×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
NEWS: 4Kids Plans to Pitch New Yu-Gi-Oh! at Licensing Expo


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shale



Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 337
Location: The Middle of Nowhere, DE
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:00 pm Reply with quote
The judge ordered TV Tokyo and ADK not to sell the license to anybody else. As far as I know 4Kids hasn't been enjoined from exercising its rights to the Yu-Gi-Oh property in any way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enurtsol



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14746
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:14 pm Reply with quote
Lady Multi wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
Lady Multi wrote:

And can they do that? Seriously? They can say: "HEY! I'm using your show whether you like it or not! ..and I'm doing worse, I'm gonna SELL IT and not pay you."


The judge ordered a stay, meaning status quo, i.e. what ever is in the current contract is in force. And in that status quo, apparently 4Kids has Zexal. 4Kids still has to pay NAS and TV Tokyo whatever fee is written on the contract, but that contract also gives 4Kids license to shop Zexal around. Treat it like nothing ever happened.

Now, depending on how the courts eventually resolve the quarrel, whether 4Kids could actually follow thru on whatever merchandise agreements they manage to deal at the Licensing Expo.


Would you sign contracts with someone who, in the past, hasn't paid you? That's why I'm wondering if they can go ahead and make the plans, as stated in the article, to release the show and merchandise before they even HAVE the rights to the show?


They already signed a contract before the court issues popped up, before NAS and TV Tokyo believed that 4Kids wasn't paying them properly, which 4Kids is currently contending against. Apparently, the contract, that has already been signed by both parties, gives 4Kids Zexal. And that's all that matters; not our assumptions but what's written on the contract, which we are not privy to and thus do not know what is and what isn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sunday Silence



Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 2047
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:23 pm Reply with quote
enurtsol wrote:
They already signed a contract before the court issues popped up, before NAS and TV Tokyo believed that 4Kids wasn't paying them properly, which 4Kids is currently contending against. Apparently, the contract, that has already been signed by both parties, gives 4Kids Zexal. And that's all that matters; not our assumptions but what's written on the contract, which we are not privy to and thus do not know what is and what isn't.


So, you essentially make a statement where it is immediately invalidated by the following sentence. Real slick there sunshine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cohenmarioman



Joined: 02 May 2010
Posts: 102
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:29 pm Reply with quote
Sunday Silence wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
They already signed a contract before the court issues popped up, before NAS and TV Tokyo believed that 4Kids wasn't paying them properly, which 4Kids is currently contending against. Apparently, the contract, that has already been signed by both parties, gives 4Kids Zexal. And that's all that matters; not our assumptions but what's written on the contract, which we are not privy to and thus do not know what is and what isn't.


So, you essentially make a statement where it is immediately invalidated by the following sentence. Real slick there sunshine.


4kids has Zexal, that is all you need to know. And there is no time for NAS to pull a block.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enurtsol



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14746
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:39 pm Reply with quote
Sunday Silence wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
They already signed a contract before the court issues popped up, before NAS and TV Tokyo believed that 4Kids wasn't paying them properly, which 4Kids is currently contending against. Apparently, the contract, that has already been signed by both parties, gives 4Kids Zexal. And that's all that matters; not our assumptions but what's written on the contract, which we are not privy to and thus do not know what is and what isn't.


So, you essentially make a statement where it is immediately invalidated by the following sentence. Real slick there sunshine.


There's no contradiction. Apparently, 4Kids does have Zexal in the current contract because NAS and TV Tokyo ain't seem complaining about that. It's a logical statement.

(Unless ya presume that I assume too much. Laughing )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cohenmarioman



Joined: 02 May 2010
Posts: 102
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:28 pm Reply with quote
enurtsol wrote:
Sunday Silence wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
They already signed a contract before the court issues popped up, before NAS and TV Tokyo believed that 4Kids wasn't paying them properly, which 4Kids is currently contending against. Apparently, the contract, that has already been signed by both parties, gives 4Kids Zexal. And that's all that matters; not our assumptions but what's written on the contract, which we are not privy to and thus do not know what is and what isn't.


So, you essentially make a statement where it is immediately invalidated by the following sentence. Real slick there sunshine.


There's no contradiction. Apparently, 4Kids does have Zexal in the current contract because NAS and TV Tokyo ain't seem complaining about that. It's a logical statement.

(Unless ya presume that I assume too much. Laughing )


It is better to not assume at all. 4kids has Zexal, the article says they are promoting it, proving so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enurtsol



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14746
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:54 pm Reply with quote
cohenmarioman wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
Sunday Silence wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
They already signed a contract before the court issues popped up, before NAS and TV Tokyo believed that 4Kids wasn't paying them properly, which 4Kids is currently contending against. Apparently, the contract, that has already been signed by both parties, gives 4Kids Zexal. And that's all that matters; not our assumptions but what's written on the contract, which we are not privy to and thus do not know what is and what isn't.


So, you essentially make a statement where it is immediately invalidated by the following sentence. Real slick there sunshine.


There's no contradiction. Apparently, 4Kids does have Zexal in the current contract because NAS and TV Tokyo ain't seem complaining about that. It's a logical statement.

(Unless ya presume that I assume too much. Laughing )


It is better to not assume at all. 4kids has Zexal, the article says they are promoting it, proving so.


Weeeeeell........ just because 4Kids is promoting Zexal, if NAS and TV Tokyo submit a court dispute on it, then that also becomes a point of contention and doubt. But so far, NAS and TV Tokyo do not dispute that point, so one can only believe it is not a point of contention.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lady Multi



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 673
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:29 am Reply with quote
Well, from what I've read (since I got bored and researched a load o crap)...

I'm saying No, 4kids doesn't have the license YET, but they likely have the Right of First Refusal.. so it has to be offered to them first if offered...(which, if I was the Japanese companies, I'd be like, "Nah, we'll just keep it in Japan" just to be bitch)

The curious thing I'm pondering if 4kid's "defense" in this mess... the Statue of Limitations. Would it be New York's 6 years or would it have to fall under the head copyright holder's law: which would be Japan's...which I couldn't find a year-limit on.....
...I've read so many things I've lost my sources but a good chunk being sued for was 2002..but some are still in the Statute....

IDK....I still say the Japanese companies should just say they don't want to license it in the US just to kill 4kids.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enurtsol



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14746
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:53 am Reply with quote
Lady Multi wrote:
Well, from what I've read (since I got bored and researched a load o crap)...

I'm saying No, 4kids doesn't have the license YET, but they likely have the Right of First Refusal.. so it has to be offered to them first if offered...(which, if I was the Japanese companies, I'd be like, "Nah, we'll just keep it in Japan" just to be bitch)


If that was the case, then NAS and TV Tokyo most likely would have. But apparently 4Kids already has the license for it, that NAS and TV Tokyo are not disputing it.


Lady Multi wrote:

The curious thing I'm pondering if 4kid's "defense" in this mess... the Statue of Limitations. Would it be New York's 6 years or would it have to fall under the head copyright holder's law: which would be Japan's...which I couldn't find a year-limit on.....


There's no statute of limitations on contracts. Contracts say whatever time limit it is. Statute of limitations are for criminal cases.


Lady Multi wrote:

IDK....I still say the Japanese companies should just say they don't want to license it in the US just to kill 4kids.


They could say it, but if they already signed a contract and that contract has not been violated, then by law, they have to abide by it. Ya can't just break a contract just because later ya came to hate it (like car loans).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lady Multi



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 673
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:35 am Reply with quote
enurtsol wrote:
Lady Multi wrote:

The curious thing I'm pondering if 4kid's "defense" in this mess... the Statue of Limitations. Would it be New York's 6 years or would it have to fall under the head copyright holder's law: which would be Japan's...which I couldn't find a year-limit on.....


There's no statute of limitations on contracts. Contracts say whatever time limit it is. Statute of limitations are for criminal cases.


For the US, you're wrong: http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/civil-statute-of-limitations/new-york/... (I'm using New York because that's 4Kid's headquarters.)

That's why I was curious about whether it falls under Japan (which is vague) or US.

Quote:
Quote:
Lady Multi wrote:

IDK....I still say the Japanese companies should just say they don't want to license it in the US just to kill 4kids.


They could say it, but if they already signed a contract and that contract has not been violated, then by law, they have to abide by it. Ya can't just break a contract just because later ya came to hate it (like car loans).


Ah, but that's only IF they offer it up for "Sale"
Quote:
What Does Right Of First Refusal Mean?
In general, the right of a person or company to purchase something before the offering is made available to others.
(http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rightoffirstrefusal.asp)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enurtsol



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14746
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:08 am Reply with quote
Lady Multi wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
Lady Multi wrote:

The curious thing I'm pondering if 4kid's "defense" in this mess... the Statue of Limitations. Would it be New York's 6 years or would it have to fall under the head copyright holder's law: which would be Japan's...which I couldn't find a year-limit on.....


There's no statute of limitations on contracts. Contracts say whatever time limit it is. Statute of limitations are for criminal cases.


For the US, you're wrong: http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/civil-statute-of-limitations/new-york/... (I'm using New York because that's 4Kid's headquarters.)

That's why I was curious about whether it falls under Japan (which is vague) or US.


Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant (I thought you meant a contract expiring after a certain time). Rather, you meant a contract violation.

You're right; NY has it. And it says:

"In such a case, the wronged party must decide whether to press a lawsuit in order to recover for his or her wrong. The law will not tolerate a procrastinative plaintiff, a plaintiff who delays for effect, or one who is negligent or forgetful. After a period of time has passed, the chance to sue disappears."

So, you're saying it may have been too late for NAS and TV Tokyo to sue 4Kids?

I think the timer starts when the plaintiff first discovers the possible violation, and NAS and TV Tokyo did not discover a possible violation until recently. Or maybe it is their fault for not doing due diligence in a timely manner. But I guess 4Kids could still use that as a defense.

"There are many interesting controversies about when statutes of limitation begin and end. In many cases, the injured party may not even know he was wronged until a great while after the wrong was committed. This is often true in the case of breach of contract or fraud... There has also been much controversy, now largely settled by statute, about whether the statute should begin to run when the wrong was committed or when it was discovered. Court decisions have largely gone in favor of the injured party, allowing the statute to start running upon discovery of the injury or when the injury or act of negligence should "reasonably have been discovered."


Lady Multi wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Lady Multi wrote:

IDK....I still say the Japanese companies should just say they don't want to license it in the US just to kill 4kids.


They could say it, but if they already signed a contract and that contract has not been violated, then by law, they have to abide by it. Ya can't just break a contract just because later ya came to hate it (like car loans).


Ah, but that's only IF they offer it up for "Sale"


It may had already been sold the moment they signed the contract years ago, such as if the contract calls for 4Kids to be the exclusive Yu-Gi-Oh licensee, including all future iterations of the franchise, until a certain future date. Meaning the contract may have already given 4Kids license to Zexal by default unless they refused it (meaning NAS and TV Tokyo do not need to offer it first - it's automatically offered by default).

Still, as I mentioned, we don't exactly know the details of the contract. But the fact that NAS and TV Tokyo has yet to dispute 4Kids having Zexal under the status quo points to the direction that 4Kids does indeed have Zexal under the current contract.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cohenmarioman



Joined: 02 May 2010
Posts: 102
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:34 am Reply with quote
enurtsol wrote:
cohenmarioman wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
Sunday Silence wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
They already signed a contract before the court issues popped up, before NAS and TV Tokyo believed that 4Kids wasn't paying them properly, which 4Kids is currently contending against. Apparently, the contract, that has already been signed by both parties, gives 4Kids Zexal. And that's all that matters; not our assumptions but what's written on the contract, which we are not privy to and thus do not know what is and what isn't.


So, you essentially make a statement where it is immediately invalidated by the following sentence. Real slick there sunshine.


There's no contradiction. Apparently, 4Kids does have Zexal in the current contract because NAS and TV Tokyo ain't seem complaining about that. It's a logical statement.

(Unless ya presume that I assume too much. Laughing )


It is better to not assume at all. 4kids has Zexal, the article says they are promoting it, proving so.


Weeeeeell........ just because 4Kids is promoting Zexal, if NAS and TV Tokyo submit a court dispute on it, then that also becomes a point of contention and doubt. But so far, NAS and TV Tokyo do not dispute that point, so one can only believe it is not a point of contention.


The thing is, what standing would they have in court if a recent case just decided 4kids does have it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enurtsol



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 14746
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:01 am Reply with quote
cohenmarioman wrote:
enurtsol wrote:
cohenmarioman wrote:


It is better to not assume at all. 4kids has Zexal, the article says they are promoting it, proving so.


Weeeeeell........ just because 4Kids is promoting Zexal, if NAS and TV Tokyo submit a court dispute on it, then that also becomes a point of contention and doubt. But so far, NAS and TV Tokyo do not dispute that point, so one can only believe it is not a point of contention.


The thing is, what standing would they have in court if a recent case just decided 4kids does have it?


There are 2 separate possible points of contention:

(1) whether 4Kids violated the contract

(2) whether Zexal is included in the contract

NAS and TV Tokyo are arguing #1 but so far are not disputing #2.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigOnAnime
Encyclopedia Editor


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 1219
Location: Minnesota, USA
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:48 pm Reply with quote
CareyGrant wrote:
Normally I'm not for people losing their jobs, but 4Kids just needs to lie in a ditch and die. They are an affront to anime in North America.

How many series did they gut or butcher?

How many times did they publicly thumb their noses at anime only to come crawling back to it?

Not that many believe it or not.company#303

Anyway, man they're determined. How on earth are they able to get this after what happened?[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
Lady Multi



Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Posts: 673
PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:50 pm Reply with quote
ShanaFan852 wrote:
CareyGrant wrote:
Normally I'm not for people losing their jobs, but 4Kids just needs to lie in a ditch and die. They are an affront to anime in North America.

How many series did they gut or butcher?

How many times did they publicly thumb their noses at anime only to come crawling back to it?

Not that many believe it or not.company#303

Anyway, man they're determined. How on earth are they able to get this after what happened?[/url]


And Pokemon they did well with. For example, I've seen MewTwo Returns in Japanese and the English Dub.. Besides the obvious Americanized names of the main characters, everything was essentially the same.
...course they "dropped" Pokemon for YuGiOh... Seems that they could only ever focus on one thing at a time.

Now Tokyo Mew Mew and Pretty Cure... they were horrible. Its one thing to have hacked the series to bits (Mew Mew; only seen 2 eps of Pretty Cure), but horrible dubbing as well... Come on...at least find decent people that doesn't sound like they're reading off a prompter.
...Sonic X had the same problem with dubbing; bad actors.

I never understood why they chose the anime they did. Whey they got One Piece, I laughed knowing that its out of their "kid friendly" views. I don't see why they didn't pick the cutsy, already kid-friendly, little shows to bring over. (course then again, all the little kids I know watch Family Guy so I still don't understand why they need to edit ANYTHING...haha)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group