1809 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

Adridos, on 12 June 2018 - 03:41 AM, said:

[Redacted]

[Redacted] Copyright notices are the way companies use to identify who owns what and breaks down how the product came to be on the product itself. It is a legal document that can be entered into a court of law. It's obvious that you are ignorant of what copyright law says much less what the Berne Convention stipulates. The Berne Convention controls which copyright law is used where. In this case, Japanese copyright law takes precedence due to Big West not Discord Pyrite owning the art. Both Japan and the US are signatories to that treaty.

So you are now ignored by me. You will not get a further reply as I tire of your [Redacted]. As Sereg said this thread is for civil discourse to discuss the case. It is not for your flights of fancy and how you wish the world was.

The copyright notice shows that Studio Nue and Nippan Sunrise licensed the rights to Dougram and Crusher Joe. It has nothing regarding Macross. It also shows that Tatsunoko doesn't have any copyrights and wasn't involved in the license to produce the miniatures exclusively for TCI. As such, my statement is legally correct. TCI got their license from Nippan and Studio Nue.

Now we're done.

Edited by draiocht, 18 June 2018 - 11:47 AM.
Quote Clean-Up, references, unconstructive

[Sereglach]

Adridos, on 12 June 2018 - 12:56 AM, said:

*snip*

Civil Discourse. You're failing to achieve it. Please make an effort to change the attitude.

Regardless, besides the fact that James the Fox Dixon utterly nails all of the legal matters on the head, you've still failed to actually put together any evidence to support your points.

As for your claims that HG targeted the VMI artwork, you said as much when you stated that the Incubus is Macross artwork on page 80, here, which is false. The VMI artwork is legally unique artwork created by VMI for FASA.

Adridos, on 08 June 2018 - 09:43 PM, said:

The original Incubus artwork is a clear copy of contemporary DYRL and Macross II designs. It is absolutely not legally sound in any way, shape or form. The saving grace is that while it's not really legal, it's also absolutely detached from Robotech/HG as they don't even pretend to have rights to DYRL or Macross II.

Then you follow up by stating that HG sent a C&D letter to FASA, over said designs, on page 81, here, which is also false:

Adridos, on 09 June 2018 - 10:53 AM, said:

The game had production concept art. FASA made use of that concept art. Incubus was the unused concept art for the Phoenix Hawk.

"A few months later"

Mechwarrior 1 for PC-98 is the newest of these games. The game re-uses the same mech designs from the X68k version from July 1992.
You're looking at 2-3 years between the creation of the mech designs and the first notion of a lawsuit.

That's nice and all, but it changes nothing about the lawsuits not starting until years later.
Harmony Gold also sent a C&D to FASA regarding the use of Macross designs all the way back in 1985. FASA never really cared.

Therefore, yes, you're claiming that HG sent C&D letters over VMI designs that they never had legal rights to send a C&D, or any other form of legal attack, over. However, the reality is that the VMI designs were never involved in any sort of legal issue. FASA declared the VMI designs unseen only because they weren't made "in house". The mech designs in the games that HG sent C&D over were the original classics that were licensed from TCI, not the designs that VMI made for FASA. Now, if that wasn't your intent, then you need to be more clear on the concise points you're debating and not make such broad and sweeping statements that cover many facets of an issue.

In addition, new Macross material isn't a new deal between Big West/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko. That's continued collaboration, however apprehensively, over a deal that's been in standing since it was originally made. The original deal between the companies stated that Tatsunoko would be the distributor over the Macross IP since it's inception. However, there have been no NEW deals between Big West/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko. The only thing they're working together on is the Macross IP; and the only reason they're still working together on that is because the Japanese courts filtered through who owns the rights to what and that they have to play nice with each other over this IP. Otherwise the IP will die, because the rights would be split and the companies involved won't be willing to work together for the sake of the IP. Apparently they're willing to suffer each other's company for the sake of the IP and making money. However, I don't see them making new deals over new material.

As to HG renewing their Macross license in 2012, it's worth noting that their only ally at Tatsunoko, the executive cutting the deals on the licensing, retired shortly after that agreement. On top of that, the bad blood between the Tatsunoko and HG started shortly after that time. That's one reason that Tatsunoko first went after HG over HG taking their license too far. Conveniently, when that was settled it set in stone the facets that have allowed PGI to legally trounce HG for suing over character rights they don't actually possess. Leonard French did an excellent job of summing up this falling out between the companies and all the other legal issues, here with the long version here. Therefore, I request again, with all of the bad blood between the companies where do you get the indication there will be any further license renewals?

Now, I'll say it again. The reason I keep correcting you is because you keep spreading supposition rather than any sort of facts regarding the case. You can have your fantasy beliefs set in stone all you'd like, but the reality of the matter is far different. Also, I never said I'm not going to talk to you any more . . . in fact I stated I'd keep correcting you.

If you want the conversation to end, then stop posting false information on the matter and just wait for more information to come out about the court case at hand.

Edited by Sereglach, 12 June 2018 - 08:39 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Sereglach, on 12 June 2018 - 08:32 AM, said:

Civil Discourse. You're failing to achieve it. Please make an effort to change the attitude.

Regardless, besides the fact that James the Fox Dixon utterly nails all of the legal matters on the head, you've still failed to actually put together any evidence to support your points.

As for your claims that HG targeted the VMI artwork, you said as much when you stated that the Incubus is Macross artwork on page 80, here, which is false. The VMI artwork is legally unique artwork created by VMI for FASA.

Then you follow up by stating that HG sent a C&D letter to FASA, over said designs, on page 81, here, which is also false:

Therefore, yes, you're claiming that HG sent C&D letters over VMI designs that they never had legal rights to send a C&D, or any other form of legal attack, over. However, the reality is that the VMI designs were never involved in any sort of legal issue. FASA declared the VMI designs unseen only because they weren't made "in house". The mech designs in the games that HG sent C&D over were the original classics that were licensed from TCI, not the designs that VMI made for FASA. Now, if that wasn't your intent, then you need to be more clear on the concise points you're debating and not make such broad and sweeping statements that cover many facets of an issue.

In addition, new Macross material isn't a new deal between Big West/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko. That's continued collaboration, however apprehensively, over a deal that's been in standing since it was originally made. The original deal between the companies stated that Tatsunoko would be the distributor over the Macross IP since it's inception. However, there have been no NEW deals between Big West/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko. The only thing they're working together on is the Macross IP; and the only reason they're still working together on that is because the Japanese courts filtered through who owns the rights to what and that they have to play nice with each other over this IP. Otherwise the IP will die, because the rights would be split and the companies involved won't be willing to work together for the sake of the IP. Apparently they're willing to suffer each other's company for the sake of the IP and making money. However, I don't see them making new deals over new material.

As to HG renewing their Macross license in 2012, it's worth noting that their only ally at Tatsunoko, the executive cutting the deals on the licensing, retired shortly after that agreement. On top of that, the bad blood between the Tatsunoko and HG started shortly after that time. That's one reason that Tatsunoko first went after HG over HG taking their license too far. Conveniently, when that was settled it set in stone the facets that have allowed PGI to legally trounce HG for suing over character rights they don't actually possess. Leonard French did an excellent job of summing up this falling out between the companies and all the other legal issues, here with the long version here. Therefore, I request again, with all of the bad blood between the companies where do you get the indication there will be any further license renewals?

Now, I'll say it again. The reason I keep correcting you is because you keep spreading supposition rather than any sort of facts regarding the case. You can have your fantasy beliefs set in stone all you'd like, but the reality of the matter is far different. Also, I never said I'm not going to talk to you any more . . . in fact I stated I'd keep correcting you.

If you want the conversation to end, then stop posting false information on the matter and just wait for more information to come out about the court case at hand.

Actually, Tatsunoko has no dealings with later Macross series. Big West/Studio Nue refuse to work with them.

[James The Fox Dixon]

To check Adridos's claims about the Incubus being a copy of the Valkyries in Do You Remember Love and Macross II all you have to do is see their art here.

It'll convince you that the Incubus is not a copy of anything, but it's own work. For reference here is the original Incubus.

[Revenant Kitsune]

Only mechs in game right now that really look similar are the Archer and Rifleman honestly. Marauder was changed extensively and more detail has been added to the Rifleman and Archer but I don't know if it is enough to count legally.

[Sereglach]

Revenant Kitsune, on 12 June 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

Only mechs in game right now that really look similar are the Archer and Rifleman honestly. Marauder was changed extensively and more detail has been added to the Rifleman and Archer but I don't know if it is enough to count legally.

More than enough difference to count, legally. My wife has done art for corporate work before; and the rule of thumb was "3 core differences that are not able to be trademarked or copyrighted" normally that's in things like shape and aesthetics, and not color, but color does come into play for certain things like trademarked logos where the color matters (Coca-Cola's distinct red logo, for example). For the sake of what we're looking at between Robotech and Battletech, color is not a factor because it's not a trademarked or copyrighted facet of any material. Therefore, you need to look at the physical properties of the characters in question.

The Archer for MWO has different weapon, cockpit, and shape lines vs. the Macross design . . . just to start. Get into the more precise details and the differences become even more stark. The Rifleman is much the same as the Archer comparison. For the Rifleman, the new version has distinctly different weapons, an overhauled cockpit, and very different aesthetic details. HG basically shoots themselves in the foot, with this lawsuit, when they tried declaring the MWO works as outright copies of the Macross animated designs. Their case would have never survived a courtroom, which is why they filed 2 amended complaints and -as PGI pointed out- were trying to truss up their argument to really stretch the limits of anything enforceable.

That's not even getting into one important facet that Mechwarrior/Battletech has that Robotech does not have . . . dynamic weapon appearances. Just the variants alone have a huge factor, let alone the fact that they can then be altered by the player in any number of different configurations, which all have an effect on the appearance. Just going into a courtroom alone, showing one slide of the static and unchanging Robotech destriods while showing a litany of variants and customization options for the MWO mechs decimates any argument that HG would have over MWO redesigned classics being "copies" of the original unseen.

While this would have originally required going into a courtroom to fight over, and have PGI prove the differences, having the situation come to light where HG has NEVER had the rights to the characters in the first place managed to side-step all of this potential courtroom debate.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Sereglach, on 12 June 2018 - 12:44 PM, said:

More than enough difference to count, legally. My wife has done art for corporate work before; and the rule of thumb was "3 core differences that are not able to be trademarked or copyrighted" normally that's in things like shape and aesthetics, and not color, but color does come into play for certain things like trademarked logos where the color matters (Coca-Cola's distinct red logo, for example). For the sake of what we're looking at between Robotech and Battletech, color is not a factor because it's not a trademarked or copyrighted facet of any material. Therefore, you need to look at the physical properties of the characters in question.

The Archer for MWO has different weapon, cockpit, and shape lines vs. the Macross design . . . just to start. Get into the more precise details and the differences become even more stark. The Rifleman is much the same as the Archer comparison. For the Rifleman, the new version has distinctly different weapons, an overhauled cockpit, and very different aesthetic details. HG basically shoots themselves in the foot, with this lawsuit, when they tried declaring the MWO works as outright copies of the Macross animated designs. Their case would have never survived a courtroom, which is why they filed 2 amended complaints and -as PGI pointed out- were trying to truss up their argument to really stretch the limits of anything enforceable.

That's not even getting into one important facet that Mechwarrior/Battletech has that Robotech does not have . . . dynamic weapon appearances. Just the variants alone have a huge factor, let alone the fact that they can then be altered by the player in any number of different configurations, which all have an effect on the appearance. Just going into a courtroom alone, showing one slide of the static and unchanging Robotech destriods while showing a litany of variants and customization options for the MWO mechs decimates any argument that HG would have over MWO redesigned classics being "copies" of the original unseen.

While this would have originally required going into a courtroom to fight over, and have PGI prove the differences, having the situation come to light where HG has NEVER had the rights to the characters in the first place managed to side-step all of this potential courtroom debate.

It's hard to get people not conversant with the law to understand what the law looks at in regards to visual copyright. It's easier to show with writing, sculpture, and other mediums. They also do not understand the concept of scenes a faire which says that certain things share a common design element and cannot be copyrighted. For example with bipedal mechs, they all have 1 head, 1 torso, 2 arms, 2 legs, and 2 feet. Those objects can never be copyrighted. So to determine what is copyrighted is to look at each individual component of the scenes a faire to see if they are similar and/or sharing a certain drawn element that is identical to other art of the same type. The example of the Incubus and the VF designs from Macross shows that the Incubus lacks one feature that the VF designs have... wings. The lack of wings in the design contributes 10% of the total required 30% to be new artwork under copyright law.

Under scenes a faire, to be considered copyrightable the common parts must be drawn in a unique way. The core components of the Incubus and the Reseen are significantly different that they are classified as new art that isn't derivative. A good example of seeing derivative art of mechs is to look at the Macross variations for all of the VF fighters. You can readily tell that the VF19 is a derivative of the VF-1. The VF-0's are derivative of the VF-1. Even the VF-1 is a derivative of the F14 and it's squadron art of the skull and crossbones belongs to US Navy Strike Fighter Squadron 103 (VFA-103). In both cases, the design of the art belongs to the American people and not to an individual company. This is why Studio Nue was able to get away with using the F-14 and VFA-103 base designs.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 12 June 2018 - 04:56 PM.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

The thing I love about these threads is they always remind me that we have TONS of IP attorneys that play Mechwarrior Online!

[James The Fox Dixon]

Here is one of the very first Big, Stompy Robots created in literature. It comes from HG Wells' War of the Worlds published in 1898. Here is a sample from Chapter 10.

Quote

And this Thing I saw! How can I describe it? A monstrous tripod, higher than many houses, striding over the young pine trees, and smashing them aside in its career; a walking engine of glittering metal, striding now across the heather; articulate ropes of steel dangling from it, and the clattering tumult of its passage mingling with the riot of the thunder. A flash, and it came out vividly, heeling over one way with two feet in the air, to vanish and reappear almost instantly as it seemed, with the next flash, a hundred yards nearer. Can you imagine a milking stool tilted and bowled violently along the ground? That was the impression those instant flashes gave. But instead of a milking stool imagine it a great body of machinery on a tripod stand... Seen nearer, the Thing was incredibly strange, for it was no mere insensate machine driving on its way. Machine it was, with a ringing metallic pace, and long, flexible, glittering tentacles (one of which gripped a young pine tree) swinging and rattling about its strange body. It picked its road as it went striding along, and the brazen hood that surmounted it moved to and fro with the inevitable suggestion of a head looking about. Behind the main body was a huge mass of white metal like a gigantic fisherman's basket, and puffs of green smoke squirted out from the joints of the limbs as the monster swept by me.

Tell me how is Discord Pyrite able to claim something that is in public domain? That's what their court filings say that they created the entire Big, Stomy Robot genre. Yet, HG Wells first wrote about it roughly 87 years prior and published 85 years before Discord Pyrite was even founded in 1983.

EDIT: Link to further descriptions of the 'Mechs created by HG Wells.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 12 June 2018 - 03:43 PM.

[evilauthor]

James The Fox Dixon, on 12 June 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

Tell me how is Discord Pyrite able to claim something that is in public domain? That's what their court filings say that they created the entire Big, Stomy Robot genre. Yet, HG Wells first wrote about it roughly 87 years prior and published 85 years before Discord Pyrite was even founded in 1983.

EDIT: Link to further descriptions of the 'Mechs created by HG Wells.

Aside from being an example of a frivolous copyright (and I'm probably using the wrong term here), what does Discord Pyrite have to do with Harmony Gold vs PGI?

[James The Fox Dixon]

evilauthor, on 12 June 2018 - 03:55 PM, said:

Aside from being an example of a frivolous copyright (and I'm probably using the wrong term here), what does Discord Pyrite have to do with Harmony Gold vs PGI?

What is the antonym of Harmony and Gold? There's your answer since I'm making fun of them.

[PheonixStorm]

Minor point about the amended complaints... The First Amended Complaint was used to add Catalyst to the bandwagon and make a few minor changes.

The second amended complaint is where HG screwed the pooch. Instead of sticking to using a copyright violation they instead claimed the images are copies.

And lets not forget the judge did warn them to knock off the BS or face Rule 11.

The history of BT v RT is not important in this case. Only what is currently on the chopping block. Even knowing the history, FASA was screwed if it went to court. Even with the license FASA had with TCI it did not grant them copyright to the art only the models. There is a HUGE difference between being a copyright holder and having a distribution license to models. Which is the current fight.

Does HG have rights to the copyright of said images. We all think no, pretty sure HG has to agree as none of the current contracts really agree with them. The fact that the arbitration states they do not have derivative rights is a big giveaway as well. BUT for it to be true the judge also has to state as much. Until then HG can claim ownership. So, the biggest question we should be asking is why PGI and HG are willing to settle.

1. Is PGI running low on funds? Probably not, but lawyers in these kinds of cases are NOT cheap.
2. Is HG running low on funds? HIGHLY unlikely. Most of their money is in real estate as well as shady video distribution overseas (which they have gotten into A LOT of legal trouble over in the past)
3. HG is fearful of being found out, knowing they lost any tenuous grip they had on standing. Seems likely.
4. Both sides have spent too much money and just want out.
5. HG is tired of the fight and sees CGL, who is in default, as the next piggy bank and a much easier target.

And lastly. To say that the mechs in MWO can't be violations because you can change weapons etc... Rather stupid. If they had attacked the 3D models directly that point could be made but it might not make a difference anyway. If you look at the actual complaint they use the 2D ART of the stock models as the comparison. The 2D art which looks a lot closer to what they want over a screenshot of the actual 3D art which looks less like the 2D art or even the Macross art. I think this could give PGI wiggle room in a settle by agreeing to take the 2D are off the site completely while keeping all 3D assets untouched. Give HG a victory on the one hand while forcing HG to recognize the 3D art as being its own thing. Solid win for both sides without conceding anything substantial.

[BadgerWI]

PheonixStorm, on 12 June 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

Give HG a victory on the one hand while forcing HG to recognize the 3D art as being its own thing. Solid win for both sides without conceding anything substantial.

Well that kind of sucks, I know it's not PGI's job to be the white night for battletech fandom but I wish they would have slew the beast while they had the chance. Now, as you say CGL will be crushed. And we will probably not see the PGI unseens in HBS's battletech. I would have preferred they burned HG to the ground and salted the earth so that they could never rise again. But its not my money and we will probably get to keep the unseens we have so...yeah?

[Valdarion Silarius]

BadgerWI, on 13 June 2018 - 03:40 AM, said:

Well that kind of sucks, I know it's not PGI's job to be the white night for battletech fandom but I wish they would have slew the beast while they had the chance. Now, as you say CGL will be crushed. And we will probably not see the PGI unseens in HBS's battletech. I would have preferred they burned HG to the ground and salted the earth so that they could never rise again. But its not my money and we will probably get to keep the unseens we have so...yeah?

I can't speak for the fate of PGI's unseens in HBS's battletech (the only way that was ever going to happen is if PGI somehow made HG agree for them to be in the HBS game in the settlement, in which we all have to wait on for the dockets to be publicly released in order to get more info before jumping to conclusions), but it does seem like we are getting new redesigned unseens once again. Something that everyone seems to be forgetting is that PGI released the Incubus (Vixen) recently that was on the list of unseens.

So I think it's safe to say that the VMI mechs will be returning in MW:O. As far as the other unreleased nuseens go (like the Crusader and Longbow so many have been waiting for), we will just have to wait and see in the next upcoming months what PGI has in store for us.

Edited by Arnold The Governator, 13 June 2018 - 06:08 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Statement withdrawn.

Edited by Alan Davion, 13 June 2018 - 07:56 AM.

[BadgerWI]

Alan Davion, on 13 June 2018 - 06:45 AM, said:

So no, CGL will not be crushed thank you very much.

From your lips to God's ears.
I hope you're right.

I guess the waiting game intensifies...

Edited by BadgerWI, 13 June 2018 - 07:08 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Alan Davion, on 13 June 2018 - 06:45 AM, said:

CGL are backed by freaking TOPPS the trading card company.

CGL is merely a licensor of TOPPS and even has a history of embezzlement that could have cost them their license if seriously interested parties for the table top / P&P RPG licenses of BT and SR had shown up. So I would not be as confident as you when claiming that TOPPS would actually "back" CGL in case Harmony Gold decided to go after them.

Alan Davion, on 13 June 2018 - 06:45 AM, said:

If HG seriously goes after CGL, you can expect TOPPS to step in

To show you why that assertion is a bit over-confident I'll rephase that with certain replacements that reflect a similar licensor - licensee relation: If HG seriously goes after PGI, you can expect MICROSOFT to step in ... well Microsoft quite clearly hasn't stepped in so far - at least not publically.

Alan Davion, on 13 June 2018 - 06:45 AM, said:

So no, CGL will not be crushed thank you very much.

It's more like that CGL operates under the rules laid out in the original deal struck between HG and FASA back in the day. Trying to actually go after them would be a waste of time and not so much a matter of fear of going against an entity like TOPPS.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 13 June 2018 - 07:49 AM.

[AzureRathalos]

Just throwing a quick refresher here for those who joined the party late:
Originally Battletech/Mechwarrior was owned under one company, FASA.
FASA went down.
Wizkids got the Battletech license.
Microsoft got the Mechwarrior license.
PGI sub-licenses Mechwarrior and makes MWO.
Topps bought out Wizkids, which included Battletech. They did nothing with it for years because Topps doesn't deal with tabletop minis.
Catalyst sub-licenses Battletech and revives the tabletop.
Harebrained, which contains some original members of FASA, through means that I'm not exactly sure of, gets the Battletech license for a video game.

[MechaBattler]

That is such a clustercuss as far as the franchise licenses go. Doesn't Topps also have the television rights?

[Dee Eight]

James The Fox Dixon, on 12 June 2018 - 09:59 AM, said:

To check Adridos's claims about the Incubus being a copy of the Valkyries in Do You Remember Love and Macross II all you have to do is see their art here.

It'll convince you that the Incubus is not a copy of anything, but it's own work. For reference here is the original Incubus.

I always felt it looked more like a hybrid of an AV-98 Ingram and an AV-XO than a Valkyrie.

Edited by Dee Eight, 13 June 2018 - 10:28 AM.