TRO Succession Wars and Harmony Gold

[ColBosch]

Which brings up the question of "is Kickstarter money revenue or investment"?

No, it doesn't. No one is disputing that these images are being used for commercial profit.

[SCC]

I am unclear why you are asking me.

Could have done better on the quoting there, my question should be seen as a follow-on to your post.

[monbvol]

Please don't start a rehash of that argument in this thread.

Except it isn't really an argument.

It is fact that there was an agreement that made it legally impossible for the Macross art to represent the mechs it used to.

TPTB have stated that even if the art were legally usable that it would not be.

Could the second fact I stated there change?  Technically yes but the chain of events and circumstances surrounding the Macross art that would have to change/happen is so unlikely to do so that it is extremely unlikely.  Heck I probably have better odds of winning the lotto than the Macross art work becoming legally usable and being used once again in Battletech.

[JenniferinaMAD]

And how is the Project Phoenix art different from the Classic art in being derived from the original Unseen artwork?

It looks a whole lot less than the unseen than the new classics, enough so that HG didn't bat an eye at TRO: Phoenix.

When a bully demands your toys, you sock him in the nose.

But who is the bully? That's for a judge to decide, because both parties can, with some justification, say it's the other side. And a nose socking match helps neither company.

[Korzon77]

But who is the bully? That's for a judge to decide, because both parties can, with some justification, say it's the other side. And a nose socking match helps neither company.

We should note that this isn't hte kind of case where our side is likely to get any money. Harmony Gold is, even if we think it's stupid and wrongheaded, asserting a legitimate claim.
Which means, at best?  The Judge says (or Jury), yeah, you can use these designs. There won't be any money in it, and in fact, you'll lose money by having to defend against the action. So a very big question is: Does the benefit of being able to use these particular designs, in cold hard, cash terms, equal the damage we'll take by having to spend money and time defending them.

[monbvol]

I think in this case yes IMR/CGL has to defend their art.  Not doing so would lose a huge chunk of investment and there would likely have to be damages paid due to past revenue.

PGI and HBS?  I'm inclined to say yes they have to fight too.  While I think they'd be more likely to survive and push forward by not fighting I think they too still stand to lose more in damages than what it would cost them to fight.

[Acolyte]

What people seem to be missing here is that CGL has made new art - original art. HG is claiming that art as theirs. It isn't.

As for the reasons? Maybe the new Robotech movie. Maybe HG knows it can't withstand Sony without some previous cases against smaller companies who it can bully. So HG hits IMR, PGI, and HBS and then uses those cases to bolster itself against Sony.

Except that it looks like the small fry are fighting it, as they should. It's original art and needs to be protected, or would you want to lose the Atlas?

   - Shane

[ANS Kamas P81]

What people seem to be missing here is that CGL has made new art - original art. HG is claiming that art as theirs. It isn't.
   - Shane

HG's claim is that the art represents their 'Mechs.  It's like if I drew a Macross Valkyrie and then put it on a t-shirt and tried to sell it; it'd be my own artwork in my own stylistic changes, but the subject of the artwork is very clearly their IP even though they didn't draw it themselves.

[The_Livewire]

HG's claim is that the art represents their 'Mechs.  It's like if I drew a Macross Valkyrie and then put it on a t-shirt and tried to sell it; it'd be my own artwork in my own stylistic changes, but the subject of the artwork is very clearly their IP even though they didn't draw it themselves.

He's referring to the Atlas.  I do hope you're not arguing the Atlas is 'putting a T-shirt on a Veritech'.

[Mech42ace]

He's referring to the Atlas.  I do hope you're not arguing the Atlas is 'putting a T-shirt on a Veritech'.

Any BT fan knows that the atlas is and always has been original IP. He was only comparing putting a T-shirt on a Valkyrie and passing it off as our own.

[Juodas Varnas]

Any BT fan knows that the atlas is and always has been original IP. He was only comparing putting a T-shirt on a Valkyrie and passing it off as our own.

You sure that's what he meant?
I read it as "putting the Valkyrie (even if you drew it yourself) on a T-shirt and selling the T-shirts"
I'm not a native speaker, so maybe I  misunderstood.

[The_Livewire]

Any BT fan knows that the atlas is and always has been original IP. He was only comparing putting a T-shirt on a Valkyrie and passing it off as our own.

vi
I may have gotten the posts confused.  But I believe the documents HG filed said the Atlas was derivtiive of the armoured Valk from Macros.  As mentioned in Shane's post.

[ColBosch]

The Atlas is a minor matter. The major points of contention are against the PGI/HBS Rifleman, Archer, Warhammer, Marauder, Phoenix Hawk and the IMR/CGL Warhammer, Marauder, and Archer. Those are the important designs in this action, and we should keep that in mind instead of focusing on the obviously non-derivative examples.

Understand that the judge or jury can decide that some exhibits infringe while others do not.

HG's claim is that the art represents their 'Mechs.  It's like if I drew a Macross Valkyrie and then put it on a t-shirt and tried to sell it; it'd be my own artwork in my own stylistic changes, but the subject of the artwork is very clearly their IP even though they didn't draw it themselves.

That's not a good analogy here. That would cover the old FASA suit. HG's claim here will be that PGI/CGL took the Macross Valkyrie and traced a slightly-different design over it, a drawing that is so similar to the original that consumers will confuse the two.

But who is the bully? That's for a judge to decide, because both parties can, with some justification, say it's the other side. And a nose socking match helps neither company.

How is Harmony Gold's action justified? These designs in question are not the images from Macross. You are fully allowed to create new works inspired by older ones. Disney may own Mickey Mouse, but they can't claim every cartoon rodent, even those which look kind of like Mickey.

[guardiandashi]

vi
I may have gotten the posts confused.  But I believe the documents HG filed said the Atlas was derivtiive of the armoured Valk from Macros.  As mentioned in Shane's post.

that's what HG was claiming that the "new" atlas, is a derivative work from the armored veritech (which in battletech was the original crusader art)  which reinforces my argument that they are copyright trolls.  if the heavy e frame from exosquad is not "close enough" to a madcat/timberwolf  to be a copyright infringement then harmony gold should be told to go pound sand on their claimed infringements.

[ColBosch]

that's what HG was claiming that the "new" atlas, is a derivative work from the armored veritech (which in battletech was the original crusader art)  which reinforces my argument that they are copyright trolls.  if the heavy e frame from exosquad is not "close enough" to a madcat/timberwolf  to be a copyright infringement then harmony gold should be told to go pound sand on their claimed infringements.

Copyright and trademark trolls, to be exact. They're not just screwing us over, they're also screwing anime fans who would like to see non-garbage imports of the various Macross series.

[NeonKnight]

How is Harmony Gold's action justified? These designs in question are not the images from Macross. You are fully allowed to create new works inspired by older ones. Disney may own Mickey Mouse, but they can't claim every cartoon rodent, even those which look kind of like Mickey.

Much Like Disney has Chip and Dale, two Chipmunks, and at the same time Warner Brothers had the Goofy Gophers, 2 extremely polite, British Speaking gophers.

[SCC]

Copyright and trademark trolls, to be exact. They're not just screwing us over, they're also screwing anime fans who would like to see non-garbage imports of the various Macross series.

So that would mean no Macross 7 Trash then?

[beachhead1985]

Oooooo_kay...

SO having read through all of that, here are my thoughts.

Since, it is the subject of the Thread:

TRO: SW
1. Why did they redo the art for the flea? I've long-since head-cannoned that different art is just how a different manufacturer makes the mech, but stilll; the original was fine, this just looks like what it is; updated art to bring it into line with the Micheal Bay Aesthetic of MWO. Personally; I hate it; the box on legs looked like an early simple mech, which is what it was. Why mess with perfection?
2. Ostscout looks great. Not anything like an Ostscout mind you, but better than anything from PP.
3. NICE Banshee art. Art there any major variants without official art now? This though, was a very fine addition.
4. I was missing the...missing...and then my FB feed lit up with...this...Well crap.

This stupid mess
1. HG is awful, just awful.
2. Robotech movie? I rate that about as likely as the Reboot and Gargoyles movies I've been promised for years. So; while the IP might get mangled into a new kids show that rapes my childhood, I doubt it will ever happen as promised.
3. Which is just as well, as I doubt Sony could keep from ruining the original designs. A lot of people hate on the Vertitechs and Destroids, et al, as "Dated". I disagree; every one of them was right on the money for what they should have been. The Vertitechs LOOKED like a fighter plane got up and started dancing around shooting people; the Detroids LOOKED very much like literal walking tanks. And the various Glaug walkers looked as alien as possible, while still appearing workable.
5. There were minor, if any differences to be found in the original lawsuit. Here...I think there is a chance and a good one.

[Liam's Ghost]

TRO: SW
1. Why did they redo the art for the flea? I've long-since head-cannoned that different art is just how a different manufacturer makes the mech, but stilll; the original was fine, this just looks like what it is; updated art to bring it into line with the Micheal Bay Aesthetic of MWO. Personally; I hate it; the box on legs looked like an early simple mech, which is what it was. Why mess with perfection?

The Flea art isn't replaced, this is just a different variant of the Flea. The box on legs still exists, and actually represents the majority of variants.

[Maingunnery]

The Flea art isn't replaced, this is just a different variant of the Flea. The box on legs still exists, and actually represents the majority of variants.

Old Flea art -> Quickcell
New Flea art -> StarCorp

 ;)

[SCC]

So this new art is for the original and not the Quickcell rip off?

[Sartris]

It's the FLE-16. New introtech for everyone!

[Maingunnery]

So this new art is for the original and not the Quickcell rip off?

I was just joking on how crude the old art looked.
My headcanon has the old art as being a repair job by barely trained SW era technicians.

[JenniferinaMAD]

That's not a good analogy here. That would cover the old FASA suit. HG's claim here will be that PGI/CGL took the Macross Valkyrie and traced a slightly-different design over it, a drawing that is so similar to the original that consumers will confuse the two.

How is Harmony Gold's action justified? These designs in question are not the images from Macross. You are fully allowed to create new works inspired by older ones. Disney may own Mickey Mouse, but they can't claim every cartoon rodent, even those which look kind of like Mickey.

You've answered your own question. Companies are explicitly allowed to defend against perceived copyright infringement that can confuse consumers. The line between infringement and inspiration is not for CGL/Piranha to decide, nor for HG, but a judge or jury. Even if the court rules against HG, they were still in their rights to sue, given the history between the companies/franchises.

Let's not forget that Battletech has tried to claim those images in the past, then signed an agreement not to use those images anymore. Now we have designs that are clearly and deliberately attempting to evoke those old images as much as possible while carrying the same names inside the BT universe.
That can legitimately be seen as a challenge by HG, and thus they are in their rights to sue for infringement.

Inspirations are required to be unique works in their own right, and have traits that the original did not. These new designs are quite clearly the unseen updated to the new art styles. They are designed to not just look like, but be the new unseen. That may well not be enough to justify the 'inspired work' claim. Or it may.

[Robroy]

I don't think FASA tried to claim the images, as I understand it FASA thought they got the license. But it turned out the people FASA got it from did not have the rights to sell it.

[YingJanshi]

I don't think FASA tried to claim the images, as I understand it FASA thought they got the license. But it turned out the people FASA got it from did not have the rights to sell it.

And funnily enough that seems to be the exact same situation HG is in...

[Acolyte]

Let's not forget that Battletech has tried to claim those images in the past, then signed an agreement not to use those images anymore. Now we have designs that are clearly and deliberately attempting to evoke those old images as much as possible while carrying the same names inside the BT universe.
That can legitimately be seen as a challenge by HG, and thus they are in their rights to sue for infringement.

Inspirations are required to be unique works in their own right, and have traits that the original did not. These new designs are quite clearly the unseen updated to the new art styles. They are designed to not just look like, but be the new unseen. That may well not be enough to justify the 'inspired work' claim. Or it may.

These are unique works. They are inspired by the originals, but are new art. You are allowed to be inspired by other art - almost everything is.

And of course they are designed to be the new unseen - the original artwork can't be used. That does not make them unoriginal. These are designed quite clearly to not be the unseen while capturing the spirit of them - and HG has no copyright on spirit.

If you want to go by their tack - how about the Bushwacker? The Hector? Any of the primitives? The Bombadier, the Hammerhands? The MadCat?

If HG has their way, it's anything defined as "Giant Robot Warrior" that they own if it has any elements of the Macross in it. They need to be shut down on this matter.

   - Shane

[ANS Kamas P81]

That's not a good analogy here. That would cover the old FASA suit. HG's claim here will be that PGI/CGL took the Macross Valkyrie and traced a slightly-different design over it, a drawing that is so similar to the original that consumers will confuse the two.

That's what I was trying to say, just badly written earlier.  I was referring to things like the 'Classic' Warhammer or the PGI art. I misunderstood what Acolyte meant by "CGL has made new art" - I thought he meant the redesigned Macross machines.  The idea that the Atlas is derivative of the Armored Valkyrie's downright laughable, no less so that Ford trying to claim that GM is copying their car because it has four wheels, some doors, and an engine in roughly similar shape.  (Which brings us back to scenes a faire)

[Acolyte]

HG's claim is that the art represents their 'Mechs.  It's like if I drew a Macross Valkyrie and then put it on a t-shirt and tried to sell it; it'd be my own artwork in my own stylistic changes, but the subject of the artwork is very clearly their IP even though they didn't draw it themselves.

If you were to draw an original BattleMech on that shirt - even one inspired by the Valkyrie - you'd be fine. If you were to put an exactly copy you wouldn't.

That's what I was trying to say, just badly written earlier.  I was referring to things like the 'Classic' Warhammer or the PGI art. I misunderstood what Acolyte meant by "CGL has made new art" - I thought he meant the redesigned Macross machines.  The idea that the Atlas is derivative of the Armored Valkyrie's downright laughable, no less so that Ford trying to claim that GM is copying their car because it has four wheels, some doors, and an engine in roughly similar shape.  (Which brings us back to scenes a faire)

I do mean the Classics as new art - they are. They are inspired by the old but are not them. They are new. If you were to have a 3D printed copy of each in your hands of the same size you would clearly see the differences. There is no mistaking one for the other.

   - Shane

[Sigil]

The Flea art isn't replaced, this is just a different variant of the Flea. The box on legs still exists, and actually represents the majority of variants.

Maybe they just wanted to really, really sure that no one might accidentally mistake it for an AT-ST  >:D