Robotech and HG license debates

[Radd]

I was just over at toynami's website and saw something interesting. Don't know if this has been brought up yet. Look at the bottom of the page about the TM and copyright info.

"MACROSS: DO YOU REMEMBER LOVE and all related characters and elements are TM & © Harmony Gold.

Copyright 2004, Toynami Inc. "

link

I think this clearly shows a lack of Big West involvement, as both Macross 2 and Macross Plus have Big West marking on the packing, along with Manga's.

Agreed, this doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me. Still, we'll hear HG's side of things at Expo, and if it's not on the up and up, we'll hopefully hear Big West's side of things soon after.

[Ladic]

SuperOstrich Edit: Ladic, no linking images directly from another website please.

[justvinnie]

Of course... if they really do believe they own the movie rights... they shouldn't have a problem forcing BW to hand them over right?

Nope. Just because you own the copyright to something, that doesn't mean you can force someone else to give you access to their copy of it, even if that's the master copy.

But I seem to recall posting a few pages back that the masters of DYRL appear to have been assigned to Tatsunoko. That's based on a machine translation of a court case, though, so I may have been mistaken.

, sorry, that was supposed to be sarcasm...

vinnie

[daeudi]

(Right of preserving the integrity)

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.

While HG bought the right to air the series, I think everyone here can agree that they distorted, mutilated and other modification against SN/Kawamori's will.

Based on what they bought from TP, Did HG have the right to do that?

In other words, did TP have the right to mutilate it?

Edited July 6, 2004 by daeudi

[JB0]

(Right of preserving the integrity)

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.

While HG bought the right to air the series, I think everyone here can agree that they distorted, mutilated and other modification against SN/Kawamori's will.

Based on what they bought from TP, Did HG have the right to do that?

In other words, did TP have the right to mutilate it?

As far as I know, Tatsunoko only had distribution rights.

While debatably they could have done mild editing for purposes of making it acceptable to air, I very seriously doubt that distribution rights includes the abiity to rewrite the program to any signifigant degree.

[daeudi]

(Right of preserving the integrity)

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.

While HG bought the right to air the series, I think everyone here can agree that they distorted, mutilated and other modification against SN/Kawamori's will.

Based on what they bought from TP, Did HG have the right to do that?

In other words, did TP have the right to mutilate it?

As far as I know, Tatsunoko only had distribution rights.

While debatably they could have done mild editing for purposes of making it acceptable to air, I very seriously doubt that distribution rights includes the abiity to rewrite the program to any signifigant degree.

That's what I keep thinking- the whole concept of Author's Rights and Moral Rights is driving me nuts.

[ewilen]

Even wrylac has acknowledged that the re-editing of Macross into Robotech could be seen as a violation of the author's moral right.

He suggested it might be too late to raise the issue, which may be right. While there's no statute of limitations on copyright, and you don't lose it for not defending it (as with trademark), I think there may be an out in the "equitable" concepts of "laches" and "equitable estoppel". In other words, HG might be able to argue that it's not fair for someone to raise objections twenty years after the fact.

(Insert standard "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer.)

[ewilen]

Another judgment has been issued by the Tokyo District Court, dated July 1, 2004. This judgment is very similar to the judgment of November 11, 2003 which I posted about back on February 20.

The earlier judgment apparently concerned a request for an injunction by Tatsunoko against BW and Bandai, to prevent them from using the term "Macross" in various products (such as DVDs including Macross Zero). Tatsunoko lost that judgment.

This new judgment concerns a suit by Tatsunoko against BW and Bandai for 685 million yen (about $6.3 million) because BW and Bandai have been using the term "Macross" in the titles of various products including Macross II, Macross Plus, Macross 7, Macross Dynamite 7, and Macross Zero.

As in the previous judgment, Tatsunoko lost and was assigned all the legal costs.

One detail worth mentioning: while arguing this case, Big West said that the earlier judgments of 1/20/2003 and 9/25/2003 found that BW owns the Author's Moral Right to SDF Macross. I didn't see this spelled out in the texts of those judgments-- they seemed to say that TP didn't have the Moral Right, without specifying who did have the Moral Right. I thought that the Moral Right could conceivably belong to Noburo Ishiguro personally, since as director he was judged to be the person who oversaw the entire project. Had he performed his directing work as an employee of Tatsunoko, then TP would have obtained the Moral Right. I am guessing that Ishiguro was officially an employee of BW, or was doing "work for hire" for Big West during the Macross production. According to Japanese copyright law, BW would therefore get the rights.

A note about Moral Right: in another thread, wrylac wrote that it's something given "only to the creators of a concept or idea". This is incorrect. Having a concept or idea does not give you the Moral Right. In general, Moral Rights automatically belong to the original author of a work. Having an idea doesn't make you an author. Turning it into words, pictures, etc. does. Those words or pictures are a work. The Moral Right gives you the right to control the work's display to the public, the right to be recognized as the author, and the right to protect the integrity of the work. You retain these rights even if you sell the copyright to the work (although there is some implied consent regarding display).

If you create a work in the course of normal duties as an employee, or if you create it as "work for hire", then the employer gets whatever rights you would be entitled to, including Moral Right. A movie is a special case: the Moral Right goes to the person involved in the entire creative process--typically the director or producer--while the copyright goes to whoever financed the making of the movie.

Here is a link to the latest court case: http://courtdomino2.courts.go.jp/chizai.ns...cf?OpenDocument

alternate link: http://courtdomino2.courts.go.jp/chizai.ns...CF?OpenDocument

translan version: http://www.translan.com/jucc/precedent-2004-07-01.html

[wrylac]

One detail worth mentioning: while arguing this case, Big West said that the earlier judgments of 1/20/2003 and 9/25/2003 found that BW owns the Author's Moral Right to SDF Macross. I didn't see this spelled out in the texts of those judgments-- they seemed to say that TP didn't have the Moral Right, without specifying who did have the Moral Right. I thought that the Moral Right could conceivably belong to Noburo Ishiguro personally, since as director he was judged to be the person who oversaw the entire project. Had he performed his directing work as an employee of Tatsunoko, then TP would have obtained the Moral Right. I am guessing that Ishiguro was officially an employee of BW, or was doing "work for hire" for Big West during the Macross production. According to Japanese copyright law, BW would therefore get the rights.

A note about Moral Right: in another thread, wrylac wrote that it's something given "only to the creators of a concept or idea". This is incorrect. Having a concept or idea does not give you the Moral Right. In general, Moral Rights automatically belong to the original author of a work. Having an idea doesn't make you an author. Turning it into words, pictures, etc. does. Those words or pictures are a work. The Moral Right gives you the right to control the work's display to the public, the right to be recognized as the author, and the right to protect the integrity of the work. You retain these rights even if you sell the copyright to the work (although there is some implied consent regarding display).

I'll give you that the Jan 2003 ruling does not specify who has the Moral Right to SDF Macross. My assumption has always been that it belongs to Studio Nue.

Yes, I understand Moral Rights granted to the creator of a work, I guess I've forgotten how nitpicky things can be around here.

[ewilen]

They need to be nitpicky when you keep making arguments based on incorrect descriptions of copyright law and incorrect reporting of the facts. If you write things like, "Creative rights is a very specific term with legal significance," you should be prepared to be called for blowing smoke. When you write, "The same ruling basically said that internationally TP has everything else," you are making a false assertion. In an exchange with you (link), I've already pointed out that the ruling didn't say anything about the international market for anything other than SDF Macross.

Edited July 7, 2004 by ewilen

[wrylac]

They need to be nitpicky when you keep making arguments based on incorrect descriptions of copyright law and incorrect reporting of the facts.  If you write things like, "Creative rights is a very specific term with legal significance," you should be prepared to be called for blowing smoke. When you write, "The same ruling basically said that internationally TP has everything else," you are making a false assertion. In an exchange with you (link), I've already pointed out that the ruling didn't say anything about the international market for anything other than SDF Macross.

Sorry, I meant this entire arguement is and does need to be nitpicky. I was not trying to attack you. I haven't gotten my sealegs back yet.

Keith's post was directed at the creation of SDF Macross, and I was speaking specifically about the Jan 03 ruling which was about SDF Macross. And, regarding SDF Macross TP doesn't have the Moral Right but, does have "everything else."

Edited July 7, 2004 by wrylac

[ewilen]

Okay, sorry for that. My main point is that it's difficult to advance things if we have to keep rehashing points of fact.

Now that this thread is at the top of the "recent threads" list, maybe we can move the DYRL toys discussion here. Although, personally, I don't have anything to add for the moment. I'll just echo TWDC and others by saying that I'm very skeptical of HG claim of newly-discovered rights. Maybe further reporting will help clarify.

[ewilen]

Keith's post was directed at the creation of SDF Macross, and I was speaking specifically about the Jan 03 ruling which was about SDF Macross.  And, regarding SDF Macross TP doesn't have the Moral Right but, does have "everything else."

(Oops. Didn't catch this edit when I made my last post.)

Well, no. The ruling says that TP has the copyright to SDF Macross. This would be the "primitive copyright" that came into effect at the moment the work was created. However, as stated in the findings of fact, the memorandum contract assigned various rights to different parties. Since copyright can be transferred in whole or part by contract, the significance of the judgment is that TP owns those portions of the copyright which were not explicitly assigned by the memorandum.

The earlier line art case should be viewed the same way: BW/SN were judged to have the primitive copyright on the line art, but this doesn't invalidate the assignment of rights contained in the memorandum.

What does the memorandum say? Apparently, that TP gets overseas merchandising rights (I'll make the caveat that "merchandise" isn't a legal term and is slightly vague) and overseas distribution rights for the TV show. There may also be something in there about overseas "publication" rights, which I would take to mean the right to create printed adaptations such as comic books. TP certainly got the domestic rights for printed publications targeted at children in the sixth grade and below.

Studio Nue got domestic rights for printed publications targeted at older audiences. Big West got domestic rebroadcast and merchandising rights.

(Rights to profits were defined separately from licensing/distribution rights. Profits from overseas sales went entirely to TP; TP was also given a share of domestic profits even though it didn't control the licensing on most categories; Mainichi Broadcasting also got a share of the domestic merchandising profits.)

Only after you subtract these contractual assignments do you get the rights that BW/SN and TP own by "default" from their ownership of the line art and animation copyrights, respectively.

Bringing this back to the DYRL superposables, something I may have mentioned before: I suppose it's conceivable that the "merchandise" portion of the memorandum may have been worded in such a way as to give TP the right to use any and all Macross-franchise designs in overseas merchandise. At least, this could be the legal argument on which HG bases its current claims about the DYRL Super-posables.

But that's just speculation in an effort to fill in the gaps, since it no longer appears that BW and TP have reached an agreement. If that's the line HG is taking, then BW probably disagrees, since they told Toycom that TP didn't own exclusive rights (probably not any rights) to DYRL.

In 1999, Toycom and Yamato purchased their license directly through Big West. George inquired about the Harmony Gold Macross rights and Big West indicated that they owned the rights to the television series, not the Macross movie.  If Toycom were to produce any VF-1 Valkyries, the Valkyries would have to be designed from the Macross movie, and the box would have to be properly labeled “Macross movie, Do You Remember Love” Valkyries.  Haven been assured that there were no legal issues, Toycom and Yamato proceeded with their Valkyrie plans.

(From http://www.valkyrie-exchange.com/news/toynami/1242001.html )

If BW still feels this way, I wouldn't be surprised to see negotiations and/or a lawsuit to clarify the point.

[ewilen]

Ah, I may have misinterpreted wrylac's last post(s) slightly, and/or I overthought things, leading to my making a correction when none was needed.

As above, since the animation case ruled that TP has the copyright to SDF Macross, and since the memorandum contract only assigned certain domestic rights to companies other than TP, it follows that TP does indeed have the entire copyright for SDF Macross internationally.

But I'll stick to my opinion that SDF Macross is itself a derivative work based on previously-existing artwork and story. So owning copyright of SDF Macross doesn't translate into owning the exclusive right to other Macross products.

[ewilen]

Over at http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...40entry169842 Keith wrote:

While Tatsunoko was indeed involved in the DYRL production (they are afterall to blame for Kiseki releasing the crapass international versions over the years, and that hong kong dub itself for that matter)

As for Tatsunoko & the DYRL dub, I believe that info is on the old SUPERDIMENSION FORTRESS MACROSS VHS credits.

So far I haven't been able to confirm this. Probably all versions of DYRL list Tatsunoko somewhere in the credits, but I doubt that's what you're referring to.

Could it be that you're remembering seeing Toho credited? Take a look at these:

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/...rossldfront.jpg (top left)

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/...crossldback.jpg (bottom left)

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/kiseki_dyrlb.jpg (barely visible bottom middle panel)

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/kiseki_clashb.jpg (barely visible bottom middle panel)

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/mvc-020s.jpg (barely visible bottom right)

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/mvc-027s.jpg

The Best Film version of CoB has the Big West copyright marked on it though.

I'm guessing that Toho overstepped their bounds. From the findings of fact in the recent trademark judgments, it appears that Toho only had a cinema distribution contract. I'll bet they thought they had the right to distribute on LD and VHS, resold the "rights" to Kiseki/Celebrity, and that was the origin of the DYRL international licensing mess.

Edit: This article says that Toho had an option to release DYRL in US back in 1986. But that may have only pertained to cinematic release, so it's still possible/probable that Toho didn't have the right to sell the international video rights. Meanwhile this FAQ from rec.arts.animation states that the Super Space Fortress dub was commissioned by Shogakukan.

It's also possible that the Toho logo on some of the above releases is due to Toho distributing the video in cooperation with Shogakukan, who (according to the 11/11/03 findings of fact) did have the video rights.

Edited July 8, 2004 by ewilen

[1st Border Red Devil]

Probably all versions of DYRL list Tatsunoko somewhere in the credits

2 of the three producers of DYRL? were Tatsunoko employees: Akira Inoue and Hiroshi Iwata.

Edited July 8, 2004 by 1st Border Red Devil

[ewilen]

That would make sense. The findings of fact for the 11/11/03 and 7/1/04 trademark ruings both state that Tatsunoko was responsible for the actual animation. (Not to mention Renato keeps saying the saying the same thing.)

That's why I'd expect their name (or at least the names of some employees) to be in the credits. But in this case I'm looking for the basis of Keith's comment that there's a connection between TP and the English-language releases of DYRL. So far, I think he's most likely misremembering the Toho copyright that appears on some of them. Or, less likely, he saw TP in the credits of one of the English releases and mistook that to mean TP was specifically responsible for that version.

Either way, I don't see any evidence that TP ever tried to claim any more rights to DYRL than what they got in the DYRL contract (see 2/20/04 posts above): basically just a share of the profits and possibly custody of the master print.

Doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. Just means I haven't seen any.

This is a very niggling point. I was just trying to see if there was any precedent at all for HG's claim that they've somehow discovered or obtained the right to make DYRL toys.

Edited July 8, 2004 by ewilen

[Pat Payne]

It's also possible that the Toho logo on some of the above releases is due to Toho distributing the video in cooperation with Shogakukan, who (according to the 11/11/03 findings of fact) did have the video rights.

Although I do have to ask where this leaves Bandai...since they released the DVD version under their Emotion label, and there was little mention of Shogakukan or Toho in the copy-distro rights mark (IIRC, it was BW/MBS), did Bandai buy the DVD rights from Shogakukan, or were they awarded DVD rights as a new, distinct right (DVDs obviously not having been invented in 1984)?

Could all this have anything to do with why the English SSF Macross dub isn't on the DVD (not that I'm complaining, mind you )

And, finally, I wonder if they were the other companies (along with BW and Tat/HG) whom Robert Woodhead was referring to as being obstinate in any stateside release of DYRL.

[ewilen]

On the Toho release of the english-dubbed laserdisc, I think I've found the Shogakukan logo. It's at the bottom right of the front and the bottom left of the back. The same logo is on the perfect edition laserdisc, at the bottom left of the front. Next to it is the Bandai Emotion logo.

If you look at the perfect edition DVD (see below), only the Emotion logo is visible.

This all backs up what you say, but I don't have any guesses better than yours.

It does support the notion that Shogakukan was involved in the Super Space Fortress Macross dub.

Also note the Big West logo on the back of SSFM. I really think that Tatsunoko didn't have much of anything to do with the dub. It was probably done by Shogakukan (which either had BW's approval or thought it did) and distributed by Toho. Then I would guess that Toho got the idea that either their cinematic distribution rights or their video distribution agreement allowed them to license translated versions of DYRL to Kiseki/Celebrity.

Edited July 9, 2004 by ewilen

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

Sorry if I borrow your attention for one moment, but since the HG debates are here, I'd like to ask you guys is HG is planning on release Robotech The Movie on DVD. I know it was taken from Megazone and all, but I hapen to like the spawn as it is.

If this has been discussed already, I'm sorry. I'm not reading the gazillion posts whatsoever.

Thanks in advance, ppl.

[JB0]

Sorry if I borrow your attention for one moment, but since the HG debates are here, I'd like to ask you guys is HG is planning on release Robotech The Movie on DVD. I know it was taken from Megazone and all, but I hapen to like the spawn as it is.

If this has been discussed already, I'm sorry. I'm not reading the gazillion posts whatsoever.

Thanks in advance, ppl.

At the risk of being a purveyor of disinformation, wasn't that in one of the Robotech Legacy boxes? Or was that just a feature about the making?

[ewilen]

I'm pretty sure I've read that HG has never rereleased Robotech: The Movie.

This page has some info on it and suggests that it was released on video around the time of the original release (references to a PAL video); it also has a tantalizing tidbit about TP thinking about releasing DYRL in the US back then.

[...]Tatsunoko (the company that produced Macross) was intent on retaining the movie rights to all Macross-related properties. The apparent reason for this was the off-hand chance that Tatsunoko might consider a general theatrical release of a translated version of the Macross Movie (Macross: Ai oboete imasu ka?) in the United States.

The following url also says that the movie was only released in limited numbers of videos, in Europe (thus the PAL reference above, I guess): http://www.masterforce.org/macross/robotech.html

More info. Cyc has a few comments over at RT.com. And this DVD set has some "rare animatics" from the movie. Whatever "animatics" are.

Edited July 12, 2004 by ewilen

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

Thanks a lot, Ewilen. You did your homework So it's safe to say that "The untold story" has never been released on DVD yet. Is "Megazone 23" still available somewhere then?

[EXO]

I believe ADV just releases or will soon release both Megazone 23 and part 2...

[Pat Payne]

Sorry if I borrow your attention for one moment, but since the HG debates are here, I'd like to ask you guys is HG is planning on release Robotech The Movie on DVD. I know it was taken from Megazone and all, but I hapen to like the spawn as it is.

If this has been discussed already, I'm sorry. I'm not reading the gazillion posts whatsoever.

Thanks in advance, ppl.

I'd heard that it was even beneath Carl Macek's standards, and that he has actively opposed (as much as he can) a release. Coupled with the fact that 1) HG/Carloco no longer have the rights to Megazone 23 IIRC, and that 2) the film was a massive flop (it only was screened in Dallas and on a spaceship for a human and two smartass robots ) I doubt we'll ever see it released.

[CoryHolmes]

Sorry if I borrow your attention for one moment, but since the HG debates are here, I'd like to ask you guys is HG is planning on release Robotech The Movie on DVD. I know it was taken from Megazone and all, but I hapen to like the spawn as it is.

If this has been discussed already, I'm sorry. I'm not reading the gazillion posts whatsoever.

Thanks in advance, ppl.   

I'd heard that it was even beneath Carl Macek's standards, and that he has actively opposed (as much as he can) a release. Coupled with the fact that 1) HG/Carloco no longer have the rights to Megazone 23 IIRC, and that 2) the film was a massive flop (it only was screened in Dallas and on a spaceship for a human and two smartass robots ) I doubt we'll ever see it released.

Good riddance at that.

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

Okee-dokee. I'll get the ADV version then. I didn't knew that RT:the movie had so little dissemination in the US. I first saw it in Argentina at the cinema little after the movie was released in the US and I liked it. Seriously

Edited July 12, 2004 by Lonely Soldier Boy

[Dangard Ace]

..... 2) the film was a massive flop (it only was screened in Dallas and on a spaceship for a human and two smartass robots ) I doubt we'll ever see it released.

Really? Which season was that?

[Pat Payne]

I'm sorry, DA, that was a joke. RT The Movie was never on MST3K. I was just trying to be funny. Besides. as cruel and evil as Dr. Forrester and TV's Frank may have been, even they had their limits. (Not terribly high, mind you --MANOS! -- but they did have standards.)

[MEMO1DOMINION]

RT: THE UNTOLD STORY

I HAVE MY COPY. GOT IT AT COMIC CON FOR 10 BILLS. HAD TO WATCH IT DRUNK TO UNDERSTAND IT.

NOT BAD AT ALL IF YOU ADD YOUR OWN STORY LINE FROM S RT: SOUTHERN CROSS.

HEHEHE

OTHER THAN THAT. SOME SCENES KILL IT BECOUSE YOU USED TO THE RT STORY OF SC.

[ewilen]

Macross Zero *almost* licensed

Repeating the key quote from that thread:

Macross Zero

Hold onto your hats for show-stopping news. No, it's not licensed, but...

Tim told an anecdote about ADV's attempt to license Macross Zero. Seems that ADV went to Big West (in Japan) to seek out the license and were told they'd need to negotiate with Harmony Gold. Approaching Harmony Gold, they got the OK with Harmony Gold agreeing to take a small percentage or some other deal.

Returning to Big West, after they told them that this had occurred, Big West was so surprised that they had managed to get agreements with Harmony Gold so easily that they backed off believing something fishy was up.

It is likely that Macross Zero will be licensed by ADV and hence by Madman in the not-too-distant future.

If this is an accurate account, it raises more questions than it answers. Wrylac would probably assert that BW recognizes HG's rights to the Macross franchise, but all we really have here is BW acknowledging that licensing M0 without clearing up the HG situation is pointless. I.e., it's possible to interpret the above along these lines:

ADV: BW, we'd like to license M0 for US distribution.

BW: Sure, but we'll only give it to you if you can promise that you'll be able to use it. HG might get in the way--you need to clarify that situation.

ADV: Okay, thanks. [To HG] Will you do anything if we distribute M0?

HG: Not if you pay us.

ADV: Great. [To BW] We can do it if we pay royalties to HG.

BW: We've been through this before on the M+ Valks and M7 Trash. We will not license to someone who is going to give HG a precedent for claiming all of Macross. Sorry.

[Dat Pinche Haro!]

hmmm...nothin' but bull...pure bull...

i wanna say more but it'd go into the realm of flaming...and i don't wanna get kicked off these boards

[1st Border Red Devil]

Gee....

Big West doesnt wanna play ball.

To quote Vinny (from My Cousin Vinny)

Well there's a f*cking surprise!

[ewilen]

We've known for a long time that Big West will pull the rug on a project if it involves paying royalties to HG. This isn't surprising, since doing so might weaken BW's legal case in the unresolved dispute over Macross copyrights and trademarks.

[RosarioLuv]

Damn HG. I wish they'd just die (the company). Can you imagine, creating something only to have someone else claim it as their own, and then every FUTURE creations you come up with end up being claimed by them too? The whole HG RT thing is literally just so perverted.

What I would say to the HG owners, In the words of Shaka Zulu:

"You are a man of no nation. You are a Shadow."