1809 replies to this topic

[CK16]

Screw it.....can't say I have ever been a fan of the unseens personally but I will always support freedom and the opportunity for them to be added!

Russ and PGI this is the only time you will get this Clansmen support.....do a pack now with the rest of the unseens and roll in the cash...kick HG's arse to the curb!

*edit stupid phone!!!*

Edited by CK16, 24 July 2017 - 10:06 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

MechaBattler, on 24 July 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

Given that HG screwed up PGI/Jordan's chances of making MW5 instead of MWO. It would be sweet revenge to make their hold on the rights all the more shaky by really seeing this through.

Considering Dev blog 1 this is not true.
OK maybe the reason pgi did not found a publisher was because of HG. We might never know.

[Thorn Hallis]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 24 July 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

real Life Megabot marketing Poster -Look very similar to a warhammer

Looks more like this to me:

[Sjorpha]

Everyone is making fun of those locust=marauder images but I think that is just some some kind of messup with the document, all the comparisons referring to MWO are accurately showing the corresponding mechs so I doubt that anyone is actually trying to compare a locust to a Marauder and we are wasting our time making fun of a non-existing thing.

Now as much as I think HG is ridiculous the corresponding unseen in MWO are very similar to the originals, except for the MWO Marauder which is quite different. But the Warhammer, Archer, Rifleman and Phoenix Hawk are really close.

I don't know much about US law, but in Sweden copyright infringement hinges a lot on recognisability and intent, not on minor details like the shape of a leg or whatnot.

The fact is that it is hard for PGI to claim they weren't intending their models to be recognisable as derivative of the original Macross designs when it is exactly the recognisability and resemblance of the originals that sells those mechs to the fanbase. Clearly PGI designed those mechs to be recognisable enough for a nostalgic battletech fan, which means there is in some sense clear intent of infringement provided someone else holds the rights, and with a financial interest on top that makes for a pretty clear case of copyright infringement.

So playing devils advocate, let's say there was no question about HB holding these rights, if I were a judge in Sweden I would be very hard pressed to validate their claim of infringement given the history of these models and the obvious intent on PGI:s part to try and make money off of the nostalgia over these old designs.

Things may be entirely different in the US, such as money deciding who wins etc. which isn't the case here to the same degree, but anyways I'm more hopeful that the Japanese precedent of HB not actually having these right they claim to have undercuts the whole thing, so that PGI and HBS doesn't even have to argue the similarities or derivative nature of the designs at all, because on that particular point I actually think they will probably lose.

Edited by Sjorpha, 24 July 2017 - 10:58 AM.

[Mechwarrior1441491]

It's possible to infringe on the rights of ownership when someone didn't actually own the rights. WHO knew.

You can argue that any humanoid robots/mechs have glaring similarities and you can find enough if you fabricate other details.

Edited by Mechwarrior1441491, 24 July 2017 - 11:22 AM.

[1453 R]

Sjorpha, on 24 July 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Everyone is making fun of those locust=marauder images but I think that is just some some kind of messup with the document, all the comparisons referring to MWO are accurately showing the corresponding mechs so I doubt that anyone is actually trying to compare a locust to a Marauder and we are wasting our time making fun of a non-existing thing.

Now as much as I think HG is ridiculous the corresponding unseen in MWO are very similar to the originals, except for the MWO Marauder which is quite different. But the Warhammer, Archer, Rifleman and Phoenix Hawk are really close.

I don't know much about US law, but in Sweden copyright infringement hinges a lot on recognisability and intent, not on minor details like the shape of a leg or whatnot.

The fact is that it is hard for PGI to claim they weren't intending their models to be recognisable as derivative of the original Macross designs when it is exactly the recognisability and resemblance of the originals that sells those mechs to the fanbase. Clearly PGI designed those mechs to be recognisable enough for a nostalgic battletech fan, which means there is in some sense clear intent of infringement provided someone else holds the rights, and with a financial interest on top that makes for a pretty clear case of copyright infringement.

So playing devils advocate, let's say there was no question about HB holding these rights, if I were a judge in Sweden I would be very hard pressed to validate their claim of infringement given the history of these models and the obvious intent on PGI:s part to try and make money off of the nostalgia over these old designs.

Things may be entirely different in the US, such as money deciding who wins etc. which isn't the case here to the same degree, but anyways I'm more hopeful that the Japanese precedent of HB not actually having these right they claim to have undercuts the whole thing, so that PGI and HBS doesn't even have to argue the similarities or derivative nature of the designs at all, because on that particular point I actually think they will probably lose.

Swedish copyright law seems to be different, as over here it's much easier to argue specifics. If it can be pointed out to a reasonable individual, without undue effort or prior education, what the differences between two things are, then those things are generally considered different. As I recall, at least. We have plenty of near knockoffs over here that apparently wouldn't hold water in Sweden.

The other thing to consider is Harmony Gold's long, storied, and entirely factual and verifiable history of copyright abuse. The American population is slowly, laboriously waking up to just how completely jacked up our copyright laws are and how bad they are for any sort of creative expression - not to mention how badly Big Corporate has distorted and twisted copyright law, to the point of being almost exactly counter to its original intent - so copyright abuse cases are being looked at nice and hard these days. if Harmony Gold continues to come all over litigious any time anyone so much as breathes word of 'robots' within ten miles of Macross...well, ideally it's only a matter of time before some judge decides that their shaky, mostly-illegal original copyright is not and never has been valid and that they need to not only stop being parasites on the underbelly of actual creative companies and efforts, but also that they need to pay reparations for years of damaged earnings that all these other companies HG's lawyers have stepped on have had to eat.

To be honest? HG's caught between a rock and a hard place. Without their mostly-illegal Macross copyright they have no ability to continue existing so they have to defend that copyright with whatever remnants of their army of demon lawyers they have left...but every time they step into the ring on this issue they risk encountering a judge and a jury who finally decides that HG's sued its last suit and it's time to slay this particular whale. Especially with multiple companies stepping up to the plate against them.

We may well be living in the days that see the final death of Harmony Gold. Oh how sweet the thought.

[Dee Eight]

1453 R, on 24 July 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

Recall that in the U.S., a company is often almost forced to pursue any potential copyright case it can if it wishes its copyright to stand. Our copyright laws are so phenomenally ****** up

Along with the US Patent and Trademark laws also being equal piles of manure. A lack of proper funding to hire properly intelligent examiners and agents to investigate patent and trademark applications have resulted in numerous dubious patents and trademarks being granted simply because their fees were paid in full, in advance. Years ago I knew a guy who got valid US patents for what were essentially "the wheel" and "fire" by creatively wording the claims in the application...and of course not referencing any past works. That's one of the things about patents that is the problem also. You're supposed to cite references to other similar inventions that yours is actually an improvement upon, so the examiner can look them up and determine that you are in fact, inventing something NEW. However many companies deliberately avoid doing that, so as to not give the examiner the fuel he needs to burn your application.

Specialized Bicycle company for example... claims among other things, to have invented the mass-production mountain bike (they didn't), claims to have invented inertia-valve shocks (they didn't), and trademarked the word Roubaix (its the name of a french town that's the finish point for a famous road race held every year for the past century or so, except for the absence during a couple little things called world wars). Inertial Valve shocks were actually invented by a guy who unfortunately forgot to specifically mention the word "bicycles" as one of the vehicles for which his invention would be applicable. Specialized in fact, signed an license for his patent to use his invention on rear shocks on their frames...then proceeded to not use that design, and proceeded instead to "invent" a different design, and filed for a patent without mentioning a well known and obvious prior patent...namely the one they'd already licensed.

Specialized then used their new patent to sue other bicycle brands who dared license the originally licensed patent from the original inventor. They also in a similar vein, sued a bicycle and coffee shop...named Café Roubaix... after they got a bicycle related trademark for that word... already internationally known to be associated with bicycles due to famous race, and to restaurants/pubs because of all the ones along the route.

I'll provide the link to a google search that gives lots of articles on the Roubaix trademark fiasco.

https://www.google.c...NMoy_jwTi8bGgCA

[Dee Eight]

This story relates to the HG/HBS/PGI story btw...

http://www.bikeradar...eighs-in-39260/

Just as ASI owns the actual worldwide trademark for Roubaix (as pertains to bicycle products) and licenses it to Specialized... Studio Nue & Bigwest actually hold the copyrights to the artwork, concepts, etc of SDF:Macross and Tatsunoko Productions held the international broadcast and toy merchandising rights for the finished animation product which was then licensed to Harmony Gold.

The CEO of ASI, Patrick Cunnane, meanwhile, spoke to Bicycle Retailer and Industry News and told them that they are “in the process of notifying Specialized that they did not have the authority, as part of our license agreement, to stop Daniel Richter… from using the Roubaix name.”
“While ASI does have the authority to object to Mr Richter’s use of the name and while we at ASI understand the importance of protecting our bicycle model names, we believe that Mr Richter did not intend for consumers to confuse his brick-and-mortar establishment or his wheel line with our Roubaix road bike. And we believe consumers are capable of distinguishing his bike shop and wheel line from our established bikes.”
Read more at http://www.cyclingwe...JlZSPxcMLyVQ.99

Thus.... Studio Nue/BigWest/Tatsunoko need only provide testimony before the judge of "we didn't authorize Harmony Gold to stop others from using our original artwork, as part of their license agreement.".


.
Tatsunoko btw is the animation studio behind what became known in the west as Speed Racer, Battle of the Planets, and the second and third parts of Robotech... the Southern Cross and New Generations chapters of the story.

https://en.wikipedia...noko_Production

Edited by Dee Eight, 24 July 2017 - 12:23 PM.

[fogsworth]

I wonder if Leonard French will cover this...

[Juodas Varnas]

fogsworth, on 24 July 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

I wonder if Leonard French will cover this...

Probably not enough Internet Drama points in it.

[1453 R]

Dee Eight, on 24 July 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

...
I'll provide the link to a google search that gives lots of articles on the Roubaix trademark fiasco.

https://www.google.c...NMoy_jwTi8bGgCA

As I said - Big Corporate mutilating trademark/copyright law to run completely counter to its original intent, which was to protect the rights of small entities or single inventors and allow them to gain the recognition and profit their cleverness deserved.

Truly sad, how often BC has managed to ruin everything for their own narrow, shortsighted gain.

[Alex Morgaine]

They cropped out the Phoenix hawks right arm, they can't win that one of the gun pod is viewable XD

[Lightfoot]

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

blame the lawyers not harmony gold

theyre the ones behind convincing harmony gold to sue even if they have no case

lawyers dont care, they get paid regardless of whether they win or lose

Harmony Gold has a history of lawsuits over Macross/Robotech even though they only hold distribution rights for the old cartoons from a company that didn't create Robotech, Tatsanuko. Tatsanuko only has rights to distribute outside Japan, not content creation. Studio Nue is the creator of Robotech. Harmony Gold just distributes cartoons. So it should be Studio Nue filing a lawsuit, but I don't think they opposed the original deal with FASA. Is HG acting on it's own? Screwing it all up to try to shake a few coins out of it? Just a guess.

[Karl Streiger]

Sjorpha, on 24 July 2017 - 10:58 AM, said:

Everyone is making fun of those locust=marauder images but I think that is just some some kind of messup with the document, all the comparisons referring to MWO are accurately showing the corresponding mechs so I doubt that anyone is actually trying to compare a locust to a Marauder and we are wasting our time making fun of a non-existing thing.

Now as much as I think HG is ridiculous the corresponding unseen in MWO are very similar to the originals, except for the MWO Marauder which is quite different. But the Warhammer, Archer, Rifleman and Phoenix Hawk are really close.

I don't know much about US law, but in Sweden copyright infringement hinges a lot on recognisability and intent, not on minor details like the shape of a leg or whatnot.

The fact is that it is hard for PGI to claim they weren't intending their models to be recognisable as derivative of the original Macross designs when it is exactly the recognisability and resemblance of the originals that sells those mechs to the fanbase. Clearly PGI designed those mechs to be recognisable enough for a nostalgic battletech fan, which means there is in some sense clear intent of infringement provided someone else holds the rights, and with a financial interest on top that makes for a pretty clear case of copyright infringement.

So playing devils advocate, let's say there was no question about HB holding these rights, if I were a judge in Sweden I would be very hard pressed to validate their claim of infringement given the history of these models and the obvious intent on PGI:s part to try and make money off of the nostalgia over these old designs.

Things may be entirely different in the US, such as money deciding who wins etc. which isn't the case here to the same degree, but anyways I'm more hopeful that the Japanese precedent of HB not actually having these right they claim to have undercuts the whole thing, so that PGI and HBS doesn't even have to argue the similarities or derivative nature of the designs at all, because on that particular point I actually think they will probably lose.

Isn't there a time frame? After 30years you can ask some guys and show them a Rifleman - in westen countrys i bet they might say
Roboter, AA Mek, strange cybot, Rifleman... Ehm how is the name for the Macross Design?
Fact is that design was neither made by HG nor comissioned by them.

And heck when i would want to create a AA Mek it would look like a Rifleman, simple because thats the way. Two legs blocky torso and weapon arms.

A anecdote created in month of work a Shrek tank - it didn't look anymore like a BT schreck except of two attributes - however some one posted that it looks like a derivate of a tank of a anime franchise i did not even know

[Sjorpha]

Karl Streiger, on 24 July 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

And heck when i would want to create a AA Mek it would look like a Rifleman, simple because thats the way. Two legs blocky torso and weapon arms.

A anecdote created in month of work a Shrek tank - it didn't look anymore like a BT schreck except of two attributes - however some one posted that it looks like a derivate of a tank of a anime franchise i did not even know

That is where intent comes in, I'm pretty sure it matters legally whether you infringe on a copyright on purpose or if something you make just happens to be similar to something else. In other words, can it be established that your intent was to capitalise on the association with a specific previous work or not?

In PGI:s case the answer is quite clearly yes, it is perfectly evident that their intent when releasing these classic mechs was to capitalise on their association and likeness to the original designs. That I think is undeniable, in fact I doubt PGI would deny it.

There is obviously also the matter of just how similar something is, even with established intent. I honestly have no idea where the lines are drawn or the intricacies of copyright law. My gut feeling tells me that PGIs Marauder would get a pass for how different it is, while the Archer etc would be considerend too similar. But intent matters in most law, such as the difference between murder and manslaughter etc.

Edited by Sjorpha, 24 July 2017 - 01:50 PM.

[L1f3H4ck]

Scout Derek, on 23 July 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

yes, as well as back then dealings with PGI over copyrights for the Unseen mechs, some of which are now in-game after such a long time.





Here's a page from the document of them trying to claim copyright over generic features;




Like, I think HG just has a mental issue that their IP is failing whilst ours grows in interest for many years.

Wait whut? Is this legit, cuz it does not make any sense. Do they not know their own properties? The Locust is from Crusher Joe, the Shadowhawk from Dougram. The Atlas was never unseen at all. Were they unable to find HBS/PGI versions of the Marauder and Archer? And yes, the current version of the Archer still looks a lot like the Spartan, so why do they claim it looks like a Shadowhawk? And since when does an Atlas look like an Armored Valkyrie? Not even the Valkyrie looks like an Armored Valkyrie. It's a Crusader! Again, are these images really what they're using?

[1453 R]

Sjorpha, on 24 July 2017 - 01:48 PM, said:

That is where intent comes in, I'm pretty sure it matters legally whether you infringe on a copyright on purpose or if something you make just happens to be similar to something else. In other words, can it be established that your intent was to capitalise on the association with a specific previous work or not?

In PGI:s case the answer is quite clearly yes, it is perfectly evident that their intent when releasing these classic mechs was to capitalise on their association and likeness to the original designs. That I think is undeniable, in fact I doubt PGI would deny it.

There is obviously also the matter of just how similar something is, even with established intent. I honestly have no idea where the lines are drawn or the intricacies of copyright law. My gut feeling tells me that PGIs Marauder would get a pass for how different it is, while the Archer etc would be considerend too similar. But intent matters in most law, such as the difference between murder and manslaughter etc.

Ahhh, but here you're wrong.

The intent was not to cash in on HG's copyright, but to create new art for existing BattleTech assets which have, for some reason, gone without a legal depiction for far too long. And any lawyer worth his salt can argue that case in circles all damn day. 'Intent' is very difficult to definitively prove, and both Piranha and Catalyst are on record, I do believe, as being "behind their new designs for these venerable machines 100%".

Harebrained is using Piranha's designs - they're not in creative control of the designs and so would not be answering a suit, at least not by themselves. Piranha will get involved at some point here, which makes two companies. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Jordan Weissman has enough pull left to get Catalyst to weigh in as well. That's three. The new designs are exactly that - new designs. Are they meant to evoke the spirit of the original artwork? Of course.

But here's the thing - the original artwork is the only thing HG has any claim on. They don't have claim on reduxes of it. They don't have any claim over the stats, the history, the fictional existence of these 'Mechs - they never have. Unseen are Unseen, not Black Voids. They've been legal for forever; all Catalyst and Piranha both did was assign new art to existing bits of the BattleTech lore.

Harmony Gold isn't allowed to block new art assets being assigned to existing content. This is not a "they shouldn't be" thing - they are explicitly not allowed to do that because we got the original set of Reseens back in the day. I don't recall if they fought the original Reseens or not; I believe they did but they also lost.

This is the same thing. Could someone put an old ****** forty-year picture from a TRO of a Phoenix Hawk next to a Piranha Newseen Pixhawk and convince a rube they're depicting the same thing? Yeah, sure. Could someone put a picture of a Veritech fighter - same quality, same level of modernity, same level of attention to detail that was sunk into Piranha's Pixhawk, not just a five-minute napkin sketch that could be damn near anything a'la the old TRO art - next to a Piranha Pixhawk and convince a rube they're both supposed to be the same thing.

I'm willing to bet a good lawyer could no-sell that in a pretty stiff hurry.

[1453 R]

TheB33p, on 24 July 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

Wait whut? Is this legit, cuz it does not make any sense. Do they not know their own properties? The Locust is from Crusher Joe, the Shadowhawk from Dougram. The Atlas was never unseen at all. Were they unable to find HBS/PGI versions of the Marauder and Archer? And yes, the current version of the Archer still looks a lot like the Spartan, so why do they claim it looks like a Shadowhawk? And since when does an Atlas look like an Armored Valkyrie? Not even the Valkyrie looks like an Armored Valkyrie. It's a Crusader! Again, are these images really what they're using?

The intent looks to be less a direct continuation of the Unseen crusade and more a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and try to convince judges that any humanoid robot of a more-utilitarian-than-Gundam look is an infringement on their copyright copyrights. After all, if they can convince a judge and establish a legal precedent for an Atlas infringing on the Armored Valkyrie, or the Shadow Hawk infringing on the Destroid Spartan, or...well, any humanoid robot that looks more like a military machine than a giant metal samurai infringing on Macross, why, then their copyrights are suddenly much more stable and powerful! They get back a lot of their old draconian legal power and stuff starts coming up HG!

Blech.

That and Harmony Gold hates BattleTech with every fiber of their being because our stuff never died the way theirs did, and now we're seeing a resurgence of interest and Cool Stuff. I do not doubt at all that HG sues anyone working with BattleTech just because their cold, blackened little hearts demand it.

Edited by 1453 R, 24 July 2017 - 03:12 PM.

[Dee Eight]

Lightfoot, on 24 July 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

Harmony Gold has a history of lawsuits over Macross/Robotech even though they only hold distribution rights for the old cartoons from a company that didn't create Robotech, Tatsanuko. Tatsanuko only has rights to distribute outside Japan, not content creation. Studio Nue is the creator of Robotech. Harmony Gold just distributes cartoons. So it should be Studio Nue filing a lawsuit, but I don't think they opposed the original deal with FASA. Is HG acting on it's own? Screwing it all up to try to shake a few coins out of it? Just a guess.

Wrong...close but wrong. Tats was an animation studio that produced two seperate series themselves, which became the second and third chapters of the Robotech series, but they only assisted in the production of Macross. Macross is officially a co-owned property of Studio Nue and Big West

Harmony Gold, besides acquiring foreign licenses to existing works... also has produced westernized variations of them... Robotech was only one of such creations by them. The problem here becomes... that Harmony acquired the film re-broadcast rights... and Revell models bought the toy rights (which they then used as part of their Robotech defenders line of model kits...which actually wasn't related to HG's Robotech series other than sharing the logo and moniker).

https://en.wikipedia...otech_Defenders

https://www.google.c...iw=1908&bih=935

Many of the "unseen / reseen" mechs, actually came from the Fang of the Sun Dougram anime series. The Battlemaster, Griffin, Wolverine, Shadow Hawk, Goliath, Scorpion, and Thunderbolt.

Edited by Dee Eight, 24 July 2017 - 04:06 PM.

[Jingseng]

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

blame the lawyers not harmony gold

theyre the ones behind convincing harmony gold to sue even if they have no case

lawyers dont care, they get paid regardless of whether they win or lose

LOL

Yes, blame the hammer, not the carpenter. The hammer is telling the carpenter to swing.

In any case, this may explain the extension of the heroes sale, the civil war hero's chosen, reintroduction of prem time, and the recent spate of sales/mc sales.

It may not be that they NEED money, but if you're going into battle, having a bigger resource pile to draw on is certainly advantageous.