34 replies to this topic

[Alardus]

I was under the impression HG didnt own the names, but the artwork. So you reskin the marauder and there you go.

[ScarecrowES]

Alardus, on 18 June 2015 - 11:52 AM, said:

I was under the impression HG didnt own the names, but the artwork. So you reskin the marauder and there you go.

The Marauder was already reskinned. All Project Phoenix mechs, including ones already released by PGI for MWO, and ones unreleased, like the Warhammer and Marauder, are totally legal and fair game.

What the OP wants to know is if PGI can use the original artwork as a basis for game assets for countries outside of North America.

The answer is murky. PGI likely COULD use the original artwork for the basis of game assets outside of NA, but there's no way PGI could guarantee regional autonomy of their game under the current digital format. They'd literally have to release a completely different game for every region and have all content be compatible with only certain regions. The game is just not set up that way. And the way it is set up NOW, there's no way to seperate content based on region, so there'd be no way for PGI to guarantee the art rights holders that products based on that art won't be sold and used in NA.

Beyond that, having to build and support 2 models to represent one asset in game is just not something PGI would have to time, energy, or inclination to do, and even if they did, they open themselves to a big fat lawsuit if they can't properly control those assets.

However, PGI would be completely free to build Marauders or Warhammers based on the reseen designs, and HG could go **** themselves. Legally speaking. So if we ever see Marauders, which I'm confident we will, they'll be based loosely on reseen designs, or be entirely original versions, just like every other Phoenix mech.

[FupDup]

Harmony Gold are turbocunts. That is all.

[Alex Morgaine]

They'll probably grab Sony to double team atm, thanks to the movie they're looking at doing atm. My thoughts anyway.

[Triordinant]

El Bandito, on 17 June 2015 - 10:02 PM, said:

I am fine with just taking a mech that has passing resemblance to the Marauder, and has similar hardpoint locations as the Marauder, but is not named Marauder, instead of the Marauder. Lawsuits are a *****.

AFAIK, HG only owns the rights to the likeness. It wasn't called a Marauder in Robotech or any other HG series.

[Coralld]

I'd love to see at least the Marauder in MWO. To be completely honest, I like the reseen Marauder more than I do the unseen. Also, the reseen Marauder art fits in with the style of MWO.

Reseen Marauder




VS

Unseen/Macross Marauder




I really wish PGI could tell HG to go f@#k them selves and use the reseen art work with Alex's magic touch. Sadly though, HG would sue PGI anyway because HG are a bunch of wads.

Edited by Coralld, 18 June 2015 - 08:06 PM.

[Chuck Jager]

Anjian, on 17 June 2015 - 10:48 PM, said:

The real question is why even this is happening? The answer is that our copyright and patent system is outrightly broken. That's why patent trolls exist. That's why Apple can take Samsung to court over its "square corners". That's why we have the "look and feel" lawsuits Apple did to Microsoft over Windows. That is why Superman gets to sue Captain Marvel.

There is no logical answer to this. There is no logical outcome to this.

It does not make sense from a creator and user of the copyright/patent, but it does when the item at stake is a commodity. As long as copyrights/patent exist as a financial item that determines a company's worth those individuals are only doing the same as they would with pork bellies or employee wages/benefits. Do i like it no, but don't blame a snake for biting.

The square corners does seem ridiculous, but for copyright infringement it is "the unique essence of one piece" that has been borrowed. This is a painful piece to determine in a court of law, because it has to be a series of named elements, not a consensus of individuals. The worst part is an individual has a hard time protecting their claim, while larger entities do not.

If Beethoven, Mozart and Michelangelo's work was commissioned today in the US, it would be considered a work for hire and they would not hold the rights to it (unless they had a smart agent who helped draw up the sale).

[TheSteelRhino]

The issues are not around the NAME of the mechs..It's the ART work.

So...produce new artwork...the name should be irrelevant. But if Catalyst is now putting out the unseen, then I think PGI should be able to ride their coattails if they choose.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Strum Wealh, on 18 June 2015 - 03:40 AM, said:

....

Thanks so much for the detailed answer!
But can you assume, on what basis CGL is now returning the unseen?
Has the legal situation changed recently or do they really try to pull off their 'redesign' excuse?
Their new images do have some differences from the Macross, of course, but still they are instantly recognizable for iconic "unseen" mechs.. HG crushed the early MWO trailer for the image of Warhammer that in my opinion had more differences from Tomahawk, than the latest one by CGL has..

[Lexx]

What I think PGI will do, and what I think is the right thing to do is take a wait and see approach. I feel they should wait at least 6 months to see if Harmony Gold goes after Catalyst Game Labs.

PGI has too many other things going on right now to start announcing a new unseen mech pack. I feel they should save that for if and when they get into financial trouble and MWO is dying off.

For now I'd rather not see any new mech packs announced for a while, and for PGI to continue working on resizing the maps and rescaling all the mechs. In the mean time I think they could get by on events and sales.

[Chuck Jager]

Nathan Foxbane, on 18 June 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

When Micosoft did the Longbow in MW4:Mercs and I think it was DC, used a Tomahawk look alike in one of their comics HG pretty much cowered in a corner and cried "Yes Mr. 500 lb gorilla, we'll be good." They go after companies when they have a financial advantage over that company.

That is the definition of good business.
I want to fish in the good spots, but if they are on private property I have to have permission. This is true even if everybody in my towns 200 year history has used that spot, but the owner has changed and i snow not allowing any trespassing (yes there are exceptions, but have fun fighting it) It is not the company's fault it is our society that gives them that right as a property owner. Copyright and trademark are property laws even though they apply to items that are intrinsically part of a shared cultural history. It is a painful truth that is hard to combat against and many times the employers of the property do not have to be the folks who created it. All corporations have the same rights as individuals, and everybody is told to build fences and put locks on their doors to protect their property.

I am not saying I like this, but having worked in a PR department as a web designer this is how our legal department said that this is the basic framework that the specific laws support. So it comes down to the argument of money left on a table. Also until the advent of VHS and photo copiers there has really not been a threat to the property owners. There is a lot of confusion on all sides on how to best deal these issues (pure legal and social).

[Widowmaker1981]

Trouble is, it really DOESNT MATTER if HG have grounds to sue or not, to be quite honest they almost certainly do not, but its murky enough that they can bring a case, and just grind PGI down under the weight of their superior financial clout.

That system is all kinds of fubar mind you. Costs should be paid at the conclusion of the case, and entirely by the losing party.

I wish there was some way to ruin HG. Make a deal with microsoft on the sly to fund PGIs defence should HG sue maybe, lol. They would back down from that real fast once they realised what they had bitten on to.

[SmoothCriminal]

Widowmaker1981, on 27 July 2015 - 01:40 AM, said:

Trouble is, it really DOESNT MATTER if HG have grounds to sue or not, to be quite honest they almost certainly do not, but its murky enough that they can bring a case, and just grind PGI down under the weight of their superior financial clout.

That system is all kinds of fubar mind you. Costs should be paid at the conclusion of the case, and entirely by the losing party.

I wish there was some way to ruin HG. Make a deal with microsoft on the sly to fund PGIs defence should HG sue maybe, lol. They would back down from that real fast once they realised what they had bitten on to.

The whole concept is fubar - the issue is most of the cases settled out of court so none of the documents, contracts etc have ever been seen nor any of the IPs tested before court. I think the actual danger of using a reseen design or a different name is low - but there is absolutely no legal certainty as to whether that will stand up in court.

[zagibu]

Personally, I think Iglesias Marauder already looks sufficiently different from the original artwork to win in a court: