Since it has been a long week at work and I don't feel like socializing with anyone, I thought I would go back and check out the video by Lior Leser with his breakdown of the case:
https://youtu.be/JY5v7wD8r-sWhat bothered me about the Sarna article was the lack of analysis. To be fair, Spendlove does law for a living and going too far into the legal aspects is probably not within his interest. Still, it felt more like the rehash we have all been having for the past several months without the detailed insight of a lawyer. Lior's video does that, however, and it puts things into better perspective. Considering it is a very long and dry 1:45, the TL;DR is as follows:
1. HG freely admits to not having copyrights over the 41, but does their best to obfuscate this in their arguments. PGI is right to be so pointed in their responses to HG.
2. Copyright law is complicated and there is an argument to say that someone cannot use the exact images of the 41, which have been specifically licensed to HG.
3. That explains the change of argument in the 2nd amended complaint from claiming the BattleTech images are derivatives to copies. It could be argued HG has the standing based on that these are copies, but not if these were derivatives. Lior's example would be Captain America toys based on the different movies. If Marvel licensed to one company a toy based on Avengers: Infinity War Captain America, that company then can't sue another company doing a toy based on the comic book Cap. They are two different iterations with each company receiving a specific license. However, if that second company overstepped its bounds and made an Infinity War Cap, then the first company could sue.
4. But clearly none of these BattleTech images are copies. Some may hew closer than others to the originals, but there are a heck of a lot of differences. Which then gets into all the other legal defenses, which may not even be necessary since...
5. It is very, very possible that this case could be dismissed with a summary judgement since HG does not have the copyright and therefore no standing. However, this case is still incredibly complicated (seriously, have any of you tried explaining this to someone not familiar with BattleTech and RoboTech?). Therefore, the judge may decide to let this go to trial.
6. Yet, even if it still goes to trial, HG will have a hard time proving infringement let alone having the standing to bring the case. So the judge can still lets this go to trial AND at the same time decide that HG has no standing.
7. If anything, Team BattleTech's stumbling block is not the legalities of the case, but financial constraints.
So all of that might be a rehash, but it hasn't been repeated in this thread. Also I don't think we talked about Lior Leser's video, which in and of itself was worth sharing. If you watch any of it, maybe check out the last 10 or 15 minutes.