Sumdumgai 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. ROFL That's so great!
bobtech Posted December 5, 2003 Posted December 5, 2003 (edited) Has anyone seen this yet? "ROBOTECH SAGA COMPLETELY REMASTERED FOR UPCOMING RELEASE" here's a link to an article at animeondvd.com: Remastered Robotech DVD Edited December 5, 2003 by bobtech
j_wong00 Posted December 5, 2003 Posted December 5, 2003 (edited) Has anyone seen this yet?"ROBOTECH SAGA COMPLETELY REMASTERED FOR UPCOMING RELEASE" here's a link to an article at animeondvd.com: Remastered Robotech DVD Yes, and the majority of us couldn't care less. It's already been discussed. You can find it here http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...=ST&f=26&t=3280 If you want to revive this (almost) dead thread, go ahead, but the majority of us pretty much done with this blantant cash-grab. Edit: Added link. Edited December 5, 2003 by j_wong00
Druna Skass Posted December 5, 2003 Posted December 5, 2003 So what's happening in Japan over this right now?
Duke Togo Posted December 5, 2003 Posted December 5, 2003 So what's happening in Japan over this right now? I'd say pretty much the same thing that goes on in Japan everyday. I have heard that they are going to send 1,000 non-combat troops to Iraq, though.
azrael Posted December 6, 2003 Posted December 6, 2003 Jeez, we couldn't even break the 2 week barrier-of-silence in this thread......sad.....
j_wong00 Posted December 6, 2003 Posted December 6, 2003 Jeez, we couldn't even break the 2 week barrier-of-silence in this thread......sad..... "Kids, you tried and you failed miserably; the moral: Never try."
Macross_Fanboy Posted December 6, 2003 Posted December 6, 2003 Hey, I read on this site called "GIF Fire!" that the license dispute ended in favor of BW/SN. Is this true?
azrael Posted December 6, 2003 Posted December 6, 2003 Hey, I read on this site called "GIF Fire!" that the license dispute ended in favor of BW/SN. Is this true? Oh...you stumbled onto Keith's site.....To answer your question.....go back and read this thread from page 1.
Capt_Bob Posted December 7, 2003 Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) There's one thing that peeves me about this entire thing. HG claims to have the rights to ALL things Macross, hence all the confusion. OK, HG made an ADAPTATION of Macross, they did not create Macross in it's entirety. It's like Peter Jackson claiming ownership of all things Lord of The Rings. If you did not make it, it's not entirely yours. Therefore, HG should have no say in future domestic releases of Macross or it's sequels (and Prequel). If only they would realise this simple fact. Edited December 7, 2003 by Capt_Bob
Pat Payne Posted December 7, 2003 Posted December 7, 2003 Unfortunately, it's not the same. Right now, while certainly HG has little to stand on in regards to most of the derivatives of the show (Plus, 7, et. al), they have been arguing on trademark distinctions (the name Macross, the look of the Valks, the characters) and "consumer confusion" in addition to assertig a copyright to the material. The analogy is a little more like New Line telling Warner Bros. that they can't do a film version of The Hobbit since they have a trademark interest in Middle Earth. Of course, they'd probably lose big if they can't prove that they have an option for the Hobbit Novel.
ewilen Posted December 7, 2003 Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) Hey, Pat, where can I find info on that? I did notice that HG has been racking up a bunch of trademarks on the Macross name, but I didn't know that anyone had actually seen them making those arguments. In answer to Captain Bob, Harmony Gold's apparent claim from a copyright perspective is that they own the worldwide (ex-Japan) copyright to Macross because Tatsunoko Productions licensed it to them. Harmony Gold's "Robotech" adaptation was a use of that copyright but didn't add or subtract from it. The problem with this argument is that while the Japanese courts have affirmed that Tatsunoko has the copyright of the cartoon "Super Dimension Fortress Macross", that isn't the same thing as owning the copyright on the underlying works used in creation of the cartoon. The first court judgment of February, 2002, has already established that Big West/Studio Nue own the copyright to the lineart. The "scenario" or story outline of Macross is also a work subject to copyright, and I believe that if the issue ever came to court, a similar judgment would confirm Big West/Studio Nue's rights thereto. In other words, "Super Dimension Fortress Macross" isn't an original work, but an adaptation or derivative of the lineart and the scenario created by Studio Nue and Big West. All the other Macross stories and derivatives likewise are based on the original lineart and scenario, not "Super Dimension Fortress Macross". (According to Japanese copyright law, Tatsunoko's rights in a secondary work do not prejudice the rights of the copyright holders of the original work it's based on.) So while Tatsunoko was able to sell the rights to "Super Dimension Fortress Macross" to Harmony Gold, Harmony Gold has no copyright claim to the entire Macross franchise. That is, unless the memorandum contract between Big West/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko gave Tatsunoko rights which haven't yet been disclosed. This is doubtful in light of Big West's ability to license Macross Plus and Macross II without apparent objection or interference by Tatsunoko or Harmony Gold (regardless of what Harmony Gold may say now). I'm working on an essay which will discuss these points at greater length. Edited December 7, 2003 by ewilen
red_xavier Posted December 7, 2003 Posted December 7, 2003 So the Robotech comic from DC Wildstorm and licensed by HG is in violation of copyright law as it's using the actual Macross designs? (most of which are on that list of lineart the court said BW owns)
ewilen Posted December 7, 2003 Posted December 7, 2003 So the Robotech comic from DC Wildstorm and licensed by HG is in violation of copyright law as it's using the actual Macross designs? (most of which are on that list of lineart the court said BW owns) To be frank, that's one of the puzzling questions which I'm going to have to leave open. My guess is that things like the comic, the MPC, superposables, etc., are covered by the memorandum contract which gives Tatsunoko certain worldwide merchandising rights to products based directly off the TV show. I also assume that Tatsunoko's merchandising rights include the right to create new merchandise as opposed to merely marketing it. If either of these guesses are wrong, then it's hard to say why Big West hasn't "dropped the bomb" in the U.S. courts. Maybe they will, eventually. Incidentally, I suspect that Yamato thinks it can skirt Tatsunoko's rights, even for such things as the Hikaru Super, the VF-1D, and the Max & Millia VF-J's, by basing them directly off the line art. If you look at the packaging for these toys, I think you'll see that it all says "Macross", not "Super Dimension Fortress Macross" or anything else which would indicate a direct derivative of the show.
Radd Posted December 7, 2003 Posted December 7, 2003 (edited) Technically, things like videogames, novelizations, and comics are derivatives not merchandise. Things like clothes, toys, lunchboxes, art books, backpacks, mugs, etcetera are merchandise. It's easy to see why Big West would overlook something like a comic book, especially given the thriving doujinshi community in Japan, and the way of thinking behind it. Also, A lot of people do consider comics and videogames to be merchandise, they're wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that they believe what they believe. Also, ewilen, I believe it was at AnimExpo that someone from Harmony Gold was making the trademark and customer confusion arguments. I'm certain there's quotes from it in this very thread, if not someone could certainly point you in the right direction. Edited December 7, 2003 by Radd
ewilen Posted December 8, 2003 Posted December 8, 2003 If someone could, I'd be grateful. Ditto if someone could get me access to this thread from the old forums. (Grateful, that is, but I'm also dreading it, since I've already spent many hours of research and I wouldn't look forward to having to incorporate much new information.) But Radd, I wonder where you get the derivative/merchandise distinction from? I looked hard for it but I couldn't find any legal definition separating the two. My working hypothesis is that the distinction is part of private contracts--just as the memorandum defined the age groups that the various parties could target in SDF Macross-based print publications, it would define the rights to market items such as candy, toys, models, etc. Toys are almost certainly "works" subject to copyright (falling under Article 10 (iv) "paintings, engravings, sculptures and other artistic works") and as such would be derivatives of the work they've based on. P.S. Thanks for the encouragement, Effect!
Pat Payne Posted December 8, 2003 Posted December 8, 2003 (edited) Hey, Pat, where can I find info on that? I did notice that HG has been racking up a bunch of trademarks on the Macross name, but I didn't know that anyone had actually seen them making those arguments.In answer to Captain Bob, Harmony Gold's apparent claim from a copyright perspective is that they own the worldwide (ex-Japan) copyright to Macross because Tatsunoko Productions licensed it to them. Harmony Gold's "Robotech" adaptation was a use of that copyright but didn't add or subtract from it. The problem with this argument is that while the Japanese courts have affirmed that Tatsunoko has the copyright of the cartoon "Super Dimension Fortress Macross", that isn't the same thing as owning the copyright on the underlying works used in creation of the cartoon. The first court judgment of February, 2002, has already established that Big West/Studio Nue own the copyright to the lineart. The "scenario" or story outline of Macross is also a work subject to copyright, and I believe that if the issue ever came to court, a similar judgment would confirm Big West/Studio Nue's rights thereto. In other words, "Super Dimension Fortress Macross" isn't an original work, but an adaptation or derivative of the lineart and the scenario created by Studio Nue and Big West. All the other Macross stories and derivatives likewise are based on the original lineart and scenario, not "Super Dimension Fortress Macross". (According to Japanese copyright law, Tatsunoko's rights in a secondary work do not prejudice the rights of the copyright holders of the original work it's based on.) So while Tatsunoko was able to sell the rights to "Super Dimension Fortress Macross" to Harmony Gold, Harmony Gold has no copyright claim to the entire Macross franchise. That is, unless the memorandum contract between Big West/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko gave Tatsunoko rights which haven't yet been disclosed. This is doubtful in light of Big West's ability to license Macross Plus and Macross II without apparent objection or interference by Tatsunoko or Harmony Gold (regardless of what Harmony Gold may say now). I'm working on an essay which will discuss these points at greater length. OK, I'll admit perhaps I was going out on a unreasonable tangent a little For whatever reason, I had some neat little theory about the fact that the only thing they have that could be concrete is claim to trademark, but it began to fall apart almost as soon as I pushed send. I still think, though, that the Peter Jackson analogy is a little off-base. And eep! Just two seconds ago (when i began the reply), Ewilen's was the last. What happened to the blessed silence in this thread? Anyway, can't wait to read your essay ont he subject Ewilen. :thumbsup: Edited December 8, 2003 by Pat Payne
Radd Posted December 8, 2003 Posted December 8, 2003 Well, I suppose it's an argument of what you define as 'merchandise'. Someone could argue that Harmony Gold could make their own 'original' Macross sequel and sell it straight to DVD, and call the DVD's "merchandise". I sincerely doubt that would fly, though. A comicbook/manga is the same thing. It's a brand new story set in the same universe, using the designs from SDF Macross (or MOSPEADA or Southern Cross, but nobody's arguing HG's rights to those). Sequential art is every bit a form of media as animation. I, personally, fail to see how one could be classified as a derivitave and the other not. As far as videogames, there's even less of a distinction. A videogame, like Battlecry, is a derviative story set in an all too similar world using the same design elements, and a few derivative design elements, new characters and old in an animated side story. The only thing that keeps this from being widely considered a derivative is that it's interactive. Take away that interactive element and what you have left is a poorly animated OVA. Also consider this, a good amount of anime in Japan is based originally off of a manga. If a sequel is to appear, it most likely appears first as a manga itself, and afterwards that sequel shows up animated. That is why I, quite correctly, classify videogames and comic books as derivatives and not merchandise. Though, again, you could consider either to be merchandise in the same way that a DVD of the show could be considered merchandise, but it's merchandise that contains derivative work from the franchise in the way that t-shirts and coffee mugs rarely do.
Sumdumgai Posted December 8, 2003 Posted December 8, 2003 Ewilen, let us know where you post that essay when you do! It'll be good to read something on this subject without having to go through 38 pages of posts...
ewilen Posted December 8, 2003 Posted December 8, 2003 (edited) Well, I suppose it's an argument of what you define as 'merchandise'. That's exactly the issue. Unfortunately, I can't find a legal distinction between "merchandise" and "derivatives". As far as I can tell, what we commonly think of as "merchandise" is simply material goods which reproduce likenesses (or adaptations thereof) of the original copyrighted materials. The goods can themselves be likenesses (toys, models, trading cards) or they can carry the likenesses on them (T-shirts, lunch boxes, candy wrappers, etc.). The key point is that the images or likenesses used in merchandise are simply reproductions or adaptations of the original copyrighted work. This is why the litigation over "Candy Candy" merchandise concerns copyright, not [only] trademark. (Look up "Candy Candy" lawsuit for background.) Again, I believe that what we think of as "merchandising rights" is really various adaptation rights limited by contract to media not commonly thought of as "storytelling media". I finally found a web page which addresses this issue to some degree in U.S. copyright law, and I believe it agrees with my analysis. Here's the link. Have a look and let me know what you think. Edit: Now, we really don't know what was in the BW/SN/TP contract or the TP/HG contract, but we do know that HG licensed toys with Matchbox and licensed comic books with Comico back in the 80's. They also produced trading cards, and a series of novels using the Robotech-adapted version of the Macross story. So regardless of whether the contracts used "merchandise" or other terms in divvying up the derivative rights, it would appear that the new RT comic books, toys, and (probably) videogames are no more or less legal than the old ones (pace issues of whether the contracts were limited in time, and whether the MPC violates the Matsushiro patent on transformable Valkyrie toys). Edited December 9, 2003 by ewilen
bake_art Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 (edited) I saw an ad for a robotech comic and was shocked to see it featuring a VF-4 on the cover. Is Harmony Gold allowed to do this? As far as I know they don't have the rights to Flashback 2012... What gives? Edited December 18, 2003 by bake_art
Anubis Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 I saw that in the store too. They are using the VFX-4 prototype in one of the robotech comics, just they are calling it a YF-4. Since they showed a model of it in the original SDF Macross they can get away with that one. I don't think the prototype could transform though. It was an airframe test IIRC. If it does transform in that comic, it better look nothing like an actual VF-4 or someones head is going to roll.
Anubis Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 This just popped up on the Movies and TV page, but in one of the new Robotech comics they are using the VFX-4 prototype, calling it a YF-4. Since a model of the plane was shown in the show on Hikaru's desk they can get away with that, I would guess. My question if are they allowed to have it transform? The prototype was a airframe test only, right? It did not transform IIRC. If they do make it transform would that itself be BS or if they make it different loking in battroid than an actual VF-4 would it be permissabel, legal wize. I say it's bull to begin with, but at least someoine is using a VF-4 in some fashion or another.
Effect Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 Well they haven't had it transform. In the #0 issue they had it so that there was an error in the system. There aren't even any stats for the other two modes on the RT.com site. I think it will stay that way since it doesn't appear in the series. The might be better coming up with a design closer to the Alpha or some Southern Cross mecha and using that as a YF/VF 4 so it can have all 3 modes and a MPC could be made. You think they would have done that since it would have brought them more money, oh well.
UN Spacy Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 No way. Isn't this a big NO NO seeing as HG doesn't have the rights for the VF-4.
bsu legato Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 Furthermore, didn't the Row-Bow-Tek VFX-4 have a "failure" to transform, thus aleviating the need to design a possibly copyright-infringing Battloid mode for it?
Ali Sama Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 I saw an ad for a robotech comic and was shocked to see it featuring a VF-4 on the cover. Is Harmony Gold allowed to do this? As far as I know they don't have the rights to Flashback 2012... What gives? no. the vf4 was seen in the original macross sereis. hikaru playes with a model of it
ewilen Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 Look up the page a bit to my last post. HG has been using the designs from the show to create comic book and other adaptations for a long time, seemingly without any legal difficulty. Since the VF-4 model appeared in the show, having a full-scale "YF-4" in the comics is similar to having the YF-1R/VF-1R featured in the video game. The YF-1R involves creating a new design based on the originals, so it might be pushing the envelope as far as HG's rights to use the original designs. If they can get away with that, the "YF-4" is probably less of a problem, since it only involves scaling up the existing model. Again, we don't really know the details of the contracts.
EXO Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 that was my question about the Orguss Valkyrie. I asked if they could potentially make it a part of the comic books because it appeared in the series.
Noyhauser Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 coming in on this as a total newb... But I think that HG can't use the VF-4 in Battroid because it had to be designed specifically for the PS1 Macross VFX in 1997. If their contract only covers the Macross TV series, then they can't touch them (pending the outcome of the derivatives issue) those rights are most definately Bandai because the design only exist for the two game lines and nowhere else. If what people say is true and that the YF-4 couldn't transform because of a "malfunction", thats reallly pathetic that they got around that through such a stupid plot hole. On Yamato... my compeltely un eduacated opinion is that they have been building "DYRL" Valkyries from that line art rather than the TV series line art. Im not too sure but I guess that gets them around the whole Macross TV issue, as the line arts could be considred different? Im not too sure about that.... but that might be my hunch. If it is true though the HG can keep the TV series... I'd take a Hikaru Strike Valk anyday.
ewilen Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 Yes to your comments on the VF-4. No to your comments on Yamato. Some of their VF-1s are the DYRL designs and have "Do you remember love" printed on the boxes. Others simply say "Macross" on the boxes and have a different date on their copyright info. (1982 vs. 1984, I believe, based on the ones I've been able to examine up close). These include the VF-1D and the various Super VF-1J's (but not the FP VF-1S, since it's a Strike). The VF-1D never appears in DYRL (to my knowledge) and the VF-1J only appears in armored form, not Super and not with the Max/Millia colors. Based on the copyright date, it's pretty clear the non-DYRL Valks are based off the same lineart that was used as a basis for the TV animation, since the lineart was completed in 1982 (March to be exact, according to the findings of fact in the various court cases). The Low-Viz is a special case--it doesn't say "Do you remember love", but it's not related to the series. There's no DYRL indication on the packaging, but I don't know the copyright date on it. BTW, Radd, here's the best online essay I've found on merchandising rights--coincidentally, it pertains specifically to Japan. PDF format. Click here to download. Basically, merchandising rights aren't spelled out in the law, but are a creation of private contracts over copyright, trademark, and "design law". ("Design law" is something found in a lot of legal codes but apparently not in the U.S.)
Cyclone Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 If we're talking a brand new Robotech comic ad for the upcoming series Robotech: Invasion then it's not the VF-4/Whatever....it's the Combat non-transformable fighter as seen by Yellow Belmont in Mospeada. Cyc
.thumb.jpg.bc0aa3d6a43314c42575bd21a0963db5.jpg)
Recommended Posts