Forum - View topicNEWS: Dragon Quest V Novelist Sues Dragon Quest Your Story Film's Production
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DranzerX13
Posts: 85 Location: USA |
|
|||||
|
... Just wow. *Facepalm at the producers.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Cain Highwind
Posts: 316 |
|
|||||
I still want to see this film, but geeze, it’s just bad decision after bad decision with these guys. |
||||||
|
||||||
Tripple-A
 Posts: 383 Location: Hamburg, Germany |
|
|||||
|
What a bunch of bullshit. The DQ5 Hero has 2 official names: Abel, the default in-game name and Ryuka, the name used for the novel AND CD Theater audio drama and now also for the Your Story film. I also named him Ryuka because I think it's a much better name than Abel.
Why shouldn't SE have the rights to his different names? Even if they used some lines directly from her novel, I would still question who is in fact the rights holder for them. I wouldn't be surprised if all rights belong to Enix (now Square Enix). |
||||||
|
||||||
BlueAlf
 Posts: 1555 |
|
|||||
I think the problem stems from the fact that the Your Story movie is actually NOT a direct adaptation of the game's story. From reviews I read, they made this weird meta fourth wall breaking twist for the movie, that really caught fans off guard. The novelist knew nothing about this twist and probably felt that her intellectual property (names and dialogue from the novel adaptation she wrote) was not used as she had intended. ...Also, IMO it was a really bad twist. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Kraz
Posts: 26 |
|
|||||
Big producers do some shit and there's always someone to defend them, incredible. You should try to learn a little more about some story before claiming it's bullshit: https://dailyanimate.com/a-lawsuit-triggered-by-a-name/ Like it's said in the article the CD Theater audio drama was released AFTER the novel and "has used a lot of original settings and plots of the novel version", this include the name of the hero. She's not asking for any royalty, just recognition of her work. She wanted to be able to promote the film and her old novels in an event she attended, and SE bluntly said no, this is understandable in a way, as they will sale their own novelization of the movie, but this is yet another case of a company not hesitating to pillage the authors without any regards of the law, Japanese's copyright laws are quite strict I think. SE is NOT the right holders of the novel, I don't know where you live to think something like that, but if they used the same name to cause confusion or took elements created by the novel author, or non-generic lines, yes, they're illegally stealing her work, being SE or the license holder don't get you a free pass to do everything. I've yet to see comments of the content of the film itself, but the inspiration of the film may not stop to the name of the protagonist, DQ 4-5-6 novelization from Saori Kumi were popular in the 90s in Japan. |
||||||
|
||||||
residentgrigo
 Posts: 2617 Location: Germany |
|
|||||
|
Who knows that the legally correct argument is here but we will find out soon. I have no horse in this race. Her going so hog wild is weird though and creators being burried is nothing new. Superhero creators are rarely credited and almost never paid when adaptations happen due to the contract they signed. The same goes for Star Wars and the amount of extended canon there is incomprehensibly large. Game designers have the same problems. Etc, etc. Nothing new happened here.
That said. Trying to hold/gain the right to a made-up name to a character you don´t own is weird and the film clearly has nothing to do with her books. It´s as if SD Perry or whoever made the manhua tried to sue the Resi 3 remake because it may use a PTSD plot, which both adaptations of the original put in. Creator's rights are important and all it´s not their IP or plot in the end unlesss contracts say otherwise. And they never do. |
||||||
|
||||||
Emerje
 Posts: 7423 Location: Maine |
|
|||||
|
I'm a little confused here I guess. Surely the novels were written under contract from someone that does own the rights to Dragon Quest like Yuji Horii, right? So how does she own anything in the books? Usually contracted or freelance writers get payed for the work done and maybe a percentage of sales, but all contents of the book, including new characters created just for the book, become property of the rights holder, or at least the publisher that contracted them. So how did she get this rather amazing job of creating and owning new Dragon Quest characters? Sounds like the dream job of every writer!
Emerje |
||||||
|
||||||
El Hermano
 Posts: 450 Location: Texas |
|
|||||
Japan is much different than America. Creators actually have rights there and can negotiate far better contracts. Hiroyuki Takei took the publishing rights to Shaman King with him when he parted ways with Shueisha, for example. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Kraz
Posts: 26 |
|
|||||
You're talking like the US comics book situation pre-90s is still the norms today and applied world wide... It seems her claim is based on at least an example where the japanese court agreed with the author on a similar case, but as this example is never specified in the articles I agree it's hard to say if what she claims is far-fetched or not.
You say "usually" yourself. 
I don't know the specifics of copyright in Japan, but this is often complicated and depends in lots of countries exclusively from the contract/license agreement. Start Wars is not a good example, written by fans for fans, meaning they would easily give up all their rights. I'm not sure how popular were the novelization of games when she wrote the books. And in the US there is indeed a "work for hire" copyright base, but when I read the exact definition it's limited to 9 very specific categories of works, which means new elements will still be owned by the author if the agreement doesn't specify anything, like most countries in the world. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||
|
This all comes down to how copyright law works in Japan. I have no idea how their copyright laws are written, but I know that if this were in the US what these producers seem to have done would be entirely illegal.
Suppose someone writes a novel, and after a while a company buys the comic book rights to that novel and starts releasing comics. Now suppose that after a while the comics get popular and now a movie studio buys the movie rights from the author of the novel. That means that the movie studio is free to adapt the novel to make their film, but they absolutely cannot use anything from the comic book unless they ALSO license that material from whoever holds those rights. So, for example: suppose the novel involves a knight on horseback. The book describes the knight riding a white horse and having a "standard" on his shield whose details are not specified. The comic book's artist decides to draw the knight's shield with a double-headed eagle on it. Now here comes the movie production. They are free to depict the knight on a white horse--after all, that's what the novel says, and that's what they licensed. But they absoloutely cannot have him carrying the double-eagle shield, because that detail came from the comic and not the novel. So, the movie makers either have to change the symbol on the shield to avoid violating the comic's copyright (which is cheaper, but will probably upset some fans used to the comic book designs), or if they want to keep the double-eagle standard they must license the comic designs too (which cost more). The same kind of thing happens in anime sometimes too. For example, Bubblegum Crisis 2040: they had the rights to the names in the franchise, etc, but they did not have the rights to the character designs, so as a result the characters in 2040 look totally different than they did in the original despite them having the exact same names. This sounds very similar. The producers presumably have licensing from Square Enix, but they do not have licensing for anything in the novel. It all comes down to where the name Ryuka came from. If Saori Kumi used it in her novel after SE used it first then there's no problem here. However, if that name Ryuka didn't exist in the Dragon Quest franchise until Kumi-san used it in the novels....well....that would be a clear violation of US copyright law. I don't know how the law in Japan works, but here it would be highly illegal. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Emerje
Posts: 7423 Location: Maine |
|
|||||
"Usually" as in it would be exceedingly rare to both be paid to create a character and getting to keep the rights to the character. I wouldn't say it's impossible, just that it's ridiculously unusual and a pretty crazy oversight on the part of the rights holder.
That's an entirely different issue from what's happening here. The question isn't really about who created the character but who owns the character she created. Her creating a character doesn't necessarily make her the owner of the character since she wrote the novels as an official work based on an existing franchise. This has the potential of going pretty deep into how the work was contracted and if the rights to the character is owned by Saori Kumi who created it or Yuji Horii who owns the rights to the franchise and supported the movie. I think it's Horii, but we'll see. Emerje |
||||||
|
||||||
|
residentgrigo
Posts: 2617 Location: Germany |
|
|||||
|
Marvel, Star Wars and so on writers who make up stuff in 2019 will (almost) never see pay for those ideas or characters if they show up in shows and movies. I don´t see that ever-changing. Recognition via a credit can be in the cards though.
The comparison with Shaman King makes no sense. Hiroyuki Takei invented that IP. This lady didn´t invent anything here unless the courts award her legal owndership of a name for a character she doesn´t own. You can´t even make the case that the film adaptation looked specifically at her books as the final product, well look it up. We need to see the contracts to see who is in the right here and people who sign up with Jump and so on either own or co-own the IP. There is no way that Enix hands you any keys for established and trademarked characters for the same reason that the people who contribute to let´s say random manga/LN anthologies for known IP don´t get such rights. Here is how it works in the US is you make your own fully new comic and bring it to let´s say DC. The Boys was, for example, a DC book for exactly 6 issues till they dropped it and Ennis went with his IP elsewhere. He owns the thing but DC had first rights for an adaptation via WB which they gave up when they let go of the book. It´s different with Image and some others as you own 100% of the IP if you go there and comparable to how Japan does it but you need to make connections to Hollywood and so on yourself, make or pay for your own promotions, etc. The possible payoff is huge but you have a tough hill to climb without name recognition. That´s why contract work for known IP is often preferred. You may only get paid once but it is safe and good pay. Such opportunities equally exist in Japan. This case may or may not be one of them. About the name "Ryuka". You only get legal ownership and protection of such things if it is deemed creative enough to warrant protection. Which is a case for the courts. The Bond crime organization named "Spectre" is such a case. Look those lawsuits up but McClory only got the rights as Bond owner Ian Fleming settled out of court. The end result was a minefield for the James Bond IP: https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/Thunderball_(novel) |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||
Under most "Western" copyright laws the two go hand-in-hand. If Kumi-san was the person who created the name "Ryuka" for an otherwise unnamed character then she owns the rights to that name, and no later works may use it without licensing. (She doesn't have the rights to the character, just the name) Those rights would not go to Yuji Horii unless there was some specific licensing agreement (a contract) which detailed those arrangements. It's possible that there was legal language to that effect in whatever paperwork was done when Kumi-san did her writing, but the article made no mention of it and that would be a curious omission if such a thing existed. Of course Japanese law, which is the relevant one here, may be different, and I admittedly don't know a thing about Japanese copyright, but under western law this is a no-no. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Emerje
Posts: 7423 Location: Maine |
|
|||||
You mean trademark and I'm pretty sure even Japanese trademark law doesn't allow a person to own a proper name unless it's very specific. "Naruto" and "Uzumaki" can't be trademarked, but "Uzumaki Naruto" can. Ryuka is a common name, it can't be trademarked on its own. If it can be trademarked it's doubtful that she did, and if it can be then again it would belong to the rights holder since the books were written under some sort of contract and all work done would belong to whoever hired her to do the work under the majority of situations. If she did get to keep anything from the books then that's one hell of a great deal and more power to her for being such a great negotiator (or lucky enough that nobody else noticed the loophole in her contract). Emerje |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AkumaChef
Posts: 821 |
|
|||||
I do not mean trademark. If I meant trademark I would have used that word. The character's name appearing in a work of fiction falls under copyright (at least under US and most Western law). For example, Tolkien did not have to trademark the names "Aragorn", "Gimli", and "Sauron" (etc), rather their use falls under copyright, at least if they are used in a similar manner to the original. I.e. if I write a fantasy novel involving a "Dwarf" named "Gimli" who wields an axe and goes on grand adventures then I'm infringing. If I write a Crime novel about a womanizing insulation salesman named Gimli then that's clearly different and thus is not infringing. Exactly what does or does not infringe would be for a court to decide. But I think in this case there's no legal grey area, and it's a slam-dunk infringement since the name is being used for the exact same character. Of course Ryuta is a common name and people are free to use it as they please....EXCEPT in the specific case of it being used for this particular Dragon Quest character. Likewise if Kumi-san created any dialogue for the character, or created any visual descriptions of the character, those details also could not be used without being licensed. Again, under western law. It may very well be different in Japan. Japanese law may very well state that the rights default to the original creator of the franchise, or most likely there are contracts in place between Kumi and Square-Enix that detail who owns what. That's certainly the way it worked with the comic book situation described by residentgrigo. Whatever agreements the parties had in place are all-important, and I agree with residentgrigo that it's highly unlikey that SE didn't have some sort of agreement in place with Kumi. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group