Forum - View topicNEWS: Otakon Enforces Copyright at Artists' Alley
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
John Booty
Posts: 12 |
|
|||
Great. Now how about understanding them? Perhaps your misunderstanding stems from a mistaken belief that anime companies are a part of the MPAA. Most of them are not. From Wikipedia's MPAA article:
A few of those companies own the rights to anime titles (most notably, Disney's rights to the Ghibli portfolio) but the players that really control the American anime industry like ADV, Funimation and Bandai are not MPAA members. |
||||
|
||||
Tempest
![]() ANN Publisher ![]() Posts: 10447 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
This is incorrect. VERY Incorrect. The exact terms of the license can vary wildly. For example, sometimes a manga publisher will have a license covering all aspects of the property. So just because they're only releasing the manga, doesn't mean they don't have rights for everything. What's more, many types of copyright infringement may be seen as affecting the manga licensee. So even in a company has nothing more than a license to translate & publish a manga, it can easily fall within their rights to take legal actions against fan-artists. Additionally, some licensing agreements require the licensee to take over as many aspects of copyright enforcement regarding the property as possible. For example, company A might license Manga X from company B. The license gives company A no rights except to translate, publish, and sell X in territory Z. But since company B is not familiar with the legal issues in Z, and may not wish to divulge resources to dealing with legal issues in Z, they make it so that the license also stipulates that company A is responsible (and has the right to) enforce Z's copyright on all aspects of X in territory Z. Finally, don't forget that many manga isn't licensed (this applies to anime as well). When it comes to co-pros, the North American rights holder (not licensee) may have exclusive ownership over all aspects of the that property in North America. -t |
||||
|
||||
Colonel Wolfe
![]() Posts: 370 |
|
|||
That could be farther from the truth than you know, tempest. I have been collecting Japanese manga ever since 1986 when Eclipse International published the first translated manga title with Appleseed and the same summer when Marvel's Epic line published the first Volume of Akira. Never, in all of this time has a company released the original version of a manga. I very seriously doubt that these companies have the rights to released the original version of that manga for the simple fact that that also requires a separate licensing agreement.
Anime works the same way. In order for an anime company/distributer here in the states to release an anime title they have to have a license to release an English dubbed version as well as a license to release the subtitled version as well. Case in point is the ever growing problem behind the the first Gunbuster OVA series which was released by Manga. When the anime was released to VHS, it was released in subtitled form. When discussion about whether Manga would release the series in an English dubbed form they replied in an email I sent them that they needed a separate license agreement to release the anime in a dubbed format. It's nice to postulate about things we're ignorant of but where it concerns things that companies license a company pays for a license to one format or another but never both because of the cost of licensing fees involved. I'm not saying you're wrong but whereas most anime distributors often pay fees to release both the subtitled and dubbed versions of the anime manga is entirely different because the licensing fees for manga don't justify the cost because manga doesn't sell in the United States like anime does. If they were then we would see some manga titles being published in its original form. During the past 15 years there has never been a case where a US manga distributor/company has sued a fanart because of a piece of fanart they sold. If the above of what everyone has been saying was true you would see thousands of websites being sued and/or shut down because of fanart. While these companies may not like it, if they did pursue lawsuits against the fans of this fanart, it would create one of the biggest fallouts in the manga industry here in the United States and even the anime industry and cause one of the biggest Public Relations nightmares ever seen in recorded history. I took a brief Public Relations class at my local college campus some years ago and found that most companies have a tendency to stray away from legal battles if the final outcome will cause more problems with their customer base then would result in a legal battle itself. While they may win a legal battle, the resulting fallout from such an outcome could very well cause a very negative backlash more costly than the winning of such a lawsuit. |
||||
|
||||
hikaru004
![]() Posts: 2306 |
|
|||
This is the portion of your statement that I was responding to. I was simply pointing out that in the Racine case, MPAA was not using litigation as a "last resort". I actually already knew who is MPAA and not. However, thank you for clarifying it for those who didn't. This is the last time that I will respond to your pursuit of this. I will enjoy the rest of the thread and will respond to other conversations. Good day. |
||||
|
||||
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
![]() Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||
I'm not sure what's worse; the fact that you're basing everything you know on one or two examples from the 1980's and then telling us all that it's "nice to postulate on things we're ignorant of", or the fact that you're wrong on pretty much all counts there and yet are incredibly condescending about it. The contract most often awarded to R1 distributors allows them to pursue copyright infringement in the US. They are defending the license they paid for and are legally allowed to do so. All likenesses of those characters are protected in North America under the license agreement awarded to the R1 company. IN spite of whatever ridiculous argument you might make, R1 companies do not have to obtain some mystical "seperate license" for every single representation of a work in order to pursue copyright. If this were true then you wouldn't be able to shut off subtitles when you're watching the Japanese language track on a DVD, because they didn't "license the raws". Fanart is not protected by copyright; the R1 licensee does not have to... what was it you suggested? Obtain the copyright to that particular piece of fanart? Where are you getting this stuff from? Anime, manga, toys and merchandise are all awarded to seperate licensors, this is true, but in the case of fanart, which is, nine tmes out of ten, art that looks exactly like the anime or the manga, the R1 licensor has a legal right to protect their license and enforce the copyright. Manga doesn't sell as well as anime does? And where are you getting these numbers from? I have access to both bookscan and videoscan, pal, and I can tell you you're completely wrong. Most of your argument here smacks of 'Truthiness' - ideas you state as facts because you wish they were true. Start backing up your nonsensical rantings and fantasy interpretations of what you think the law might be with some verifiable sources or you're done in this discussion. I'm not going to tolerate someone spreading around this much misinformation. |
||||
|
||||
cyberphin
Posts: 8 |
|
|||
I've been to 3 otakons and only discovered Artist Alley 2 otakons ago. I got some great original art work and some nice doujinshi (flcl). But last year it seemed hard to find original stuff. Many artist were there to finance there otakon trip with stuff that looked like they were prints from the dealers room. I did find some artists that had great takes on classic characters like Inuyasha shocked at Kogomi in a cat girl outfit, Naruto and cohorts as future ANUBU. And some good original work that showed a differend design style than the original characters were drawn in. That was good and much of that may be allowed via the exception for parody. Even chibi Evangelions would be parody. I like the Naruto style headbands that had totally different sybols than the show and that could be parody.
IF that kind of stuff is diminished then this is a bad move, even if it is a legally necessary move. But what might restore my love of artist alley is that the copiers (those who produce fan art that has no unique or artistict contribution from the fan artist) would be out or forced to be more creative. So really this could be good if not even Great. But Otakon is really getting big. Some of the stuff they could get away with before the Otaku boom and their own huge success will not be allowed now. So I think I'll have to go to Otakon for the big stuff (screenings of Howl's Moving Castle, Massive Cosplay and fandom) And find a smaller gathering for the legally grey stuff like unlicenced fan subs screenings. |
||||
|
||||
crimsonsplat
Posts: 24 Location: Houston |
|
|||
Wrong again. You having a bad day? It's very, very difficult, but it has been done. It takes a good ad campaign, admission of error, a willingness to poke fun at oneself for the mistake, and hard work to win back the customer's/fan base's trust. At least that's how it works here in the U.S.; in Japan, YMMV due to cultural differences. The worst thing you can do is "fort up" and claim there's no problem or "that's just the way it is." The better the effort to win customers back, the quicker it works. For example, how many people still hold a grudge over New Coke? |
||||
|
||||
Tempest
![]() ANN Publisher ![]() Posts: 10447 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
Hopefully Otakon will decide that this was all a big mistake and never include the policy in their official final set of rules and regulations. -t |
||||
|
||||
Tempest
![]() ANN Publisher ![]() Posts: 10447 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
Your point is? Of course many licenses only apply to specificc mediums or formats. That does not remove the licensee's ability to protect the copyright. Nor does it mean that every other license is restricted in the same way. You're taking specific examples and saying that those conditions apply to every other license. Whats more youre stating that thsoe conditions effect completely unrelated matters such as copyright and trademark enforcement.
Sorry, I can't take you seriously anymore. I really can't. A good manga will list close to 100,000 copies of the first volume sold on Bookscan. Taking into account non-bookscan outlets, this ads up to 150,000 to 200,000 copies total sold. Titles in that arena include Fullmetal Alchemist, Fruits Basket, Love Hina, etc... In a few extremely rare cases, anime movies will show over 500,000 copies sold on Vidscan (things like Spirited Away), but the first volume of a really good TV series will only see 50,000 or so copies on Vidscan. (no anime launches in the past two years (TV series) have made it to 100k on vidscan, 1 is close and will probably break 100k this year). In short, the "average best selling manga" outsells the "average best selling anime." -t Last edited by Tempest on Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
appleturbo
Posts: 51 |
|
|||
while this does suck if they do go through with it, I like how everyone seems to be a lawyer just because they read it on the net.
Also maybe everyone should just back off until an offical word does come out. |
||||
|
||||
hikaru004
![]() Posts: 2306 |
|
|||
I don't really think that it sucks. I just think that it is very inconvenient for those who are used to operating in a certain way or who want to buy a certain type of merchandise at Otakon.
The legal concept of "parody" may be very difficult to grasp. The artists, consumers, con regulators and license holders will need to be "operating on the same page", if there is a change in the policy. Like appleturbo said, waiting is the best option. |
||||
|
||||
Colonel Wolfe
![]() Posts: 370 |
|
|||
Zac and Tempest, I think you missed my whole point. As far as Region 1 DVD's go, I had emailed Manga about their plans to release the Gunbuster DVD anime back when they still had the license and they were planning on a release for it. At the time I sent the email I had posed the question on whether they were going to release the anime with a dubbed track and their response to me was that they only had the license to release it in its subtitled form and had not acquired a license to release it in its English dubbed fformat. This is where I got my information from regarding licensing on Anime DVD's.
As far as the fanart issue, all I was trying to do was illustrate a point. What I said was that I had been collecting for the past 15 years and never in all of that time had I seen companies such as Dark Horse Comics, Viz, Eclipse, Marvel and the other companies release any manga in its original format of the Japanese tnakouban format/language without the translation. This whole issue stemmed from Otakon announcing their policy and my point for stating was that not a single fan has been singled out by an anime or manga distributor here in the states and threatened with a lawsuit against a fan for creating a piece of fanart and attempting to sell it at these conventions. |
||||
|
||||
Colonel Wolfe
![]() Posts: 370 |
|
|||
I thought I'd share with everyone something I dug up on another site:
|
||||
|
||||
Iniksbane
![]() Posts: 62 Location: The great state of Mary |
|
|||
Ok I had a couple of questions that maybe someone could answer. Why is this bad for the fans? I can understand that some fans want to be creative and draw pictures of other people's stuff, but how many fans is that. And how many fans actually go to an average con? If I read about Otakon's attendance cap correctly didn't they limit it to about 22,000 people. Is this enough to cause this much of a ruckus? I'm actually undecided about the whole issue, and honestly not educated enough as to the actual facts to make a decision about it.
|
||||
|
||||
jvowles
Otakon Representative
![]() Posts: 219 Location: Maryland |
|
|||
Thank you. Reading an entry on Wikipedia is often very helpful. It is in no way a substitute for a proper lawyer giving a professional opinion, any more than watching House MD makes you a diagnostic specialist. And judging by some of the more boneheaded, utterly *wrong* statements some of the participants in this discussion have made, the old adage that "free legal advice is worth slightly less than what you pay for it" really holds up. In a nutshell, what the *actual* legal experts (the ones we pay for professional advice, who are both educated and practiced in this area) are saying is that selling ANY unauthorized, recognizable depiction of copyrighted characters carries risks, even if it *is* parody. All of it exists more or less at the whim of the copyright holder, period. And those risks have increased in the last two or three years in particular. As an officer of the non-profit corporatione that runs Otakon, I have a *legal* obligation and responsibility to evaluate the appropriate response to those risks. Which is why I asked legal experts rather than random people on the internet who have a vested interest in a particular outcome. (By the way, thank you to the ANN editors who have stepped in to correct the errant nonsense put forth by a few posters, and to the person who is actually *studying* the law and providing references to back up opinions.) I think a LOT of people are going to feel a bit silly for making such a fuss over this when the final policy is issued. (Not that I expect them to admit it, of course -- this is the internet, after all.) |
||||
|
||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group