wrylac Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 Ok the edit function is screwing up on me right now. I have yet to see an translation that says Tatsunoko was granted copyright without "Moral Rights." Just to be clear the translation you just posted, doesn't seperate out the Moral Right from TP's copyright. 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.
SuperOstrich Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 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. Actually, it does matter if it's repetitious. Any thread on this board that keeps reiterating the same thing over and over eventually gets locked. I'm telling you guys.....try to bring a new perspective to your arguements at the very least. As it stands right now, this thread is serving no purpose than massaging egos inflated by "debate" skills. MacrossWorld is not a debate forum. That's not to say debating isn't accepted. I'm just saying that members here with the sole intention of debating (read: argue) and nothing else add NOTHING to this forum. Bottom line, if you're here to argue, at least bring new information/perspective to the table. This thread has become useless.
wrylac Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 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. Actually, it does matter if it's repetitious. Any thread on this board that keeps reiterating the same thing over and over eventually gets locked. I'm telling you guys.....try to bring a new perspective to you arguements at the very least. As it stands right now, this thread is serving no purpose than massaging egos inflated by "debate" skills. MacrossWorld is not a debate forum. That's not to say debating isn't accepted. I'm just saying that members here with the sole intention of debating (read: argue) and nothing else add NOTHING to this forum. Bottom line, if you're here to argue, at least bring new information/perspective to the table. This thread has become useless. This might not be a "debate" forum. But, this is a debate thread, started by none other than one of the forum Moderators. Wether you like it or not, this discussion is part of the Macross fandom. The members posting in this thread are mearly operating with in the guidelines Shawn has set up. I'm sure it would be a lot better for a newbie to come around and start a new thread every time one of them has a question.
muswp1 Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 (edited) Wrylac, you are missing SuperO's point. Repeating yourself page after page isn't going to change the fact that people here don't accept your version of the truth. Maybe it's because you act like HG lapdog all the time (just my opinion). Accept the fact that this is MacrossWorld, not RobotechWorld and move on to something new. The only thing you are accomplishing right now is pissing SuperOstrich off and that is only going to make things worse. EDIT: Spelling correction Edited November 1, 2003 by muswp1
cwbrown Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 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. Actually, it does matter if it's repetitious. Any thread on this board that keeps reiterating the same thing over and over eventually gets locked. I'm telling you guys.....try to bring a new perspective to your arguements at the very least. As it stands right now, this thread is serving no purpose than massaging egos inflated by "debate" skills. MacrossWorld is not a debate forum. That's not to say debating isn't accepted. I'm just saying that members here with the sole intention of debating (read: argue) and nothing else add NOTHING to this forum. Bottom line, if you're here to argue, at least bring new information/perspective to the table. This thread has become useless. It is just about impossible to bring another perspective to the thread without more information. That's just the way it is. I also realize that repetitious threads usually get locked. And if you think that is necessary, go ahead and lock it. I just think it would be a bad idea. As I said, I think that this thread, among the bunch, serves a completely different purpose than any other thread on this board, and that's to contain the angst. It can be annoying to read, annoying to watch, etc. All I would ask before you lock the thread though, is to check with Shawn. I don't think he would want it locked, mostly for the exact reason he started it. I think he would rather have the annoying, pointless, repetitious thread, than the mountain of threads that existed before, all causing problems. Repeating yourself page after page isn't going to change the fact that people here don't accept your version of the truth. Maybe it's because you act like HG lapdog all the time (just my opinion). Accept the fact that this is MacrossWorld, not RobotechWorld and move on to something new. muswp1, I think your comments were rather unnecessary. Just because wrylac interprets the decisions one way does not make him any sort of "lapdog". Otherwise, Vinnie, WDC, Keith, Duke, Skully, and countless others on this board would be "BW" lapdogs b/c their arguments are certainly not convincing some people on this board of their "version of the truth". And obviously, WDC has been just as repetitive as Wrylac. As I mentioned to SuperO, Shawn set this thread up for just this purpose. The fact that it is "MacrossWorld", not "RobotechWorld" means nothing. The two shows are forever somewhat stuck together. Admittedly, nobody should be here for just this discussion. And if that is all anyone is here for, that person should be asked to leave. I can say that wrylac is more active (as far as I can tell) in this thread than others, but for overall board use he is just as active on this board (in other areas) as he is on other boards that I know he is on. I also think that SuperO is just annoyed with the repititiveness, not just with wrylac.
SuperOstrich Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 I am mostly annoyed with the repetetiveness, only because as a moderator I have to read every thread. Especially a thread that has (in the past) ignited flaming and personal insults. This thread has been repetitious information for over 10 pages now. Nothing new is being brought to the table, and there most definitely is a problem with people only being on this board to participate in this thread. For all intents and purposes, this thread has been dead for months. A few (2 or 3) insist on keeping it alive, because they can't resist their desire to "debate." I swear some of you consider internet debates a skill or something. Some of you are practically calling yourselves experts on this subject. It's getting to be kind of pathetic.
azrael Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 I am mostly annoyed with the repetetiveness, only because as a moderator I have to read every thread. Especially a thread that has (in the past) ignited flaming and personal insults. This thread has been repetitious information for over 10 pages now. Nothing new is being brought to the table, and there most definitely is a problem with people only being on this board to participate in this thread.For all intents and purposes, this thread has been dead for months. A few (2 or 3) insist on keeping it alive, because they can't resist their desire to "debate." I swear some of you consider internet debates a skill or something. Some of you are practically calling yourselves experts on this subject. It's getting to be kind of pathetic. If it wasn't for those few people here, this thread would die down. As I said on the old boards (and people actually thanked me for breaking the repetetiveness of the thread), you can scrutinize all the documents, line for line, but in the end, it changes nothing. The final ruling is what counts the most. Some people here want to keep going and going, line for line, itemized details of every session of court. But it changes nothing in the final ruling. We can continue this itemized debate for years to come, but all we've done is run around in circles. If those "some people" don't see it that way, I sorry for them. The final say came out almost 11 months ago. I've seen zero, in terms of anything new since then. We can bug Graham to ask Yamato to see what's going on but I can tell you their answer will be, "No Comment", or "We can't talk about it right now.". Now, until something new comes, we can let this thread die, or we can continue to run around in circles, make conjectures based on speculations, come up with "legal interpretations" from people without law degrees or from friends who are lawyers and play this track on a continuous repeat till hell freezes over. Now, if "you" people insist on continuing this, you will be wasting our time, your time, Shawn's bandwidth and many other things. The absolute best thing for this thread is to let it die until something new comes. Nothing we say will change the rulings. What's done is done. Let it be.
the white drew carey Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 (edited) Some of you are practically calling yourselves experts on this subject. It's getting to be kind of pathetic. No offense, Super-O, but there's probably a lot of people in this world who would think that being a moderator on a forum based solely on a cartoon and the toys associated with it is pathetic. Does that stop you form doing it? No. Because you like it and want to do it. So please stop placing the same damn label on me and the others for doing something we enjoy but you don't. We debate about this issue because we all care, one way or the other, what happens. I don't know where you get the idea that we think we're experts. Are we better informed than most others? Yes. Do we all still have a LOT that we have no idea of? Damned sure. I'm not denying that at all. If you don't want to deal with it, fine. Lock it up. But don't be laying out insults at me, or others, who enjoy debating this topic simply because you're tired of modding it. edit-speling and gramer Edited November 1, 2003 by the white drew carey
Effect Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 Do any of the other mods feel that this should be closed as well? I haven't heard any of them voicing their concerns over this. Well Roy comes in from time to time.
pfunk Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 I kinda agree with super O, thier really isnt much of a debate untill further information is gained as far as court cases and such. Personally, I look to this thread for latest investigations and court vedicts, not nessisarily personal opinion, but i guess that is personal opinion too, I made a few coments in this thread and immediatly became labeled as a RT purist, which Im not, Im unbiased in the point of copyrights are copyrights as determined by those laws in the US and Japan.
Skull Leader Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 I'm with Super O and Azrael. This post has served it's purpose. It's not like we can't open another post once new info comes to light, correct? Let's kill this one, give the slates some time to clear so that when the next info becomes available, we can debate it in a newer light.
Pat Payne Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 I see both sides on this one. On the one hand, we have discussed this thing to death (We were, for a time there having heated arguments about how much ramen company A bought for Company B, for Chrissakes!) and the whole excercise has become something like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. It's also caused quite a bit of grief when certain people (who will remain nameless) from both sides of the argument get out of hand and cross the line from debating the legal issues concerning a TV show to religious zealot. On the other hand, I still feel that this is a useful jousting field for those who are inclined to debate this until they're blue in the face, because that way, that keeps it from spilling out into other forums -- it also keeps people from posting numerous HG-vs.-BW topics, like they were doing before the thread was set up on the old boards. What they OUGHT to do, however, is make sure people are coming here not solely to get on this thread.
azrael Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 I see both sides on this one. On the one hand, we have discussed this thing to death (We were, for a time there having heated arguments about how much ramen company A bought for Company B, for Chrissakes!) and the whole excercise has become something like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. It's also caused quite a bit of grief when certain people (who will remain nameless) from both sides of the argument get out of hand and cross the line from debating the legal issues concerning a TV show to religious zealot. On the other hand, I still feel that this is a useful jousting field for those who are inclined to debate this until they're blue in the face, because that way, that keeps it from spilling out into other forums -- it also keeps people from posting numerous HG-vs.-BW topics, like they were doing before the thread was set up on the old boards. What they OUGHT to do, however, is make sure people are coming here not solely to get on this thread. Keeping this thread open is fine with me, but we've been arguing based on line-by-line scrutiny on something that has been scrutinized in court and given a ruling. We should just leave this thread as is and wait till something new comes. This thread is a great container for the damn arguement but it's no use beating the dead horse when it's all bones now and buried 6 ft. under.
Druna Skass Posted November 1, 2003 Posted November 1, 2003 Since both sides here keep blasting each other with their own interpretations, and nothing new has come out of Japan for awhile. I;ve been wondering, just what is going on in Japan over this right now?
SuperOstrich Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 This thread is not going to be locked. I never said I have any intention of doing so. I'm simply asking people to bring something new to the debate, whether it be information or perspective. The people involved in this debate are the people making it useless. WDC, don't put words in my mouth. I never put a label on anyone because you enjoy doing it. I said some of you are practically considering yourselves experts on this subject, which we all know just isn't the case. Besides, I wasn't talking about you anyway. IMO, you're a great contributor to this forum. Moderating a cartoon board pathetic? Heh, you betcha. But it's no more pathetic than being here in the first place. I enjoy being pathetic. I withdraw my pathetic statement.
tom64ss Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 I think you guys are looking at what Super-O is trying to say from only two sides, end the thread and lock it or keep it open and continue what you're doing. That's completely missing the point of what Super-O is saying. He wants to keep this thread open and understands the need for it, but if what you're about to post was already covered in the past 10 pages, than it's really not worth posting, is it? Anyone who has a question about something already covered can just as easily be shown where it was already discussed instead of answering it again. If they haven't been keeping up with this thread or if they're just too lazy to go through and read the whole thread, then that really their problem.
SuperOstrich Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 That's what I'm saying. Just trying to keep it fresh. Nobody's going to lock it.
ewilen Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 (edited) 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'm sure Wrylac and I have plenty to disagree about, but I believe he is correct when he says that "individual right of author", as used in his friend's translation of the January 20, 2003, ruling, means "moral right" as defined in Japanese copyright law. Reference 1: http://news.braina.com/2003/0122/judge_200...01_0010___.html Run it through any translator you wish (I recommend against babelfish; try Excite.jp or nifty.com; this is also useful), cut the text down bit by bit, and you will be able to isolate the term for "individual right of author". It is 著作者人格権 Reference 2: http://www.jasrac.or.jp/profile/copyright/person.html (Edit: See also http://cozylaw.com/copy/tyosakuken/jinkakuken.htm ) Again, run it through a translator and note that the same characters are used. Then look at how it is defined: 1 The right of an official announcement2 The right of a name display 3 The right of identity maintenance The explanatory text makes clear that these are the same as the three portions of Moral Right as shown here. I.e., right to control modification, right to indication of authorship, and right to control divulgence (i.e., whether the work is released). Furthermore, the moral rights of authors are distinguished from the economic rights of authors, with the latter explicitly including the right to create and exploit derivative works. But does this mean that the courts have judged that Tatsunoko has the right to create and exploit derivatives of SDF Macross, while Big West does not? In my opinion, not necessarily. To do so, it would have to explicitly overrule the memorandum between BW and TP of 10/1/1982, and I don't see that it either directly comments on the memorandum (e.g., clarifying the terms) or modifies it. The next question: is the memorandum publicly available, or not? I've seen posts which imply both. Edit: Actually, before going on to the memorandum, I'd add that the Jan. 2003 ruling gave TP copyright under Article 29, Section 1 of the copyright law. Reviewing the information found here, I gather that copyright really only pertains to the right to broadcast and otherwise disseminate the work. I.e., a narrower but quite reasonable interpretation of the ruling is that it simply affirms that TP has the right to broadcast SDF Macross. Edited November 4, 2003 by ewilen
wrylac Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 (edited) To answer your question, no, the entire memorandum is not publicly available. The only thing we know of the memorandum is what we find in the Feb02 ruling and the Jan03 ruling, both of which state the same thing about the memorandum. Here it is from the Feb02 ruling. As a result of this agreement, three different entities were responsible for enforcing various rights. Bigwest was in charge of the right to merchandise the characters and the right to re-broadcast the work domestically. Defendant was in charge of the right to publications designed for children up to grade 6, the right to the music, the right to sell the program overseas, and the general right to develop merchandise. Studio Nue was in charge of the right to publications designed for children over grade 7. For each right, Plaintiffs and Defendant decided upon the allocation of profits. (Mainichi Network also received a portion of profits from domestic merchandise. Defendant received all profits from rights pertaining to merchandise overseas.) I see your reasoning regarding the broadcasting rights given in Article 29 Section 2,3. But, TP was granted copyright based on Article 29 Section 1. Which doesn't only involve broadcast rights but simply states this. Copyright in a cinematographic work, to which the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (1), the next paragraph and paragraph (3) of this Article are not applicable, shall belong to the maker of that work, provided that the authors of the work have undertaken to participate in the making thereof. You see although SN/BW were confirmed to be the ones who have authorship through Article 15 Section 1, TP was granted the copyright through 29-1. Your right the judges ruling doesn't over ride the memorandum but the memorandum doesn't give BW the right to create derivatives. Edited November 4, 2003 by wrylac
Yamato Lover Posted November 5, 2003 Posted November 5, 2003 To answer your question, no, the entire memorandum is not publicly available. The only thing we know of the memorandum is what we find in the Feb02 ruling and the Jan03 ruling, both of which state the same thing about the memorandum.Here it is from the Feb02 ruling. As a result of this agreement, three different entities were responsible for enforcing various rights. Bigwest was in charge of the right to merchandise the characters and the right to re-broadcast the work domestically. Defendant was in charge of the right to publications designed for children up to grade 6, the right to the music, the right to sell the program overseas, and the general right to develop merchandise. Studio Nue was in charge of the right to publications designed for children over grade 7. For each right, Plaintiffs and Defendant decided upon the allocation of profits. (Mainichi Network also received a portion of profits from domestic merchandise. Defendant received all profits from rights pertaining to merchandise overseas.) I see your reasoning regarding the broadcasting rights given in Article 29 Section 2,3. But, TP was granted copyright based on Article 29 Section 1. Which doesn't only involve broadcast rights but simply states this. Copyright in a cinematographic work, to which the provisions of Article 15, paragraph (1), the next paragraph and paragraph (3) of this Article are not applicable, shall belong to the maker of that work, provided that the authors of the work have undertaken to participate in the making thereof. You see although SN/BW were confirmed to be the ones who have authorship through Article 15 Section 1, TP was granted the copyright through 29-1. Your right the judges ruling doesn't over ride the memorandum but the memorandum doesn't give BW the right to create derivatives. So what we've got here is a franchise that, through past mishandling of its creators, is essentially locked up where no party involved can do much with it...no matter how you look at it. Right? * BW can't release anything Macross related outside of Japan without legal grief from HG... * HG watchdogs every move that BW makes and creates legal blockades (real or simply claimed) to keep its piece of the Macross pie in tact... * Tatsunoko takes BW to court to challenge that it is actually the copyright holder to the franchise, not just the show... Honestly, there will probably NEVER be a true settlement to this in the near or far-off future...all because, after 20 years, Macross has suddenly become somewhat of a cash cow again for all three companies involved. And therefore, they all wish to exploit it to the fullest extent that they possibly can. Ain't capitalism great? Many mistakes were made during the early years of Macross...and now the fans are reaping what BW/TP/HG have sewn. Back in 1982, when TP agreed to take the reins from Artland/Anime Friend to finish production, I'm sure that neither it, nor BW would have ever dreamed that they'd be sitting in a courtroom two decades later...all because of the legal stink that TP's subsidiary, HG caused by claiming complete and total ownership of the Macross franchise. Businesses weren't run so much by their legal departments back then as they are now, especially in Japan. Here in the U.S., that's a whole different story. I agree with Super O. There's really nothing more to discuss about this subject at this point in time. As I illustrated above, Party A can't make a move with Macross without getting sued by Party B, who can't make a move without getting sued by Party C, who can't...etc. The debate over this has kind of degenerated into a battle of egos. I saw the screaming match back on the old boards between wrylac and Quadrono. That whole thing read like a Tom Clancy novel, what with all of the "conspiracy theories" being thrown around over the authenticity of the translated ruling...with occasional smatterings of downright chauvanism in between. The very battle that got wrylac banned from the old boards in the first place, I might add. <_< Once she had had enough and left MW, the Meltran's role was somehow taken up by WDC once wrylac found his way back onto the new boards. Since then, its pretty much been the same thing... wrylac provided his own translated ruling, which pretty much stated the very same thing that Quadrono showed us way back in the day. But things still seems to boil down to school-yard arguments. Every new post on this subject revolves around the possibility of TP/HG owning more of the Macross franchise than just SDF Macross. I have seen the term "Moral Rights" tossed around on this thread for the past 10 or 15 pages, but no one seems to have a concrete explanation (this is different than one's opinion) of what exactly that entitles all parties to where Macross is concerned. But from the way I see it, no one really wins here. Not HG, not BW, and certainly not TP. Sure, its been spelled out to BW and TP about who owns what as far as line art and the animated series...but what can each party really do with their respective "winnings", without the other parties threatening copyright infringment or authorship compensation? And of course, HG is playing "Boston Tea Party" to keep any Japanese Macross product out of the U.S. So boys...go to your respective corners, and wait for the next bell before you come out fighting. Let's wait till something new pops up over this before we keep running it into the ground.
ewilen Posted November 5, 2003 Posted November 5, 2003 So what we've got here is a franchise that, through past mishandling of its creators, is essentially locked up where no party involved can do much with it...no matter how you look at it. Right? No. You're right that there's a lot of pointless (or at least groundless) speculation going on, but the above statement is simply more speculation.
ewilen Posted November 5, 2003 Posted November 5, 2003 (edited) Continuing my efforts to catalog/organize the governing documents... I now see that the translation posted by WDC on Oct 31 2003, 02:41 PM, is the concluding day of oral proceedings from Tokyo District Court Case No. 6447, whose final judgment appeared on January 20, 2003. Why these proceedings already contain a judgment, and why the presiding judges are different, remains a mystery to me. Also, I've been unable to find a Japanese original of the proceedings. I have found the Japanese originals of all the rulings. They're located at two sites; here are links to them at each site. courtdomino2.courts.go.jp 2002.02.25 2002.10.02 2003.01.20 2003.09.25 www.translan.com 2002.02.25 2002.10.02 2003.01.20 2003.09.25 Edited November 5, 2003 by ewilen
ewilen Posted November 6, 2003 Posted November 6, 2003 (edited) Wrylac, There's an error in the translation you posted by Naoko of the 2003.01.20 decision. Naoko has 4. Heisei 5 (1993) April, 30th Anniversary collected works of the defendant were issued. It should read "plaintiff", not "defendant". The original text of the judgment translates to (d) The 30th anniversary complete works (second 10) of a complainant were published in April, Heisei 5. (You can use excite.co.jp's amikai-based translator. It's much better than babelfish.) And indeed, if we read the next sentence of Naoko's translation, we see: In the[m] 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. This makes clear that the works referred to are those of the plaintiff, Tatsunoko, not the defendant, Big West. Incidentally, although Naoko's translation agrees with the original which I found online in general outline and fact, it seems to be cut down in places. For example, the conclusion of Naoko's translation reads: 4. Conclusion Consequently, the copyright concerning the animation movie belongs to the plaintiff (excluding moral right). While the original has (via the same online translator, and a bit unclearly) 4 Conclusion The copyright (except for author personal rights) concerning this television animation belongs to a complainant as above. Therefore, since there is a reason in the limit where it asks for the check of copyright (except for author personal rights), the claim of a complainant decides to admit this and a decision of it is given as a main sentence. In addition, about provisional execution declaration, since it is not considerable, suppose that this is not attached. The final sentence seems to refer to Tatsunoko's second claim about Big West/Studio Nue using the first lawsuit to obstruct Tatsunoko from showing and distributing the animation. This claim was rejected on the grounds that BW/SN had a legitimate case. It seems that TP may have been fishing for a reversal of the earlier decision. Edited November 6, 2003 by ewilen
ewilen Posted November 7, 2003 Posted November 7, 2003 Wrylac, Additional errors and omissions in the translations you've posted. 1. Naoko's translation of the 2003.01.20 ruling: "And Mainichi paid 5,500,00 yen as a cost of making the animation movie per episode to the defendant from the above cost." This should read "plaintiff" instead of "defendant". The plaintiff in the case was Tatsunoko Productions. If you search on the figure "5,500,000" both in the 2003.1.20 ruling and in the 2002.2.25 ruling (using either the translations you posted or machine translations from the original), it is clear that the payment was to Tatsunoko. Also in this translation, Naoko has: "On latter parts there is only the name of defendant, Studio Nue, as the expression of copyright." I believe this should read "Big West", not "Studio Nue". 2. The translation which you posted of the 2002.02.25 ruling is substantially abbreviated compared to the original text. It is missing large portions of the judgment, notably the portion of the Finding of Fact which gives the court's opinion on the sequence of events in the creation of SDF Macross, who did what portion of the work, and the history of copyright display on Macross materials and other publications. (However, much of this is reiterated in the 2003.1.20 ruling and Naoko's translation of it.) Also, the opinion at the beginning of the translation doesn't quite match the original, while the translation completely lacks the conclusion of the original. The translation has: Opinion1.Plaintiffs own the copyright to the drawings. 2.Two-thirds of the legal costs are allocated to the Defendant and the remainder to Plaintiffs. 3.Defendant is prohibited from creating movies using the drawings and from allowing third parties from creating the same. The original has (translation "cleaned up" from the Amikai-based machine translation): Main sentence1. Confirm that the plaintiff has copyright to the character patterns attached hereto as lists No.1 to No. 41. 2. Dismiss the rest of the claim of the plaintiff. 3. Divide the legal costs into three parts, assigning two parts to the defendant and the remainder to the plaintiff. Note that the defendant is not prohibited by the court "from creating movies using the drawings and from allowing third parties from creating the same." Why? The conclusion of the original says (raw translation from Amikai): ConclusionAccording to the above, it is admited that the copyright of each [ this ] pattern belongs to sharing of complainants. On the other hand, there are profits of a check in the petition of the complainants which he asks for the check of the copyright since the defendant has fought noting that the copyright of each [ this ] pattern belongs to self. in addition, this all proof -- also depending -- since it cannot admit that there is a possibility that the new movie to which a defendant hits the secondary work of each [ this ] pattern may be manufactured, or it may permit this for a third person in the future, a prohibition claim does not have a reason Therefore, a decision is given as a main sentence. My interpretation of the first two sentences is that the court notes that BW/Nue's copyright of the patterns has been effectively admitted by Tatsunoko in copyright displays from 1982 onwards (as shown in the findings of fact). However, the court agrees to officially confirm the copyright on the basis of the case brought by BW/Nue. In the third sentence, the court however declines to prohibit TP from creating movies using the patterns (either by itself or through a third party), because there is no possibility that TP will ever do so. To understand this, we may suppose, along with Scott Hards, that there is already a legal reason that TP cannot produce Macross derivatives. But while Scott Hard's interpretation is attractive to partisans of BW/Nue, his translation ("there is no reason to grant the request as we determine there is no risk of the defendant creating new Macross movies or licensing third parties to do so") is faulty. In the end, the court may simply be saying that copyright on the designs is enough to prevent TP from using them without BW/Nue's permission. This basically agrees with what cwbrown wrote on Oct 31 2003, 01:52 PM and what wrylac wrote on Oct 31 2003, 11:31 AM.
wrylac Posted November 8, 2003 Posted November 8, 2003 (edited) Wrylac,Additional errors and omissions in the translations you've posted. 1. Naoko's translation of the 2003.01.20 ruling: "And Mainichi paid 5,500,00 yen as a cost of making the animation movie per episode to the defendant from the above cost." This should read "plaintiff" instead of "defendant". The plaintiff in the case was Tatsunoko Productions. If you search on the figure "5,500,000" both in the 2003.1.20 ruling and in the 2002.2.25 ruling (using either the translations you posted or machine translations from the original), it is clear that the payment was to Tatsunoko. Also in this translation, Naoko has: "On latter parts there is only the name of defendant, Studio Nue, as the expression of copyright." I believe this should read "Big West", not "Studio Nue". I did have to change one other defendant-plaintiff/plaintiff-defendant issue with Naoko's translation before I posted it. I'll look these two up and correct them accordingly. Thanks. In Naoko's defense the timeframe she was working with to get this translation done was very limited. She hand wrote the translation in a few days' time all while trying to move from her dorm. She didn't have much of a chance to finish it up the way she would have liked before we would lose easy contact with eachother. However, I cannot speak to the Feb02 translation. I was not the one who had it translated, someone else had it posted on the old boards. I just re-posted it here for easy reference. Edited November 8, 2003 by wrylac
ewilen Posted November 8, 2003 Posted November 8, 2003 (edited) Although Naoko made a few minor mistakes, her translation is actually an excellent guide to making sense of the machine translations, not only of the 2003.01.20 decision, but of the others as well. The same goes for the other translation (whoever did it). I'm glad that you posted both of them. (I'm also glad that WDC posted the other translation, even though I remain puzzled as to what exactly it is.) Also, I agree with your point about TP gaining copyright of SDF Macross by Article 29 Section 1. But I have some other points to raise in objection to your conclusion that the most recent judgments effectively give TP control of the whole Macross franchise. Hopefully I'll be able to get them organized in the next few days. Edited November 8, 2003 by ewilen
Duke Togo Posted November 14, 2003 Posted November 14, 2003 I don't see how anyone could say Tatsunoko owns rights to the entire Macross franchise, when its quite obvious that Big West is continuing to pump out Macross products uncontested. I mean, HELLO, Macross Zero...
Duke Togo Posted November 16, 2003 Posted November 16, 2003 A week of silence....RUINED!!!!! Sorry, I was away for a week and a half.
Agent ONE Posted November 16, 2003 Posted November 16, 2003 Formerly I thought this was the best Tats/HG Smilie:
Capt_Bob Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 Here's what I think of the entire HG licence thing. A press conference held by Harmony Gold.
.thumb.jpg.bc0aa3d6a43314c42575bd21a0963db5.jpg)
Recommended Posts