Forum - View topic

Where's GitS: SAC 2nd GIG?

I might have a suggestion for you. If you do a power search sorted by inverse relevance, you basically get the list of titles with the least information about them. If you want to contribute info there is no better place to start

So, I've started submitting information for Instant History and noticed that Otogi Manga Calendar (an alternate name) is listed as a separate entry. What do I do when encountering items that need to be merged?

Edit: Hmm...scratch that. I have conflicting sources; one that says they're the same and another that they're separate entities. I'll continue to add data as I find it.

I just realized something. Is there anyway you top shelf guys could mark it as "licensed" so the entry is boldfaced when scrolling down the title list?

Tony K. wrote:

I just realized something. Is there anyway you top shelf guys could mark it as "licensed" so the entry is boldfaced when scrolling down the title list?

I'm no "top shelf guy" but I can add it. However, is it licensed by Bandai or Manga? Do they have a "licensor / distributor" relationship (if so I have to modify GitS:SAC one as well) or own the license equally?

dormcat wrote:

Tony K. wrote: I just realized something. Is there anyway you top shelf guys could mark it as "licensed" so the entry is boldfaced when scrolling down the title list? I'm no "top shelf guy" but I can add it. However, is it licensed by Bandai or Manga? Do they have a "licensor / distributor" relationship (if so I have to modify GitS:SAC one as well) or own the license equally?

L/D as far as I can tell. Both names are on the spine (both series). :wink:

Tsunami3k wrote:

dormcat wrote: Tony K. wrote: I just realized something. Is there anyway you top shelf guys could mark it as "licensed" so the entry is boldfaced when scrolling down the title list? I'm no "top shelf guy" but I can add it. However, is it licensed by Bandai or Manga? Do they have a "licensor / distributor" relationship (if so I have to modify GitS:SAC one as well) or own the license equally? L/D as far as I can tell. Both names are on the spine (both series).

See Anime on DVD's news item "Bandai Entertainment Clarifies Further"—Bandai licensed it, and Manga Entertainment distributes it for them. Since there does not appear to have been a separate announcement for GitS: SAC 2nd Gig, I am assuming (until proven otherwise ) that the license is for all 52 episodes (plus Tachikomatic Days).

Denizens of the Encyclopaedia! Rejoice, For I Hast Hearkenedst to Thine Clamors!
Behold! anime#8495

However, is it licensed by Bandai or Manga? Do they have a "licensor / distributor" relationship (if so I have to modify GitS:SAC one as well) or own the license equally?

But we need to discuss how to better reflect publishers/licensees/distributors/owners in the encyclopedia.

<snip> Very interesting! Even moreso that you were able to post this, as it is usually the sort of thing I hear in private.

By our usage, BEI (Bandai Ent.) is the closest to being the licensee. Bandai Entertainment is actually a co-owner/investor in the series (they're one of the companies on the production committee, and the production company is the licensor). While the exact nature of the agreement has never been revealed to the public, Bandai Ent is the worldwide rights holder outside of Japan. This gives them the same rights in North America as a licensee would have (provided the licensee had licensed all rights in perpetuity), but they aren't a licensee because there was no "license agreement."

Manga is the distributor, and is responsible for marketing. They also own some sort of exclusive rights to the Ghost in the Shell property in North America. I'm not sure if this is trademark related or license related. It's because of these rights that they were able to strong-arm their way into the Stand Alone Complex deal (Originally BEI was the only American company involved).