1809 replies to this topic

[Pariah Devalis]

W E N D I G O, on 11 August 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:

Actually who with a single spark of intelligence would start a lawsuit with these preconditions? Dunno where this self-righteous claim even comes from but judging from the amount of how often it is re-chanted here, nobody actually does?! Why would oh so greedy HG waste a single dime on a useless lawsuit? To loose money? No reason at all. It's not that they have a history of successful precedents, do they? Lmao, delusions far beyond the state of denial. Carry on.

.
Fact: they do not have the rights because who sold it to them didn't have the rights in the first place.

If they do not own the rights in the first place, they cannot claim their rights are being stepped on.

It's like a house of cards. Why they would continue to try and sue even knowing their rights are highly questionable at this point is beyond my knowledge, and yours. However, given the fact that they don't actually own the rights? That's huge. You cannot actually claim you are protecting your rights if you don't actually have them to begin with.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 11 August 2017 - 06:09 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

not use Derivatives from Objects ,thats all self Derivatives...not paint a Pic with a Smiled Women, thats a Derivativ from the Mona Lisa

[Pariah Devalis]

W E N D I G O, on 11 August 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

Fact: Even if this would be true, it would still be a copyright infringement. Just pointed out by a 3rd party.

Nobody ever said this could only be pointed out by the one owning the copyright. And don't forget that Weisman verdict where he was bound to not allow any reusage of those specific designs or any derivatives. Lol. This is actually so plain obvious maybe I need to have some ugly 80 toy laying around at home to not see this... The only house of cards here is PGI/HBS.

Question: Why didn't PGI/HBS sue HG over this when things are so clear? Yeah, right...

To your last comment, that's simple. Lawsuits can be expensive and time consuming. If HG didn't try and flex its muscle, they likely would have left them alone all the same.

To your first: AFAIK, you cannot initiate a lawsuit for another party. It is up to the rights holders to defend their rights, or not to. They have the right to defend their art, just like they have the right to let other people use it.

Further, Weisman was told not to create derivative works, but not told not to use someone else's work, or even use derived work from other peoples' work, even if that other work was, in and of itself, derivative work of the original material. The BT game is using work based on PGI's art, not HG's. This technically puts him free and clear as he is not deriving work from HG's art. Further, if HG never actually owned the rights to the art in the first place, which is the case as shown by the Japanese courts, that would imply that any legal agreements based off the assumption that HG owned the art is null and void.

That last bit might require a second court case to actually take effect. I am not 100% certain on that. However, the logic follows.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 11 August 2017 - 06:24 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

W E N D I G O, on 11 August 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

Oh and just so I get you right. After those design were locked away for years and got the title unseen suddenly PGI redesigns them, republishs them and sells them this is ok because the people who locked them away are all idiots who never got that HG doesn't have the rights but sues for the debt anyway and got acknowledged at court... wait? What? What exactly has changed since then on the side of law? Your wishful thinking got stronger? Help me out right here, will you?

It was only recently that the Japanese courts decided HG never owned the rights in the first place. Until recently, it was assumed HG did, indeed, hold the rights. This happened back in 2002. There has not been much instance or reason to release "unseen" art between then and now, especially with the reseen art already being in circulation.

Following the Japanese court ruling, and the settlement with prejudice against HG with that whole Hasbro debacle, HG's legal standings are especially shaky now.

[Pariah Devalis]

Your second quote in your edited post doesn't actually matter. Again, they don't own the art, but even if, hypothetically, they did own the art?


HG never came into an agreement with anyone but Jordan and FASA that derivative art cannot be made.

Never.

They never did. They never had the right to. Not under "fair use." You cannot legally block derivative art unless you have a legal hook to do so, such as a claim that you own the art, and someone is directly copying said art illegally, and you can only apply that to those who were blatantly copying in the first . The only case where that crops up in this entire scenario is the FASA crap.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 11 August 2017 - 06:32 AM.

[SMDMadCow]

W E N D I G O, on 11 August 2017 - 05:50 AM, said:

There is a court decision regarding the usage of derivatives of certain designs plus not allowing third parties the usage of derivatives of certain designs for Weisman. If you would have read the documents viewable by public for the case HG vs PGI/Weisman which you discuss here, you'd know that this previous court decision is directly being referred to.

Lol@ "PGI is the party that has demanded a jury trial" - they decide to not settle out of court fits the bill much more appropriately. Maybe playing on time? Who knows. If you had read through their responses you'd know currently they are just waiting it out and did not take any initiative. They just play "dumb".

The Weisman agreement is not a court decision, it's an out of court agreement (which if a judge had seen would have probably tossed). The jury demand is right there in PGIs response to the complaint, are you sure you've read and understand what these documents are saying? I get English is hard for non-native speakers and legalese even more so.

[Pariah Devalis]

SMDMadCow, on 11 August 2017 - 06:32 AM, said:

The Weisman agreement is not a court decision, it's an out of court agreement (which if a judge had seen would have probably tossed). The jury demand is right there in PGIs response to the complaint, are you sure you've read and understand what these documents are saying? I get English is hard for non-native speakers and legalese even more so.

Huh. I always thought it was a court decision. Still, legal contract is legal contract. Unless, of course, the basis of the contract is null and void... which it turns out it is.

[Pariah Devalis]

W E N D I G O, on 11 August 2017 - 06:41 AM, said:

You sat too long at your Clan's campfire. Enjoy the ride.

No offense, I do not care what you think, I care what is fact in this. And although I might lack the language skill and especially the endurance and determination to point out exactly why, I certainly made up my mind about this. By reading into the documents of the case. Which are much more relevant than random opinion posts. In the end it doesn't matter what is written by anyone anyway, we'll all see where this ends, won't we? I guess we can agree on this, and I'll leave it at that.

Why I'm posting here is just because I'm a tiny bit mad PGI just crashes the ride because stupid ignorance. It just got so good with BT in general and then some IS guys "we want our Unseen". Did anyone notice that MKII versions of certain designs where never released despite being in high demand? After the lawsuit was filed that is? It's because PGI is so confident, lmao.

Or they just know what will most likely happen.

So, and let me ask so I am perfectly clear on your source of motivation, you're mad at PGI because HG, a company that legally has no rights to the art, has taken legal action against PGI, which prevents you from seeing and using mechs that, legally, shouldn't be capable of being blocked by HG, because PGI dared to give the players the mechs they wanted and that should have been in the legal green to use.

Is this correct?

Seems to me you are mad at the wrong people.

You might want to reread your signature, and I might want to heed it:
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." - Mark Twain

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 11 August 2017 - 06:53 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Pariah, I think Wendigo is just trolling at this point, so I'd suggest not responding to his posts anymore.

All his posts so far seem geared specifically towards just getting a persons ire up in the hope they'll say something stupid that he can jump on.

W E N D I G O, on 11 August 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

No at PGI because they provoked this lawsuit by violating copyrights, existing court orders and by simply being greedy. Oh thanks for the reminder of my sig, I put it there to don't forget. Apparently I did though, that's why I was still posting with your lot. Fixed.

OMFG, okay, I'm actually going to call you out on this one.

I ask you this...

How can PGI violate HG's copywrights, when they DON'T OWN THE COPYWRIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE~?!

Seriously, look up the Japanese court ruling on the whole Macross license.

The company HG "bought the rights from", didn't have the legal ability to SELL SAID RIGHTS AT ALL~!

Therefore, HG has no copywright that PGI, HBS and CGL can violate~!

Edited by Alan Davion, 11 August 2017 - 07:00 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Alan Davion, on 11 August 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

Pariah, I think Wendigo is just trolling at this point, so I'd suggest not responding to his posts anymore.

All his posts so far seem geared specifically towards just getting a persons ire up in the hope they'll say something stupid that he can jump on.




OMFG, okay, I'm actually going to call you out on this one.

I ask you this...

How can PGI violate HG's copywrights, when they DON'T OWN THE COPYWRIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE~?!

Seriously, look up the Japanese court ruling on the whole Macross license.

The company HG "bought the rights from", didn't have the legal ability to SELL SAID RIGHTS AT ALL~!

Therefore, HG has no copywright that PGI, HBS and CGL can violate~!

Exactly what I have been saying. Either he is trolling, or doesn't understand that without legal ownership of the rights, one cannot claim they own the rights. Let alone defend the rights they don't own.

[SMDMadCow]

W E N D I G O, on 11 August 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

If a lawsuit is settled out of court the agreement is still carried back to court to be acknowledged so the file can be closed.

"Usually, lawsuits end in a settlement, with an empirical analysis finding that less than 2% of cases end with a trial, 90% of torts settle, and around 50% of other civil cases settle.^[4] Generally, when a settlement is reached in the U.S., it will be submitted to the court to be "rolled into a court order". This is done so that the court which was initially assigned the case may retain jurisdiction over it. The court is then free to modify its order as necessary to achieve justice in the case, and a party that breaches the settlement may be held in contempt of court, rather than facing only a civil claim for the breach. A party may request that the case be dismissed with prejudice to ensure that the lawsuit cannot be resubmitted."

https://en.wikipedia...nt_(litigation)

"Generally" does not mean always and the court documents submitted seek to establish the courts jurisdiction. It doesn't seem like this agreement was subjected to a court order seeing as how the complaint omits contempt of court. But, a further review would need to be done, which looks like will happen by jury trial in September.

Said agreement is also sealed, which if filed in open court would be publically accessible and thus not sealed.

Edited by SMDMadCow, 11 August 2017 - 07:12 AM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

ok in this Sense 99% of games Workshop Ideas Derivates ...Necrons from Terminator...Tyranids from Alien Franchise...all others from Tolkien over each manking Epoche and the japanese Mechas ..mechas inspired Star wars AT-ATs and AT-STs , or this ST Objects inspired Mechas??? and each car a Derivat from a other car

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 11 August 2017 - 07:16 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 11 August 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

ok in this Sense 99% of games Workshop Ideas Derivates ...Necrons from Terminator...Tyranids from Alien Franchise...all others from Tolkien over each manking Epoche and the japanese Mechas ..mechas inspired Star wars AT-ATs and AT-STs , or this ST Objects inspired Mechas??? and each car a Derivat from a other car

A page or two back someone posted the court document of some guy suing GW for those exact reasons.

[C E Dwyer]

You an HG employee or something Wendigo, or just bitter over this game ?

[Johnny Z]

IF this is true I hope it gets thrown out or a reasonable agreement can be reached.

[Alan Davion]

Johnny Z, on 11 August 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

IF this is true I hope it gets thrown out or a reasonable agreement can be reached.

See, that's the real kicker. HG isn't reasonable. If they were reasonable, they would have worked with PGI when they started redesigning the classic/unseen mechs. As we all know, HG told PGI everytime they submitted a new design "Not only No but Hell No~!"

Because HG is just a parasitic troll of a company at this point.

If HG had been reasonable and worked with PGI, they wouldn't be able to try and sue them now like they're doing.

[Pariah Devalis]

Alan Davion, on 11 August 2017 - 07:44 AM, said:

See, that's the real kicker. HG isn't reasonable. If they were reasonable, they would have worked with PGI when they started redesigning the classic/unseen mechs. As we all know, HG told PGI everytime they submitted a new design "Not only No but Hell No~!"

Because HG is just a parasitic troll of a company at this point.

If HG had been reasonable and worked with PGI, they wouldn't be able to try and sue them now like they're doing.

One could even credit PGI with having done their due diligence to inform HG. They attempted to work with HG. They contacted them twice. They didn't need to, due to the Japanese ruling, but they did. HG refused to cooperate, and this is what happened.

[Johnny Z]

Alan Davion, on 11 August 2017 - 07:44 AM, said:

See, that's the real kicker. HG isn't reasonable. If they were reasonable, they would have worked with PGI when they started redesigning the classic/unseen mechs. As we all know, HG told PGI everytime they submitted a new design "Not only No but Hell No~!"

Because HG is just a parasitic troll of a company at this point.

If HG had been reasonable and worked with PGI, they wouldn't be able to try and sue them now like they're doing.

Well if it is true then have to assume that who ever looks at the situation is reasonable.

[Alan Davion]

Pariah Devalis, on 11 August 2017 - 07:46 AM, said:

One could even credit PGI with having done their due diligence to inform HG. They attempted to work with HG. They contacted them twice. They didn't need to, due to the Japanese ruling, but they did. HG refused to cooperate, and this is what happened.

That's pretty much the nail on the head.

Chances are that PGI wanted to avoid the situation they're in right now, which is why they tried to get HG's stamp of approval, but HG being the money grubbing parasite of a corporate troll they are, just stamped their feet like a two-year old throwing a tantrum.

PGI at that point pretty much said "Well fine, F*** You Too~!" and both PGI and CGL started releasing their respective versions of the Classic mechs not long after.

And now that HG is suddenly all interested in their art, PGI is going to the next level and hopefully fighting HG over their attempted stranglehold over both Battletech and Macross.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

[Redacted] that Harmony gold owns nothing.

Which, again, completely screws up any legal standing they thought they had.

NOW, I get where he's coming from with the "Well they wouldn't sue if they didn't have rights."

You're right win... except in this case, they only THINK that they have the rights... because this is what they have done for years, is squat on a property they don't ACTUALLY own [to be fair, they DO own Robotech... however given that robotech is derived from Macross, Southern Cross, and Mospeda, any dirrivative works refer to those original japanese works, and NOT Robotech.] and then swing their legal [Redacted] around to smack anyone who even tries this.

If you go back and look at the court information from back in the original 90's suit FASA v Playmates. When Harmony Gold steps in, they tried back then to say that they owned legal rights to "All Bipedal walking war machines."

I think you can figure how fast the judge laughed that out of court.

So, they began litigation, FASA, being a small company without much money, said screw it, and came to an external SEALED agreement with HG over the rights, mostly to be done with the issue at the time.

Fast Forward to the 2012 Hasbro vs Harmony Gold suit, Were HG AGAIN, tried to say they owned the rights to "All bipedal war machines and transforming war machines." And was again, laughed out of court for this notion, with that case being dismissed with prejudice.

So now, we're going for third strike... Harmony Gold already has a hate[Redacted] for Jordan due to the FASA suit in the 90's, And they likely are under the belief that their sealed agreement is still binding [which it likely is not, much like most game/company's EULA's] And they have a hate[Redacted] for Battletech on the whole due to the entire unseen debacle.

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 11 August 2017 - 09:08 PM.
inappropriate language, ad hominem, unconstructive