The "Team Four Star" actors were blacklisted by Funi and Toei rumor

[TheBlackPaladin]

For one thing, Disney is never gonna let any change to copyright pass that would let Mickey Mouse fall into public domain. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

That's true for the most part...however there are some exceptions that are--as one should expect--exceedingly rare. It also brings up a funny little quirk about public domain laws: they vary from country to country. As it currently stands, Disney's Song of the South (or, as Disney refers to it, "I don't know what you're talking about") actually has fallen into the public domain under Japanese copyright law. Makes me wonder if maybe, by some legal quirk, DBZ is considered a public domain show in some small corner of the earth. To say that's unlikely is of course an enormous understatement.

[VegettoEX]

Makes me wonder if maybe, by some legal quirk, DBZ is considered a public domain show in some small corner of the earth. To say that's unlikely is of course an enormous understatement.

I mean, there are certainly countries that don't abide by otherwise-recognized international copyright law. See: SonMay CDs for Dragon Ball (and every other show!) in the 90s.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

Makes me wonder if maybe, by some legal quirk, DBZ is considered a public domain show in some small corner of the earth. To say that's unlikely is of course an enormous understatement.

I mean, there are certainly countries that don't abide by otherwise-recognized international copyright law. See: SonMay CDs for Dragon Ball (and every other show!) in the 90s.

Yeah, all of the infamous "Speedy" bootleg VCD's with the laughably bad English dubs of DBZ and Sailor Moon that were sold in places like Malaysia and Singapore. Apparently releases like the former were very common there in that region of Asia where things are different in terms of copyright or lack thereof.

[kemuri07]

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to know that there's no chance of that happening.

There is no public domain argument. Dragon Ball is a copyrighted property.

When I said "public domain argument" I meant there's an argument that something as old as Dragon Ball should be in the public domain.

That's not how it currently works, but it's how it should work.

... But, yeah, that's never gonna happen. For one thing, Disney is never gonna let any change to copyright pass that would let Mickey Mouse fall into public domain. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

You can make that same argument about DBZ, itself a 30 year old show. And...nah? Because Toei will, and they're not wrong to presume this, that even though DB Super is the current installment of the franchise, it's still using characters featured in the original DB.

[TheBlackPaladin]

Makes me wonder if maybe, by some legal quirk, DBZ is considered a public domain show in some small corner of the earth. To say that's unlikely is of course an enormous understatement.

I mean, there are certainly countries that don't abide by otherwise-recognized international copyright law. See: SonMay CDs for Dragon Ball (and every other show!) in the 90s.

Yeah, all of the infamous "Speedy" bootleg VCD's with the laughably bad English dubs of DBZ and Sailor Moon that were sold in places like Malaysia and Singapore. Apparently releases like the former were very common there in that region of Asia where things are different in terms of copyright or lack thereof.

Wai-wai-wait...the Speedy dub was a bootleg dub? I mean, I always knew it was a terrible dub, and I always questioned who the target audience was, but I'm surprised to hear it's not a legitimate one. If that's true, then it's a shame this illegitimate dub was one of the few to get its hands on such high-quality Music & Effects tapes for dubbing purposes.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

I mean, there are certainly countries that don't abide by otherwise-recognized international copyright law. See: SonMay CDs for Dragon Ball (and every other show!) in the 90s.

Yeah, all of the infamous "Speedy" bootleg VCD's with the laughably bad English dubs of DBZ and Sailor Moon that were sold in places like Malaysia and Singapore. Apparently releases like the former were very common there in that region of Asia where things are different in terms of copyright or lack thereof.

Wai-wai-wait...the Speedy dub was a bootleg dub? I mean, I always knew it was a terrible dub, and I always questioned who the target audience was, but I'm surprised to hear it's not a legitimate one. If that's true, then it's a shame this illegitimate dub was one of the few to get its hands on such high-quality Music & Effects tapes for dubbing purposes.

I mean, details on the Speedy dubs themselves are pretty scarce overall. Though what i can tell it was apparently not a legit professionally produced dub at all. The voices were done by a small handful of people and Speedy Video itself it seems is or was a sketchy video group or chain based out of Malaysia or Singapore, and yes it seems bootleg dubs of things were very common in that region of the world in the '90s. The group also did some of the Doraemon movies and a good few of the old school Godzilla films so they weren't just limited to awful anime dubs.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if the Speedy dubs of the DBZ movies like everything else they did were not legit because it seems bootlegging and piracy was and is more common over there.

[WittyUsername]

I assumed/figured the Speedy dub was just a bootleg. Even Behind the Voice Actors doesn’t seem to consider it to be an official dub.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

I assumed/figured the Speedy dub was just a bootleg. Even Behind the Voice Actors doesn’t seem to consider it to be an official dub.

I don't believe it is either, nothing about Speedy's DBZ movie dubs feels official. It seems like the kind of thing some shady hole in the wall video place in Malaysia or Singapore would make at the time. The translations came from poorly adapted scripts of the Chinese/Cantonese dub which was in turn translated from the Japanese version, plus of course the quite apparent lack of comprehension of the English language by the people who voiced the characters (No seriously, they could've just done these in their own language rather than the ridiculously butchered mess that was) and with all those things it doesn't strike me as official in pretty much every form.

The dubbing and everything else is of such substandard levels, it's just not the kind of thing you would really want a dub to be

[TheBlackPaladin]

I assumed/figured the Speedy dub was just a bootleg. Even Behind the Voice Actors doesn’t seem to consider it to be an official dub.

I don't believe it is either, nothing about Speedy's DBZ movie dubs feels official. It seems like the kind of thing some shady hole in the wall video place in Malaysia or Singapore would make at the time. The translations came from poorly adapted scripts of the Chinese/Cantonese dub which was in turn translated from the Japanese version, plus of course the quite apparent lack of comprehension of the English language by the people who voiced the characters (No seriously, they could've just done these in their own language rather than the ridiculously butchered mess that was) and with all those things it doesn't strike me as official in pretty much every form.

The dubbing and everything else is of such substandard levels, it's just not the kind of thing you would really want a dub to be

Agreed, but again, the Music & Effects tapes on that dub are some of the best I've ever heard. Most other dubs--including the many, most definitely official ones--didn't get ME tapes of that high a quality. So if the Speedy dub wasn't legit, I wonder how they of all people were able to get a hold of those tapes. The only explanation I can think of is that you said they got their translations from poorly adapted scripts of the Chinese/Cantonese dub...which is also one of the very few dubs to have super-high quality ME tapes....so maybe Speedy got more than just their scripts from their Chinese source. Perhaps they got their ME tapes as well.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

I assumed/figured the Speedy dub was just a bootleg. Even Behind the Voice Actors doesn’t seem to consider it to be an official dub.

I don't believe it is either, nothing about Speedy's DBZ movie dubs feels official. It seems like the kind of thing some shady hole in the wall video place in Malaysia or Singapore would make at the time. The translations came from poorly adapted scripts of the Chinese/Cantonese dub which was in turn translated from the Japanese version, plus of course the quite apparent lack of comprehension of the English language by the people who voiced the characters (No seriously, they could've just done these in their own language rather than the ridiculously butchered mess that was) and with all those things it doesn't strike me as official in pretty much every form.

The dubbing and everything else is of such substandard levels, it's just not the kind of thing you would really want a dub to be

Agreed, but again, the Music & Effects tapes on that dub are some of the best I've ever heard. Most other dubs--including the many, most definitely official ones--didn't get ME tapes of that high a quality. So if the Speedy dub wasn't legit, I wonder how they of all people were able to get a hold of those tapes. The only explanation I can think of is that you said they got their translations from poorly adapted scripts of the Chinese/Cantonese dub...which is also one of the very few dubs to have super-high quality ME tapes....so maybe Speedy got more than just their scripts from their Chinese source. Perhaps they got their ME tapes as well.

Beats me, who knows but somehow or other they got these good quality music/effect tapes. I'm not sure exactly but my guess is maybe they were in contact with someone involved with the Chinese dubs who had connections around there and somehow acquired them as well as the scripts from which their dubs were sourced from.

[jaisonas]

20 million views? Ugh. Now I'm sad. But 20 million views isn't 20 million fans. Excuse me as I vomit.

It's left a mark on the fandom, but not the audience, and they are the ones that matter the most.

Even the FUNimation dub of Kai seemed to be influenced by them to a degree.

A few lines is hardly an influence.

Pretty ironic that most DBZA haters that think that it it defiled DBZ are perfectly fine with Toei ruining DB with super

[ABED]

20 million views? Ugh. Now I'm sad. But 20 million views isn't 20 million fans. Excuse me as I vomit.

It's left a mark on the fandom, but not the audience, and they are the ones that matter the most.

Even the FUNimation dub of Kai seemed to be influenced by them to a degree.

A few lines is hardly an influence.

Pretty ironic that most DBZA haters that think that it it defiled DBZ are perfectly fine with Toei ruining DB with super

Neither show ruined DB

[Yuji]

I can't say I empathize with the "They were stealing from Toei Animation" argument being thrown around in the earlier pages of the thread as an excuse for this supposed blacklisting. Copyright law is sadly necessary in the current system to protect small artists struggling to make a living, not big, successful corporations in charge of large IPs. Sympathy shouldn't be awarded to corporations for being scummy and tyrannical because you dislike a certain fan product or its fanbase, or you feel they're making money out of someone else's (successful, culturally ingrained) work especially when historically artists appropriating other artists' work for themselves has always lead to incredible breakthroughs (Shakespeare, for example, adapted Romeo and Juliet along with other plays from writers of the same era). Dragon Ball is big and old enough that it should be public domain.

That being said, I would prefer personally if the TFS influence was kept to a minimum (ideally, zero) on official material.

[ABED]

Please don't compare what TFS is doing to Shakespeare. Plus, the sources he was using were older than a few decades. I think copyright law is author's death + 75 years.

[marumuju]

Dragon Ball is big and old enough that it should be public domain.

That is a very, very weird statement, especially when the original creator is still alive. If I would create an internationally successful property, I would be throughly pissed if some external entity decided that they can do whatever they want with something I created and make profit from that. This applies to the companies too. Even if they are big and scummy, they do at least either create or invest in the property. What matters is that a fair amount of royalties is handed to the original creator(s), but that is not a matter of relinquishing copyright, it is about fairer contracts. Nothing should be public domain by default, unless the creator(s) explicitly give it away. Parody is allowed, but Toei has all the right in the world to influence how it wants DBZ to be dubbed. The whole thing may come down to a few people having bad opinions about TFS, but that's just bad luck.

I'll admit that I'm ranting heavily, but the Romeo and Juliet example and the 'incredible breakthroughs through appropriation' argument has never sat well with me. Mostly it is a reasoning for: 'I want this, and I want to pay nothing for it'. In the age when there was no copyright protection, creative people were fine with a work living a life of its own, but I'm pretty sure that each and every one of them would like the current system better since today the creator (or the rights owner) has got rights to their creation, for better or for worse.

[Yuji]

Dragon Ball is big and old enough that it should be public domain.

That is a very, very weird statement, especially when the original creator is still alive. If I would create an internationally successful property, I would be throughly pissed if some external entity decided that they can do whatever they want with something I created and make profit from that. This applies to the companies too. Even if they are big and scummy, they do at least either create or invest in the property. What matters is that a fair amount of royalties is handed to the original creator(s), but that is not a matter of relinquishing copyright, it is about fairer contracts. Nothing should be public domain by default, unless the creator(s) explicitly give it away. Parody is allowed, but Toei has all the right in the world to influence how it wants DBZ to be dubbed. The whole thing may come down to a few people having bad opinions about TFS, but that's just bad luck.

I'll admit that I'm ranting heavily, but the Romeo and Juliet example and the 'incredible breakthroughs through appropriation' argument has never sat well with me. Mostly it is a reasoning for: 'I want this, and I want to pay nothing for it'. In the age when there was no copyright protection, creative people were fine with a work living a life of its own, but I'm pretty sure that each and every one of them would like the current system better since today the creator (or the rights owner) has got rights to their creation, for better or for worse.

To each his own, but if I were a rich artist with an internationally successful multi-billion dollar IP, I wouldn't feel the least bit threatened by some fans profiting off my own work, especially since, as an artist, I would know that among the pile of predictable reprints/cashgrabs, there would actually be some good work in there that I'd be curious to experience. Like I said, under the capitalist framework our world currently operates, copyright law is regrettably necessary to protect small, struggling artists from having their work "stolen," but the same protections shouldn't be extended to corporations and billionaire artists who, for the most part, abuse copyright law to screw over projects they feel may overshadow their own or put a dent into their already ridiculously large profits (see: many fangames in the videogame industry getting C&D'd, Youtube copyright claims, etc). Copyright law, if nothing else, restricts creativity and freedom.

Whether or not past creators would like the current system better is really irrelevant seeing as how the world they lived in was still if not capitalist then mercantile, of course they would want protections to guarantee they can earn a living,. The point is that when copyright law was nonexistent, creativity flourished. Correlation does not, of course, necessarily mean causation, but I feel like it's hard to argue that given more creative freedom, more passionate and influential art is made. More than half of the great literature of the world wouldn't exist without this old artistic wild west, as most of the western canon heavily relies on intertextuality and appropriation.

[jjgp1112]

I mean there's a big difference between ripping off someone's general storylines and themes and incorporating it into your story, and outright using another property's footage and characters by name and appearance. Most of the past fiction you're metioning was of the former nature, and that's still been happening in the past century and a half of entertainment. Movies and TV shows rip each other off liberally. I mean up until the Seinfeld and later Friends rewrote the book in the 90s, basically every single sitcom for about 30 years were reycling the same basic plots, to just give one example. And then after Seinfeld and Friends...people just started copying them instead.

I know people cite the great artists steal quote, which is true...but great artists don't *copy* either, if that makes sense. I feel like people misinterpret that saying to justify tracing and more direct copying of other works.

[Yuji]

I mean there's a big difference between ripping off someone's general storylines and themes and incorporating it into your story, and outright using another property's footage and characters by name and appearance. Most of the past fiction you're metioning was of the former nature, and that's still been happening in the past century and a half of entertainment. Movies and TV shows rip each other off liberally. I mean up until the Seinfeld and later Friends rewrote the book in the 90s, basically every single sitcom for about 30 years were reycling the same basic plots, to just give one example. And then after Seinfeld and Friends...people just started copying them instead.

I know people cite the great artists steal quote, which is true...but great artists don't *copy* either, if that makes sense. I feel like people misinterpret that saying to justify tracing and more direct copying of other works.

It depends on what you mean by "copying." Many great works outright borrow someone else's work for their own setting. The most obvious cases of something everyone deems okay, of course, are books or movies which lift from Nordic, Greek and Biblical myths. But as for another example, like I said above, Shakespeare didn't merely "rip off," a lot of his work shared identical plot points and character names with the work he was appropriating, Romeo and Julie once more being one of the more egregious examples of a play written based on a poem from a few years before, which was in turn also based on someone else's story. What set him apart was his use of language and structure. A lesser known case involves one Thomas Dekker's play The Shoemaker's Holiday presented in 1599 blatantly using the same story and characters as Thomas Deloney's 1597 prose work The Gentle Craft, yet critics would hardly consider the latter superior artistically to the former. Up until the 18th and 19th centuries, this sort of artistic appropriation was very frequent.

Another famous case is the book Ulysses by James Joyce which works within the universe created by Homer in his epics. Many would no doubt justify this case by saying the two are millenia apart, but the point remains that if instead of the Iliad and the Odyssey being written millenia ago, they were written a few decades before Joyce's work and remained chained by copyright law, Ulysses, a monumental piece in the history of literature, would never have been written. Artistic freedom is a great thing.

[jjgp1112]

But one could say Shakespeare's method of making Romeo & Juliet was already ethically dubious and possibly a justification for strict copyright laws to begin with. I would imagine in the 20th/21st century, Arthur Brooke's poem would've existed in relative obscurity, Shakespeare would've copied it wholesale for movie plot, the movie would make a boatload of money, Brooke would sue and the end result is Shakespeare's production company paying Brooke a lump sum or a small percentage of royalties but his film's success and influence continuing on unabated. Or, in a more connected world, he would've simply gotten in touch with Brooke's people himself and gotten permission.

But holy fucking fuck I am being incredibly pedantic and for that I apologize. I guess my greater point is that copyright laws necessitate a little more creativity and sleight of hand when it comes to deriving works, and I think we're all the better for it. It also gives creatives more protection of their work, which I think is very much necessary - regardless of how big it is or how much you actually need it, you create something, and that shit should be yours unless you say otherwise.

I mean obviously, the small struggling creative needs that ownership more...but then I think of how protective and prideful of the small little things I've made - increase its scope, income, and impact by a few exponents and suddenly that pride and protective nature becomes even stronger, I'd say. It's easy to say how you'd go about things if you had a million dollars, but we often think in terms of if that million was suddenly just plopped on our desks right this moment, forgetting how much the conventional path to that much money will probably change your perspective and increase the stakes.

[JulieYBM]

Copyright law needs to be reduced to mere acknowledgement of a work's origin. Furthermore, we should have a UBI so that nobody need want of basic necessities.