MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
Not really, SEED got stuff from the manga shown on screen.
Such as? I'm not talking about some rando who later appears in a comic... I'm talking about either an actual reference to events exclusively in a comic, etc.
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
UC got animated from a novel.
They adapted a light novel... the adaptation is what's canon, not the novel.
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
They are already involved during the movies of FG.
It's clearly noted in accounts of the franchise's origin that Bandai did not become involved as a sponsor until
Zeta Gundam. Their first flirtation with sponsoring Sunrise's productions was
Xabungle. They joined that production as a junior partner to Clover Co. Ltd., the main sponsor of Sunrise's robot anime since 1977's
Zambot 3. The commercial failure of
Xabungle eventually resulted in Clover declaring bankruptcy in the middle of production of
Aura Battler Dunbine. It was that bankruptcy and the subsequent liquidation of Clover Co. Ltd.'s assets that enabled Bandai to take over as the sponsor of
Gundam. Clover's primary creditor, Takara Co., decided against taking ownership of Clover Co.'s licensing portfolio as partial repayment for debts owed to them during the liquidation proceedings. This left the rights back in Sunrise's hands and it subsequently licensed them to Bandai as the new primary sponsor. Sunrise attached a number of conditions to Bandai's license, including that Bandai's sponsorship of new Sunrise anime would include an obligation to sponsor a new
Gundam series (the series that became breakout hit
Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam).
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
Yes, they don't have full control but Sunrise was never the controller because they are just paid to do their job and does not own the rights.
Demonstrably false. The copyright notices on literally every
Gundam product and publication clearly state that Sunrise and Sotsu are coowners of
Gundam... as does every copyright and trademark filing on the whole of the franchise. If it's a choice between what you claim and what the Japanese government has in literal black-and-white in the copyright and trademark registrations, it's obvious that you are incorrect.
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
And how is that legally enforceable sense? They are never the entity to sue others for copyright infringement. Sotsu does, and Bandai also sued Chinese companies trying to make Gunpla(including those that do not copy their kits but make their own)
Sunrise and Sotsu are the registered copyright owners of all things
Gundam. That is literally what that means. They are the owners of
Gundam, creatively and legally. It is, in the eyes of the law, their property.
Sunrise and Sotsu file jointly as co-complainants in lawsuits over
Gundam because they jointly own the property. Bandai Namco Holdings subsidiary Bandai Spirits are the ones to file lawsuits over most categories of bootleg merchandise like gunpla because they are the exclusive worldwide licensee to the merchandising rights for those categories of
Gundam merchandise. Bandai became the merchandising license in 1984 when they took over for Clover as Sunrise's sponsor, and that license has expanded with each new series because Sunrise and Bandai Spirits have the same parent company and there's therefore no competition for that license. Bandai suing over bootleg merch does not mean Bandai is in control of the franchise. It means that they, not Sunrise, are the injured party in the litigation because those bootleggers are violating Bandai Spirits' exclusive right-under-license to produce
Gundam plamodels.
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
That because you refuse to accept manga and novel are creative control as well.
It's merchandise... but you're also missing an important detail there too.
Those manga, novels, etc. may be published by Bandai's publishing group... but their credits clearly indicate they are produced under the creative supervision of Sunrise and the copyright notice clearly indicates that the
Gundam franchise is copyrighted property of Sotsu and Sunrise.
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
You are cherrypicking data to try to prove your point, which is not convincing at all.
No, I am not cherrypicking at all. I just have a better understanding of the division of control/responsibility/ownership because of my better understanding of how intellectual property law works.
As I have said, you're working from an oversimplified understanding of the situation. It's a completely understandable situation, given that most folks really don't want to think about the complexities involved.
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
Yeah, and mangaka aren't JUST working for a paycheck either.
Trying to down play other creators and anime is gold, anime is the best, anime is the only thing that matters, isn't convincing.
TBH, the writers of the licensed manga kind of ARE just working for a paycheck.
They don't have creative control over the work they're producing because they're subject to the creative supervision of Sunrise and the approval of the publisher (usually Bandai's publishing group). Working on a licensed work like that - even if it's wildly successful - doesn't come with the same prestige as being the creator of a successful original work.
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
The fact still remains Bandai is the owner and payer of the franchise and actually working in making more creative works than Sunrise can handle.
Half right. As I've noted, Bandai is (indirectly) the owner and (directly) the financer of the franchise... Bandai Namco Holdings serves as the
de facto production committee for new
Gundam works, but the actual creative control and copyright ownership is managed via Sunrise and Sotsu as the copyright and trademark filings for EVERY
Gundam work from 1979 to today clearly and unambiguously indicate.
MythSearcher wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:46 am
You can call them merchandise but that just your very skewed opinion on the subject about only anime matters.
I can call them merchandise because that is what they are. Legally and creatively. This is not an opinion thing, this is a matter of an actual production classification and the category of licensing that permits them to be created in the first place. Do they matter less? Explicitly and objectively yes, because they actually have less legal standing than the original animated work BECAUSE the original was a film work. (IP law is weird.)