ROBOBLOG III Archives

1.23.2007

Exclusive unused Mospeada design image!


Behold! From the files of Roger Harkavy at Super7 Magazine, a Roboblog exclusive look at the AFC/R-02 ground combat Legioss, an unused mecha design from Genesis Climber Mospeada. (Click to enlarge!) As Roger remarked when he e-mailed this to me ...

This is a photo of a sample colorway sheet, black and white photocopied line art detailed with color marker. This sheet, along with 100 other pieces of MOSPEADA and Southern Cross pre-production art, was discovered in a warehouse in Japan, among the files of the now defunct model kit company Imai.

Super7 Magazine issue #15 will feature an article about MOSPEADA and Southern Cross toys. The article includes six pieces of artwork from the Imai Files and a glimpse into additional pre-production materials that give new insight into the background of these shows. If fans would like to see the rest of these materials in print one day, please encourage them to spread the word and support the magazine by buying this issue.

And I do encourage you to buy it, oh yes. Seriously, if any place around here carried the blasted thing, I know I'd be buying it every three months or thereabouts (it's quarterly). Clicky-click here to their website.

Oh, and Roger says he doesn't want to see this pic flitting about the interweb -- actually, what exactly did he say?

... please include something to the effect that I would prefer that the image remain exclusive to your blog, and that people avoid copying, distributing, remote linking, or modifying the image. I know that they're probably going to do this anyway, but that's why I have my copyright and email address plastered across the front.


Ah, that's right. So please don't do that, okay? (And for those who were complaining, Roger has updated the copyright info for accuracy.)

More stuff later.

15 Comments:

  • Uh, he does realize he has no legal right to list a copyright under his name, right? "Copyright 1983 ARTMIC," yes, but not ""Copyright 2007 Roger Harkavy." He can't put his name on a copyright to this, no more than a person can buy an original sketch of Gundam at Mandarake and put "Copyright 2007 John Smith. All rights reserved" on the scan.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24 January, 2007 01:38  

  • To clarify, it's not a scan, it's a photograph of the sheet. I did my due diligence and established that I could not copyright an exact duplicate of the image like a scan, but I could copyright a photo.

    If you were viewing the original un-cropped photo, you would see that it's on my coffee table with a post-it note stuck to it. Some of the photos in Super7 #15 will show this.

    Obviously I want to work with the copyright holders to get this material published one day, so I took steps to make sure that I wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes, copyright-wise. If they have any issues with it, well, there's my email address right in the photo if they want to contact me.

    I appreciate the concern, though.

    Jonathan, thanks for posting this.

    By Blogger Roger, at 24 January, 2007 07:10  

  • You don't have the legal copyright to a photo or a scan of just someone else's sketch, no more than you can copyright a photo of a Garfield cartoon just because it has a post-it note on it, or a photo of a Gundam sketch just because it was on your coffee table. Such a photo is still a derivative of someone's work because you added nothing original--the key requirement of a copyright. You didn't add anything besides a digital camera.

    Think about it. If all it took to claim a copyright of someone else's artwork is take a photograph, someone could go to a museum of modern art, take a picture of all of Andy Warhol's artwork, and then give away his entire collection on photographs for free.

    If you're going to put a copyright on it, don't put your own name in the copyright instead of the real artists. Saying that "If I did something wrong, well, they can reach me" is not wise. That's not going to make the copyright owners--particularly the real artists--happy when it comes time to talk with them.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/about/copyright-issues.html

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24 January, 2007 09:37  

  • Anonymous, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'm willing to face the consequences.

    Any questions or comments regarding something other than the copyright notice?

    By Blogger Roger, at 24 January, 2007 09:48  

  • Heh, it would be interesting to see this adapted for any future Shadow Chronicles follow-ups

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24 January, 2007 16:36  

  • Whether it was copyrighted to the proper party or not, I just wish the copyright notice could have been added in such a way as not to obscure interesting details. Black text with a white outline or something.

    By Blogger Chris Meadows, at 24 January, 2007 23:34  

  • Technically — and there've been more than a few legal battles on this — you can copyright a photo of someone else's copyrighted work. In theory you're supposed to show that you brought something to the photo that wasn't in the original, but the legal tests have tended to err on the side of favoring the photographer.

    In only know this from helping my girlfriend with her art school homework. ;-)

    By Anonymous Untitled, at 25 January, 2007 00:35  

  • Adding one's own name and an email address doesn't qualify as adding something original. ;-)

    Technically and in practice, the legal precedent has been actually against the photographer having a copyright if what the photograph contains is not original. A photographer can claim a copyright on a photograph of the New York skyline at sunrise, but not a photograph of a piece of art from the New York Museum of Modern Art.

    http://www.constitution.org/1ll/court/fed/bridgman.html

    If this wasn't true, someone could take a photo of their monitor while browsing this blog entry, and post a photo OF the photo OF the sketch on their website with their own "copyright notice." ;-)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 25 January, 2007 01:01  

  • Anonymous #1 will be interested to know that I was contacted by someone, and the copyright notice was revised accordingly.

    Chris, if you'd like to see the details under the copyright notice, a black and white version of this is in Super7 #15.

    By Blogger Roger, at 25 January, 2007 07:33  

  • Fine, where do I buy it? There doesn't seem to be a buy-just-one-issue link on the website, I just see a subscription option.

    By Blogger Chris Meadows, at 25 January, 2007 15:52  

  • They haven't updated their site yet, the new issue just got to their offices on Friday and I don't think it's hit newsstands yet. I will definitely be posting the link when their site is updated.

    By Blogger Roger, at 25 January, 2007 16:14  

  • It's my understanding from an IP class, that you can't have a copyright on a derivative work (e.g. photograpj) of something that's already copyrighted like a piece of art unless you have permission from the original copyright holder. If you don't have permission from the original copyright holder, you've made an unlicensed derivative, which isn't copyright protected. If you do have permission, the only things protected by your new copyright are the elements you added to the work by taking the photograph (e.g. how it's arranged, lighting, cropping, etc.), not the original art itself.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 02 February, 2007 23:48  

  • ^^ PS, this is a different anonymous :)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 02 February, 2007 23:48  

  • Prove it! ;p

    By Blogger Roger, at 28 March, 2007 10:04  

  • Thanks for the nice post!

    Free PS3

    By Blogger butlimous, at 15 September, 2007 08:49  

Post a Comment

<< Home