1809 replies to this topic

[RestosIII]

I hope this actually goes to trial so Harmony Gold can finally get told to stop messing around and threatening everyone.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

Might be repeating what other people said, but here's a a comment from youtube, some may find it informative:

Quote

Harmony Gold owns the footage of the original show, and they own the character names that they created, but the actual character and mech designs are out of their hands. They can't make derivative work based on any of those old designs. That's why Shadow Chronicles was almost all Mospeada crap. And this is what makes their hoarding of the original show so aggravating. They can't actually use that stuff in new media, but they hoard it so that their precious saga is complete. And they won't let anyone else take a crack at it.

[Dee Eight]

Zergling, on 23 July 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

F-14, but yeah... the VF-1 Valkyrie's aircraft form was heavily inspired by the real life F-14.

And in fact...Macross Zero... the prequel series...the VF-0 looks even more like an F-14.


corrected the link...

Edited by Dee Eight, 24 July 2017 - 12:04 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Scout Derek, on 23 July 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

like I said; mental issues is their problem to be honest.

more a dusty wallet syndrome I guess.

[kesmai]

Maybe my eyesight is a bit bad today, but it looks like the harmony gold images have a striking resemblance (if they are not copypasta) from the images fasa used in the sourcebooks.
So are they really trying to file a copyright lawsuit with imagery not owned by them?

[Lily from animove]

The Hellbringer and rifleman are the only borderline ones that you MAY see similar, but not even more similar than various smartphones. the rest isn't even close.

[Karl Streiger]

I will hardly spend any money in MWO anymore - but surely when PGI introduce a lawsuite cockpit item to break the neck of those company once and for all I will gladly spend this money.

Its important that there is a court decision - consider you want to bring your own business and you pay money for artists to paint some tanks and mechs - and you get somehow successful not enough to get rich but enough to work on.

But hey suddenly HG or a derivate of this behaviour pops up and say you don't have the rights?

Sure because the artists you have payed might have draw something that might remember somehow on a Macross Robo Warrior - for example it got 2 arms and 2 legs - as a small company you don't stand a chance....

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 July 2017 - 12:28 AM.

[Lupis Volk]

Karl Streiger, on 24 July 2017 - 12:24 AM, said:

I will hardly spend any money in MWO anymore - but surely when PGI introduce a lawsuite cockpit item to break the neck of those company once and for all I will gladly spend this money.

I think they'd make more cash from releasing a big ol' FU mech pack.

Still i hope this doesn't interfere with HBS's BT. i'm waiting for that one to launch.

[meteorol]

As someone who worked his *ss off to pass two law degrees with honors, i'd like to emphasize this:

TiguriusX, on 23 July 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

I understand this is a sensitive topic for us gamers but there is a ton of BS flying around in here just adding noise to the topic.

If you aren't familiar with the law try to control your suggestions.

Even i won't speculate on things here (honestly i just skipped through the topic, gaming forums are not the place to have law related discussions) because i'm not familiar with this very specific field of law (i'm mainly focused on corporate law). So do yourself, and everyone else a favor, don't speculate on things you don't understand. You wouldn't speculate on a buildings static calculations without being very familiar with the topic, would you?

So, if everyone could keep to only make assertions on things he actually understands, we wouldn't have to read posts like this one:

JC Daxion, on 23 July 2017 - 01:39 PM, said:

NO that is true... that is a big part of why there are copywrite lawsuits in the first place... My guess is the law is like that so lawyers get paid.

It struck my eye while skipping through the topic... let's just say it doesn't really make you look like a genius to someone who actually studied law.

[Kin3ticX]

meteorol, on 24 July 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

As someone who worked his *ss off to pass two law degrees with honors, i'd like to emphasize this:



Even i won't speculate on things here (honestly i just skipped through the topic, gaming forums are not the place to have law related discussions) because i'm not familiar with this very specific field of law (i'm mainly focused on corporate law). So do yourself, and everyone else a favor, don't speculate on things you don't understand. You wouldn't speculate on a buildings static calculations without being very familiar with the topic, would you?

So, if everyone could keep to only make assertions on things he actually understands, we wouldn't have to read posts like this one:



It struck my eye while skipping through the topic... let's just say it doesn't really make you look like a genius to someone who actually studied law.

Then you must know of a certain Shakespeare quote that was also referenced in TNG Encounter at Farpoint

Edited by Kin3ticX, 24 July 2017 - 01:03 AM.

[RedDragon]

On the other hand, now, after so many years of coping with PGI's f*ck-ups, I would find it totally believable that they just went "Oh, we need more money, let's do the Unseen! If it comes to any law suits ... well, that's not our problem today!". And then they told Weisman and HBS "Yeah, totally no problem with the Unseen, we have all the rights and stuff! Want to buy some mech packs models?"

I want to see HG go down as anyone else here, but I wouldn't be surprised the least if PGI just again botched it and just tried to get away with using the Unseen without a contigency plan. That would be so PGI.

[ice trey]

Honestly I wish they'd just work out some kind of royalties agreement or something so that we can go on with our lives.

Besides, god knows that the only reason the Robotech kickstarter did well is because people were buying unseen for their battletech games.

[JC Daxion]

TiguriusX, on 23 July 2017 - 02:52 PM, said:

Please don't rely on what you think you heard about Ice Ice Baby and Queen.

He settled (i.e., lost) and paid an undisclosed sum and gave Queen/Bowie song credits on the song

http://www.rollingst...e-1990-20160608

Settling is not a loss.. Having dealt with many legal issues in my life...


Do you spend the next 10 years and millions of dollars to say you are innocent and win, Or do you settle? I guess it depends on your perception and the event if you think settle is a loss, Or just a way to end it.


if you spend 10 years and 10 million dollars just to say I won, Did you really? Though you do have to wonder about folks that settle for known amounts in the 20-30-40m range.. To me that leans more towards guilt..

Edited by JC Daxion, 24 July 2017 - 02:49 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

That like the First Judment Fail ...FASA against Playmates (in team with Harmony Gold ) for using Designs fto
near by Madcat and Co from Fasa

like this Mech



...FASA has loose ..The Judge seeing not more nearest as by other Technical Designs ...Playmates won and go bankrupt ,and after personell Writings with HG ,Fasa not more use the Unseens

http://robotech.live...l.com/9102.html
http://caselaw.findl...it/1316704.html
http://law.justia.co...2/1124/1985750/

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 24 July 2017 - 02:23 AM.

[JC Daxion]

meteorol, on 24 July 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

It struck my eye while skipping through the topic... let's just say it doesn't really make you look like a genius to someone who actually studied law.

]Thanks, you can have an opinion.. But my whole point if you actually read what i wrote, was If you Do Nothing to protect your property, you can loose it all.

=So i create something, and someone uses part of it, and i don't go after them, and suddenly i have no more rights? I realize it is a bit deeper, And i've actually had friends that have had issues with this in the past, as they own copy writes on some designs.

Edited by JC Daxion, 24 July 2017 - 02:58 AM.

[Chados]

Having read the complaint and answers, it looks to me like PGI and HGS/Weisman are defending, at least in part, on the basis that HG's copyright claims are based on designs they don't own-the claim based on the litigation in the Japanese courts that Dee Eight referenced. That would indicate that they released the Unseen in 2015-16 fully expecting HG to try them. The design of the original four Unseen is recognizably derived from the Macross mechs, and FASA, i.e. Weisman, at one point had a license from the original Japanese creator which was awarded the rights in the Japanese litigation. Since HGS is licensing mecha from PGI, and not deriving them themselves, it to some extent could be argued to insulate Weisman from violating the 1996 settlement. And I'm sure that Weisman is tired of having his hands tied by HG.

To some extent, PGI and HGS/Weisman appear to be coordinating their litigation strategy. There is a lot of potential profit in the Unseen, and a number of original Unseen such as the Longbow, Wasp, and Stinger have not been released. If they prevail, they'll possibly obtain their litigation costs from HGS and certainly be able to bring out more Unseen, which are demonstrated to sell in greater numbers than PGI original designs such as the Roughneck or even some of the later mecha from the MW games. HG will fight that as hard as they possibly can, because once that door is open, HG's control of the Macross franchise outside Japan won't much matter. The only later mecha that approach the popularity of the Unseen are the Uziel, Mad Cat Mark II, Bushwacker, and the Clan mechs from the first through third waves. To keep making and selling mech packs in large numbers...and for HGS to make a good 3025 era game...not to mention PGI's MW5, which is set in 3015 and is thus the 800-pound elephant in PGI's living room...they need unimpeded access to Third Succession War mecha and HG will never allow it or license it unless a court orders it.

In other news, the docket entries indicate that Catalyst Labs is subject to a default judgment-HG won with respect to them because CGL failed to answer the complaint.

[meteorol]

JC Daxion, on 24 July 2017 - 02:31 AM, said:

Thanks, you can have an opinion.. But my whole point if you actually read what i wrote, was If you Do Nothing to protect your property, you can loose it all.

So i create something, and someone uses part of it, and i don't go after them, and suddenly i have no more rights? I realize it is a bit deeper, And i've actually had friends that have had issues with this in the past, as they own copy writes on some designs.

Yes.

Losing rights to inaction or prescription is a very common concept to legislation all around the world. It's done to keep the jurisdiction working and to protect the sued party.

Firstly, judging a law cases gets harder as further things are in the past. Witnesses don't remember things that happened 25 years ago, documents disappear and so on.

More importantly though, everyone needs certainty not to get sued over something after a certain period of time. Easy example:

Imagine you rent a flat. After 5 years you abrogate the contract and move to another city. You live there for 25 years, without ever hearing something from the person you rented from again. All of a sudden you have a letter in your mailbox, he is suing you for 30.000 $ because you allegedly damaged the flat you rented 25 years ago. You have x weeks to respond to court, with a letter written by an attorney, or you will automatically lose the case. Would you like that? Certainly not.

At some point, every legal system needs legal certainty. Losing rights to inaction or prescription provides this certainty. It's a concept represented in pretty much every field of law of most countries. What changes is the period of time you can do nothing without losing your rights. In my country, it is as short as 6 months for some areas.

As you can see, the whole concept has absolutely nothing to do with the law being this way so that "lawyers get payed", which was your guess.

All i'm asking you, and others, is to not make guesses over something you have absolutely no idea about.

Edited by meteorol, 24 July 2017 - 02:58 AM.

[Lightfoot]

Harmony Gold only holds the North American rights to distribute the Macross cartoons. Studio Nue holds the Macross copyrights. Besides, MWO's unseens are different from the originals. You can't hold the rights to all walking robot variations. Harmony Gold's rights come from Tatsunuko Corp., but Tatsunuko only has the right to sell distribution rights of Robotech/Macross cartoons outside Japan.

Somehow HG are counted as co-copyright holders of Macross, but they created nothing and have no 'work for hire statement**' from Studio Nue so I don't think that is possible. Re-packaging content is not content creation. If anything their copyright is for how the content is published, but not the content itself. You only get copyrights for original works and that would be Studio Nue.



** A 'work for hire statement' transfers 'all creation rights' to copyright from the actual creator to a third party.

Edited by Lightfoot, 24 July 2017 - 04:24 AM.

[Chados]

Chados, on 24 July 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

What I found interesting is the third link that OldMW4Ranger posted. It's the FASA v. Playmates case in the federal trial court, the one FASA lost when Harmony Gold and Playmates allegedly copied the Timberwolf and some of the other Clan Wave 1 mecha. If you read the judge's decision you see him call out narrow differences in design that differentiate the TBR from Playmates' copy. If you look at the MWO Marauder and compare it to the Macross Glaug pod and original MAD-3R from the 1980s, you see the same sort of differences. I'd bet cash that PGI ran Alex's concept art for the Marauder through an IP lawyer referring to the Playmates litigation before they released it in 2015. The Rifleman and Phoenix Hawk aren't as well defined, but they too have differences like the Marauder does. The Warhammer is as well defined as the Marauder is. HG is going to have a hard time attacking PGI on the MAD and WHM if the trial judge refers to the Playmates case as persuasive authority, in my admittedly uninformed opinion.

What I found interesting is the third link that OldMW4Ranger posted. It's the FASA v. Playmates case in the federal trial court, the one FASA lost when Harmony Gold and Playmates allegedly copied the Timberwolf and some of the other Clan Wave 1 mecha. If you read the judge's decision you see him call out narrow differences in design that differentiate the TBR from Playmates' copy. If you look at the MWO Marauder and compare it to the Macross Glaug pod and original MAD-3R from the 1980s, you see the same sort of differences. I'd bet cash that PGI ran Alex's concept art for the Marauder through an IP lawyer referring to the Playmates litigation before they released it in 2015. The Rifleman and Phoenix Hawk aren't as well defined, but they too have differences like the Marauder does. The Warhammer is as well defined as the Marauder is. HG is going to have a hard time attacking PGI on the MAD and WHM if the trial judge refers to the Playmates case as persuasive authority, in my admittedly uninformed opinion.

Edit: I note that the Playmates "E-frame" looks as much like a Timberwolf as our Marauder looks like the 1980s art. And FASA still lost. That tells me HG isn't going to take this in straight sets. Look for settlement negotiations to begin soon.

Edited by Chados, 24 July 2017 - 04:02 AM.

[JC Daxion]

meteorol, on 24 July 2017 - 02:56 AM, said:

As you can see, the whole concept has absolutely nothing to do with the law being this way so that "lawyers get payed", which was your guess.

All i'm asking you, and others, is to not make guesses over something you have absolutely no idea about.

I'll just end this right now, because it really went over your head..


"My guess, so lawyers get paid," was a joke.


But as someone that has actually created things in my life.. To think that i could loose my rights due to inaction is utter BS. If i am the owner, i should be able to choose.. Shouldn't that be my right as the owner? I guess i'll need to go pay someone to even find that out ehh?

Edited by JC Daxion, 24 July 2017 - 03:21 AM.