obviously derived from the Valkyrie design which is owned and copyrighted by BigWest/Studio Nue.

The each have a regular vehicle mode, a GERWALK mode (an idea directly stolen from Kawamori, to say otherwise would be lies) and a Robot mode.

I think a strong enough case could be made that Tatsunoko has created derivatives based on the copyrighted designs by Kawamori.

Now, I'm sure the courts wouldn't aloow them to do anything about past infractions, but if Tatsunoko/HG continues to infringe on BigWest/Studio Nue's rights by using designs so clearly based on Kawamori's, I'd think that they'd have to be stopped. Hmmm?

Now you're just being smarmy. BW doesn't own the 'trilateral' figure.

[SuperOstrich]

And everyone is still repeating themselves. Bring something new to the table people.

[wrylac]

And everyone is still repeating themselves. Bring something new to the table people.

Sometimes repetition or taking a differnt approach is what it takes to get an idea across. Also, it may seem like repetition when you aren't as intimately involved with the subject.

Edited October 31, 2003 by wrylac

[SuperOstrich]

No, you just enjoy arguing so much that you couldn't bear to see this thread disappear. I'm telling everyone to stop bringing up the same points. Nobody's mind is being changed in either direction.

And trust me, after having read through this crap over and over again as a moderator, I'm just as involved in it as you are.

[cwbrown]

No, you just enjoy arguing so much that you couldn't bear to see this thread disappear. I'm telling everyone to stop bringing up the same points. Nobody's mind is being changed in either direction.

And trust me, after having read through this crap over and over again as a moderator, I'm just as involved in it as you are.

Sorry SuperO, have to disagree with you. It really shouldn't matter if it's being repetitious. The whole reason Shawn created the thread (at least as I understood it), was to contain the HG/BW/TP/RT fan/M fan feud/legal wrangling/etc. It has served that purpose very well, and inarguably continues to serve that purpose.

I'm sorry you're the poor schmo stuck with having to moderate the thread, but at least the mess is contained.

[justvinnie]

You might want to rethink your 'intertwined' line of reasoning, because your first argument is fundamentally and factually wrong.

No where has it been shown that TP cannot make derivatives of "SDF Macross." I don't understand why you think that the memorandum says that, but if your referring to the first court ruling then you misunderstand the ruling. The court ruled that TP cannot make derivatives of the line art it made no such expression about the show. Now you might argue that without making derivatives of what is called the VF-1 in SDF Macross you don't have a "Macross" show. But, that's another argument all together.

I'm not bending any sematics about an translation. I went to the original Japanese document of both the copyright law and the language used in the Jan03 ruling and found that the characters used in both instances are exactly the same. That's not twisting, that's fact.

Crediting someone for their idea and acknowledging ownership aren't exactly the same thing.

Fundamentally and factually wrong where? The memorandum does expressly stated that TP may not make derivatives of SDF-Macross (the show itself) nor are they allowed to license others to do so. The facts are all there. TP has yet to make a SINGLE derivative of SDF-Macross. The closest they ever came to was RT: The Sentinels. And we all know how mangled the character designs were. That was not on mere whim on TP's behalf, I can assure you. On the otherhand who has been pumping out SDF-Macross derivatives?

The mere fact that you are using a BABELFISH translation as the basis of your argument by it's very nature folly.

You ARE bending semantics into your favor while ignoring facts known by everyone, even if you will not admit it.

vinnie

[cwbrown]

Vinnie,

I've been getting confused by your use of terminology for some time now.

So, I just want to make sure everyone is using the exact same terms.

The first line is the fact that in the infamous memorandum, TP is expressly forbidden from creating derivatives of SDF-Macross or licensing others to do so. It is even well known that this is the reason why the RT: The Sentinels had such drastic changes in character appearance as well as the complete lack of newly animated VF-1 footage. All VF-1 footage in the Sentinels were taken from SDF-Macross to be reused.

Here, you state the "memorandum". I think what you mean is actually the '02 ruling. The memorandum as used in the '02 ruling is actually the contract between BW and TP (called a memorandum contract). And, as I stated to you before, that contract is not yet public, and never will be (unless the companies are stupid).

Now, in the '02 ruling, yes, TP is enjoined from creating derivatives, etc (as you stated) using the drawings. It's very specific. I don't know what the means, legally speaking, but it is specific.

So, now please feel free to carry on....

[ewilen]

I do think things are getting repetitive, and I have to apologize for contributing to that since I probably asked the same question twice (about BW/Nue being able to stop Robotech on the grounds that it involves hacking up Macross). Let me try to make partial amends by clearing the air a bit.

Regardless of what the translations mean, let's see if we can determine what the governing documents are and what they govern. I have:

1) The memorandum between BW/Nue and Tatsunoko dated 10/1/82. Grants international distribution and merchandising of SDF Macross, as well as a cut of domestic merchandising profits, to Tatsunoko. Source: Animerica 01/2003 posted: Oct 29 2003, 09:44 PM by Apollo Leader. Also mentioned in the court judgment of 1/20/2003. As far as I know, the memorandum is silent on the issue of domestic and international derivatives.

2) Memorandum/contract between Tatsunoko and HG. Exact terms secret, but HG is using it to claim full international distribution, merchandising, and derivative rights.

3) Ruling of 2/25/2002 by Tokyo District Court.

4) Ruling of October, 2002, by Tokyo High Court. Referenced in articles on 1/20/2003 ruling. This may be the ruling referenced here; i.e., on October 2, 2002, Tokyo High Court rejects Tatsunoko's appeal of the February ruling.

5) Ruling of 1/20/2003, by Tokyo District Court.

6) Ruling of 9/25/2003, by Tokyo High Court. Confirms the January, 2003, ruling.

Now, it's generally agreed that (3) & (4) were wins for BW/Nue, granting them rights to all the designs for SDF Macross, while (5) & (6) were wins for TP, granting rights to the animation of SDF Macross. Rights to derivatives (including merchandising of derivatives), both domestic and international, is key point of contention. All of the rulings apparently only pertain directly to the domestic rights but they could affect international rights if it turns out that HG is claiming rights to derivatives that Tatsunoko couldn't possibly grant, or conversely, if BW/Nue lack rights to any derivatives at all.

[the white drew carey]

Nice dodge on my "Moral Rights" arguement.

Not dodgin' nuthin'.

I have yet to see an translation that says Tatsunoko was granted copyright without "Moral Rights."

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with your detective work.

Hey, you're finally starting to think like me.

No, I'm not (because I think Jennifer Garner is ugly [and lumpy-faced]... ).

I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood that a court would handicap a copyright in such a way. Kawamori can design all the valks he wants. And I'm sure if they were produced as toys, someone would buy them. But if what you're saying was true, the marketability of such designs would be cut off at the knees due to the fact that they could not be advertised in a showcase such as a series or OAV.

Now you're just being smarmy.  BW doesn't own the 'trilateral' figure.

Of course I'm being smarmy. It's Halloween!!!

Seriously- I know BigWest does not own the trilateral figure. But the transformation concept of Plane -> Gerwalk (half plane, half robot) -> Robot is something created by Kawamori. It could easily be argued that the creators of SC and Mospeada* (who, IIRC, were creating the projects for Tatsunoko) understood the popularity of that concept and utilized it for their own mechanical designs. I highly doubt the Gerwalk concept would've been used at that time if it wasn't in Macross first.

1) Tatsunoko is the "Commander In Chief" of those projects, they are held responsible for the actions of their underlings.

2) Those underlings based series of a concept of transformation and modes directly taken from Kawamori's designs and concepts.

3) That, my friend, is a derivative of BigWest/Studio Nue's copyright. Something that the court said is a no-no.

*Orguss took it a step further and also had a fourth mode that's supposed to be some kind of tank.

[the white drew carey]

Ewilen- In all fairness, I think we should also provide this translation by Quadrono.

Both this translation and the on Wrylac has provided were done by non-professional translators with limited to no knowledge of the Japanese legal system. So, in the long-run, one is as good as the other.

I take full responsibility for posting this translation. If anyone has issues with it, direct them to me and not the translator (whom I think isn't here anymore anyway).

The H15. 1.20 Tokyo district court 2001, 6447 copyright civil lawsuit incidents 2001 claimant oral proceedings concluded this day October 28, 2002 for anime production lawsuit, representative attorney Noboru will deliberate for Studio Nue and Big West (Defendants) and the attorney representing Tatsunoko Productions Corporation (Plaintiff) is attorney Koichiro. The following will be covered:

1.) Plaintiff , the Defendants and all others involved, have catalogued characters concerning the animation movie (Super Space-Time Fortress Macross) items 1 through 36, the Plaintiff wishes to verify that it possesses the copyright (which includes rights to artworks).

2.) Both Defendants and others, as well as the Plaintiff screened the animation movie (Super Space-Time Fortress Macross) covering items 1 through 36 publicly; the fact that it distributes production based on artwork, it cannot be obstructed. The Plaintiff, which seeks the prohibition of sabotage by the Defendant through ownership of artwork, and possesses copyright for public television screening. The Defendant Studio Nue (heretowith referred to as " the Defendant”) The writer, public relations, artists, designers, et cetera, are all part of the parent company which carries out business such as accounting, office work, and data collection, et cetera. This is the corporation Big West (heretowith also referred to as "the Defendant".) It is the company, which designates the advertising campaign for the advertisement of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” on television and radio.

3.) The Plaintiff (Tatsunoko Productions Corporation) broadcast the show every week, between September 30, 1982 (pilot episode) and March 10, 1983 (36th episode), at which time, it concluded the production of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” and its broadcast contract. “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” was then televised everyday on network television from October 3, 1982 to June 26, 1983. As for the Plaintiff, it must follow the contract’s broadcast schedule which is decided in the same contract everyday broadcast, it produces “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation in the contract which relates to above-mentioned contract, it owes the obligation which is delivered, when the Plaintiff violates to synonymous duty, everyday broadcast cancels above-mentioned contract, the effect which can compensation for damage is stated.

Two principal issues were brought up against the Plaintiff:

1) Under the Copyright Act (heretowith referred to as "Copyright Law".) Was the copyright handled correctly with the stipulation of Provision 15, Section 1, concerning “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation’s acquisition?

2) Did the Plaintiff acquire copyright with the stipulation of legal Provision 29, Section 1, concerning “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation?

The Plaintiff insists that, regarding the acquisition of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” and third-party distribution is legally based on the legal Provision 15, Section 1 (acquisition and copyrighting of a artwork). So, the creator of the artwork, which a corporate body publishes under the name of the artwork makes that corporate body owner of that creator’s artwork.

Studio Nue and others with respect to duty drew up “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation as the person who engaged in business with the Plaintiff. Furthermore, assuming, in creation of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation, the Defendant Big West, the staff of Defendant Studio Nue obtained and petitioned Artland to perform animation production duties, at which point, Tatsunoko Productions has not taken charge of its own behavior in handling its licensure because of the creative contribution of Studio Nue/Artland to the entire formation of the artwork and subsequent animation. The Plaintiff planned the publication under the artwork name of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross”. With credit of each story of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation production broadcast, there was no indication of the Defendant (Big West), and others to have expressed objection to the Plaintiff’s mishandling of said contract. It is the conclusion of the court therefore, as for the Plaintiff, that copyright and the stipulation of the legal Provision15, Section 1, concerning “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation were handled without complaint from the Defendants.

Pursuant to the legal acquisition of copyright acquisition by the legal Provision 29, Section 1:

1) the basic provisional acquisition dictated by Copyright Law Provision 29, Section 1, " for the copyright of the artwork and/or the animated movie, when the creator of that artwork promising that he/she participates in the production of the book of the particular movie regardless of cinecast, it reverts to the particular cinecast’s producer. The person who possesses the intellectual property and responsibility in the actual production of the book of the movie holds copyright of said cinecast, as per legal Provision 2, Section 10.

2) Concerning the aforementioned cinecast, namely, the production of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation, it is the judgement of the Plaintiff that it upheld its end of the contract, stating that the cinecast was broadcast everyday consistently and monopolistically in the Japanese country with the necessary prerequisite production copyrights (et al) pertaining to said contract, (Provision .

3) In addition, pertaining to production costs of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation: the cost to broadcast each day (5,500,000 Yen per episode [about $46,500 USD]). However, the payment isn’t received until after the televising of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation is completed.)

4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff (being the production company) is responsible for bearing the cost entirely, the Defendant and others has not born completely. For producing the “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation, the Plaintiff hired a production staff that totalled 200 or more, but the Plaintiff paid the remuneration to said production staff, entirely. This way, the Plaintiff has repaid economic restitution.

Pursuant to the insistence of the Plaintiff entering a plea of guilty or not guilty over the legal acquisition of artwork copyright by legal Provision 15, Section 1:

1) The person who contributed to the entire formation of the creative artwork of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross is Noburo Ishiguro of Artland and was also the person who engaged in business of the other Defendants.

2) The animation for “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” was created by the Defendants, under the direction of Noburo Ishiguro, who engaged in supervising animation, script planning, and storyboards and original principal character designs had completed before the Plaintiff (Tatsunoko Productions) participated in the of the animation’s production.

3) The Defendants had planned from the beginning to bring Artland on board for animation production, but, when the show was to become a continual broadcast, Artland being an independent contractor with very little experience in concrete animation conversion, participation of the Plaintiff only was requested.

4) And, after the Plaintiff participated in the production of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation, the fact that Noburo Ishiguro directed it, and that Shoji Kawamori and others were mostly employed by Defendant Studio Nue, the Plaintiff has not received the indication that Artland had participated in production and the like from Animation Friend who is the subsidiary company of the Plaintiff.

5) The artwork name (Megarodo) was not something the Plaintiff planned to publish the animated show under. It planned to edit this point.

6) It is indicated that the artwork concerning “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation belongs solely to the Defendant Big West, (examples 1, 2, 8 and 10).

It is the conclusion of this court that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the copyright by legal Provision 29, Section 1, for the television animation cinecast “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross”, which was produced jointly by the Defendant Big West and the Defendant Studio Nue, was legally obtained.

In addition, the Defendant Big West was to receive payment of advertising fees from the sponsor, during the televising period of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation:

1) Everyday broadcast: 48,000,000 Yen (about $405,680 USD)

2) Radio air-time charges: 22,445,000 Yen (about $189,715 USD)

3) Micro expenses: 1,505,000 Yen (about $12,718 USD).

4) Monthly total: 24,050,000 Yen production expenses (about $202,270 US)

However, commission payment to Defendant Big West was deducted in the amount of 5,242,600 Yen. The payment (the quaintness 5), televising charge as a guarantee of the payment, everyday 50,000,000 Yen (about $422,525 USD) were deposited in broadcast (the 2nd provision of quaintness 6).

Details of the production planning for the new animation work that was roughed out by the Defendant Studio Nue around 1980 as follows:

1) Civilians live in an enormous space warship, and it is at war with enormous extraterrestrial troops.

2) Battle is done inside and outside the space warship, featuring, among other things, the deformation mechanic fighter planes which becomes the leading part of the battles.

3) Shoji Kawamori and Kazutaka Miyatake, which were the primary mechanical designers, and who are the representatives uniting the production team.

4) In addition to Shoji Kawamori, Haruhiko Mikimoto was brought into the employment of Defendant Studio Nue and Artland’s cooperative relationship, Haruhiko Mikimoto taking charge of principle character design.

5) As for the Defendant Studio Nue at the beginning, being jointly associated with the third party Artland, asked cooperation from toy manufacturers and the like but, was at first was unsuccessful with this plan.

6) Around the latter half of 1980, Shoji Kawamori compiled the entire blueprint plans and the designs that would dictate the mechanics centering around the fighter plane, while Kazutaka Miyatake designed the appearance of the inside of the space warship, the appearance and mechanics of the “Destroyer Droids” (Destroids) and the designs of the enemy.

7) Haruhiko Mikimoto, drew up the design and the like of the characters, respectively, as production and storyboards were constituted.

Around March 1981, the Defendant Studio Nue, with full cooperation of the Defendant Big West, began to advance with the production. Defendant Big West representative Kaya Oshnishi gave appropriation to the the television animation work. Kaya Oshnishi also thought that, in order to succeed, character layouts should be placed in magazines, newspapers, et cetera that ran simultaneously with the debut of the televised animation.

9) Furthermore, time was required for developing toys and the like that becomes a deforming (transformable) robot. It was thought that it was necessary to obtain the cooperation of the toy manufacturer and the like from early on, and the problems that arose earlier that had prevented it had finally been resolved by approaching Takatoku Toys Corporation.

10) . In order for it to be possible to serialize a cartoon and a novelization simultaneously with the start of the television debut, the publisher was shown the mechanical designs, which Shoji Kawamori and the others drew up from around August of 1981.

11) The toy manufacturer and the model manufacturer examined handmade samples, concerning the possibility of sale of a toy line and the like that can become deformed, in time for the television debut in order to become the official sponsors.

12) In addition, Kaya Oshnishi negotiated issues of a young child’s magazine and a grade-school aged magazine based on the animation.

13) Around January 1982, Kaya Oshnishi’s aim was a framework of broadcast for October of that same year, afterward it could be guaranteed to stand on its own, and in addition, could obtain the acceptance of the sponsor’s toys, models, candy, et cetera so that broadcast costs would be covered.

14) As the television animation advanced, it was then decided to designate a new title as "Super Space-Time Fortress Macross". Shoji Kawamori compiled the story and handled the master artwork, which become the basis of the television animation’s rough scripts of all the 39 original episodes that were created between November of 1981 and February of 1982, the storyboards were drawn up the on the basis of these rough scripts and artwork.

15) Afterwards, it was the decision of the broadcast network to reduce the storyboards to 26 episodes, also decreasing the number of mechanical designs of the whole series (after the televised debut, it was finally decided to extend the animation to 36 episodes).

16) Shoji Kawamori takes charge of compiling the animation’s main mechanical designs after 1981. His job was to design the advanced deformation aggressive mechanical that would be called "Valkyrie", the master artwork was drawn up around December of the same year concerning the "Valkyrie’s" airplane form and form of a robot. An intermediate form of the "Valkyrie" between the form of the airplane and the robot was drawn up around March of 1982 (3 ? months later).

17) The toy manufacturer and the like, using die casting, demanded that they would like to produce an entire toy line. Various designs were drawn up for the "Valkyries". Although specifications and equipment differed, each toy and model manufacturer delivered the trilateral “Valkyrie” figure, which was necessary for the mass-production of the toy and model before April of the same year.

18) Kazutaka Miyatake took charge of compiling the design of the enormous space warship with the name of "Macross" and the other appearance of “Destroyer Droid” mechanics, drew up the master artwork around March of the same year. In addition, Kazutaka Miyatake drew up the trilateral figure in a contrastive size chart in the design of the various mechanics and the "Macross", and delivered it to the toy and model manufacturers in April of the same year.

19) Haruhiko Mikimoto used Shoji Kawamori as the basis of Hikaru Ichijo when charged with compiling the design of the large number of required characters around December of 1981. Around January of 1982, the master artwork of the characters, including various expressions, large number of rough sketches which changed their attitudes and clothes. By March of the same year, the characters were used in the rough sketches of the storyboards in order to set camera angles and to set up the large number of backgrounds to be drawn up.

20) The Defendant Studio Nue had planned the fact that it entrusted Artland with participation in the animation production in the beginning, which was cooperative relationship. But, Artland’s small number of animators was not enough. Defendant Big West’s Kaya Oshnishi examined the effectiveness of the Studio Nue-Artland cooperative around the end of December 1981, and found that the Plaintiff (Tatsunoko Productions) who possessed many animators through its subsidiary Animation Friend, formally requested its participation in the animation production job in April 1982, to which the Plaintiff decided to accept.

21) From the viewpoint of grasping the production schedule and completing the job, the Plaintiff drew up a production contract and took over the job of animation production “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation and the contract regarding its broadcast, the contract was exchanged formally on September 30th of the same year. The Plaintiff, elected P you have belonged to the Plaintiff everyday on the basis of the aforementioned contract with the broadcast, as a charge producer of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation, to make of the job of animation conversion take charge vis-a-vis the Animation Friend who is 100 percent subsidiary company of the Plaintiff.

22) The first official meeting between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and others was done on April 27th of 1982, the executive producer from Animation Friend attended this, received explanation from the mechanical designers Kazutaka Miyatake, Shoji Kawamori and Haruhiko Mikimoto and others, concerning the contents of the animation production. Animation Friend, after May of the same year, started the production of the “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation.

23) Pursuant to the Plaintiff’s duties in the television animation production job were as follows:

A) Concrete settings (character setting, mechanic setting, color setting and the fine arts setting et cetera)

B) Storyboards, compilation of the scenario which is based on this, production, picture continuity compilation and drawing job (the field picture and animated picture)

C) Background and finishing (the work of painting color in the cell picture), the rush film 1 scene percentage photographing, film compilation

D) Post recording and play accompaniment (sound and of adjusting music the work by the film)

E) Production of “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation, P of the producer, the Q of the actual place producer, Noburo Ishiguro of entire supervision and the T of series constitution person, became the character designer and that Haruhiko Mikimoto of character drawing supervision, Shoji Kawamori and Kazutaka Miyatake as mechanical designers, W of acoustic supervision and the Z and others of mechanic drawing supervision take charge.

24) On October 1st of 1982, in order to cover the shortage of production expenses, concerning the “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation, a portion of the profits of merchandising business and program selling rights and the merchandising rights to the international community, among other things were given to the Plaintiff (Tatsunoko Productions). (A Copyright notice showing joint signatures of the Defendant Studio and the Plaintiff has been presented to the court)

In conclusion, it is the decision of this Court that Defendant Big West and Defendant Studio Nue take complete ownership of the original artwork for the mechanical designs and character designs. Under Copyright Law, copyright on the part of the Plaintiff does not exist in whole, nor in part where original artwork is concerned.

The Court also finds that the Plaintiff (Tatsunoko Productions), who contributed creatively to the entire formation of the “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation, holds full copyright concerning the “Super Space-Time Fortress Macross” animation.

President of the Court Judge Satoshi presiding.

Court Case Addendum:

In the above court case, it is mentioned that the court reviewed 36 characters/mecha/ships pertaining to "SDF Macross". Here are the items:

1 VF-1S Fighter

2 VF-1S Battroid

3 VF-1S GERWALK

4 VF-1J Fighter

5 VF-1J Battroid

6 VF-1J GERWALK

7 VF-1D Fighter

8 VF-1D Battroid

9 VF-1D GERWALK

10 VF-1A Fighter

11 VF-1A Battroid

12 VF-1A GERWALK

13 Armored Valkyrie

14 Spartan

15 Regult

16 Glaug

17 SDF-1

18 Phalanx

19 Defender

20 Tomahawk

21 Queadluun-Rau

22 Nousjadeul-Ger

23 Monster

24 Queadol-Magdomilla

25 UN Spacy Emblem

26 Zentraedi Emblem

27 Misa Hayase

28 Hikaru Ichijo

29 Lynn Minmay

30 Claudia La Salle

31 Captain Bruno J. Global

32 Maximilian Jenius

33 Roy Focker

34 Milia Fallyna Jenius

35 Vrlitwai Kridanik

36 Exedol Folmo

Edited October 31, 2003 by the white drew carey

[wrylac]

The mere fact that you are using a BABELFISH translation as the basis of your argument by it's very nature folly.

Babelfish didn't make the characters used in the documents change.

[wrylac]

Nice dodge on my "Moral Rights" arguement.

Not dodgin' nuthin'.

I have yet to see an translation that says Tatsunoko was granted copyright without "Moral Rights."

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with your detective work.

I see, you think that the judge inadvertently referenced a legal term in his ruling, that would change the entire meaning of what he said. What an idiot.

No, I'm not (because I think Jennifer Garner is ugly [and lumpy-faced]... ).

It's not Jennifer really, it's more how kick-ass "Sydney" is.

I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood that a court would handicap a copyright in such a way. Kawamori can design all the valks he wants. And I'm sure if they were produced as toys, someone would buy them. But if what you're saying was true, the marketability of such designs would be cut off at the knees due to the fact that they could not be advertised in a showcase such as a series or OAV.

It's up to the judge to come up with what is just not to worry about what such a ruling would mean.

Seriously- I know BigWest does not own the trilateral figure. But the transformation concept of Plane -> Gerwalk (half plane, half robot) -> Robot is something created by Kawamori. It could easily be argued that the creators of SC and Mospeada* (who, IIRC, were creating the projects for Tatsunoko) understood the popularity of that concept and utilized it for their own mechanical designs. I highly doubt the Gerwalk concept would've been used at that time if it wasn't in Macross first.

I doubt it'd hold up in court. TV and movies are all rip-offs of things already done.

But, you could be right. Although, Macross was a rip-off of the whole space-opera started by several shows before it, maybe those companies can claim copyright infringment on SDF Macross too.