tl;dr lol mappa remove nakayama from the credits of the compilation movie wtf the disrespect is unreal
================
Director Kazuomi Koga directed criticism at MAPPA's handling of the Chainsawman Compilation movie on 2 particular grounds. First, Koga criticized MAPPA's decision to cut and edit anime episodes of Chainsawman directed by the original Director Nakayama Ryu in the process of creating the compilation movie. Koga also cricized MAPPA's decision to remove Nakayama from the credits.
Koga characterizes this as MAPPA taking the stance that Directors of anime don't have "moral rights." This comment may draw a lot of confusion from Western Anime Fans, because "Moral Rights" are a form of IP rights in Japanese IP law that do not exist in American law, or the laws of many European countries.
It's one of the most powerful (and controversial) aspects of Japanese IP law that gives creators of art immense powers over their creations that artists do not have in American IP law.
You could say, "moral rights" in Japanese IP law are the reason that Akira Toriyama and Eiichiro Oda have made hundreds of millions of dollars from their creations, but Stan Lee got paid just a few million dollars over his entire career. You can make an argument that Moral Rights are the reason the manga and anime industry in Japan attracts so much talent.
To understand why Koga is upset, it's necessary to understand what he's talking about--to understand "moral rights" and how they shape Japanese manga--and why they may, or may not apply to anime directors.
For example, if Directors of season 1 hold moral rights over the work--they could halt production of Season 2 indefinitely until they become available again, even if they are booked up for years. Or demand they be kept as Season 2 director even if their adaptation of Season 1 was a disaster and fans are begging for a different director.
Note the AI translation has a mistranslation. Koga is referring not to \"Anime directors of original anime\" 原作物アニメ refers actually to ADAPTED anime, not original anime, so the AI translation gets the meaning completely reversed.
So the "moral rights" part is in reference to a Japanese IP law called 著作人格権 （chosaku-jinkaku-ken), which are sometimes translated as "moral rights" in intellectual property law. This is a concept that does not exist in American IP law, or many European Countries, so it can be a little confusing.
In Japaense IP law, the creator of a work has 2 different types of IP rights--negotiable and inalienable rights. Negotiable rights are more akin to American IP rights, "Moral rights" fall into the latter category. These are rights that cannot be negotiated away by the holder/creator of the work, even if they were to so wish in negotiation. They are literally inalienable--cannot be taken away.
It's composed of 4 different rights
The right to decline publicizing a work that the holder does not want presented publicly (if it hasn't yet been published or publicized). If the creator says this is crap and I don't want it going out, a creator has the right to stop publication in Japan. Full stop.
The right to have your name attached to a work, or to prohibit attaching one's name to a work, and to define how the person is to be identified. For example, a person who wants to use a pen-name can prhobit a publisher for publishing using their real name. A person has a right to insist that they are properly credited with a work as well--this is the first of the rights that's discussed here.
The right to decline to have your work altered without your consent -- this is another thing being brought up regarding the compilation movie.
The right to prohibit certain uses of the art that would damage a person's reputation--for example, using art to advertise sexual services when the art was not initially created for that purpose, or other reputation damaging uses of art in ways not initially contemplated.
So in a nutshell, the IP laws of Japan are complicated, and there's debate over when artists have these moral rights. Where an artwork is created by 1 person, it's straiughtforward. Where it's created by large teams, it becomes less clear.
In the case of anime, I think there's some matter of legal debate over whether anime directors have moral rights over their works. Particularly when they are adapting a manga or light novel.
For example, in the world of manga, due to "RIght to decline to alter" generally a publisher is unable to continue a manga series without the original author's consent. The Mangaka has an inalienable right to decline to let the publisher alter their work--and continuing a manga series or adding to a manga series without their consent is generally considered to be an "alteration of an existing work."
This is also why mangaka are immensely compensated compared to comic authors in the US. American comic book publishers like DC Comics or Marvel own the IPs like Superman or Spiderman, thus once those characters are created, they can swap authors as they see fit to create new series or stories.
In Japan, Jump owned the chapters of Dragonball that AKira Toriyama submitted... but they do not own the rights to continue Dragonball or to make any new stories on Dragonball. Toriyama, and after his death, his heirs own the rights to make that determination. Thus, Jump required Toriyama's permission to do ANYTHING with Dragonball, including make movies, have a different author write Dragonball Super, etc. This "right to non-modification" is incredibly powerful in the world of manga.
However, in anime, it's less clear that directors own these rights. For example, it's fairly normal for Anime Studios to swap directors between seasons. Particularly for an adaptation (like Chainswaman) there is a presumption by many studios that the inalienable rights reside with the mangaka--and the anime director of Season 1 doesn't have the "right to non-modication" and hte ability to block the studio from hiring a different director for SEason 2.
Things become even MORE dicey when talking about compiliation movies. It's unclear whether directors have the "Right to non-modification"--and so whether or not studios need permission from the director to change their work to do a compilation movie or to add new scenes is legally uncertain.
Director Kazuomi is criticizing Mappa's stance that Directors have no "Moral RIghts" when it comes to adapted anime like Chainsawman, even in the context of a compilation movie.
It's not clear that there is a legal requirement for studios to recognize moral rights for directors for anime adaptations. But certain, some directors (including Kazuomi) feel that studios should recognize them. Hence the criticism on Kazuomi's part.
Here's why Anime fans that think through the implications of moral rights might think Koga's wrong, however.
If you agree with Director Koga's perspective that moral rights should be held by directors that direct an anime adaptation, here are some of the realistic consequences of that:
Directors of Season 1 can demand that production of SEason 2 fit their schedule so they can direct Season 2 themselves--even if the director is booked up for the next 5 years... or indefinitely.
Directors of Season 1 can block their replacement... even if SEason 1 was of catastrophic quality, and the Studio (and fans) want someone else to helm new seasons, or a remake of the 1st Season. The director of Season 1 would hold absolute power to block all of that.
That's what it means for Studios to recognize the Moral RIghts of anime directors for anime adaptations. Not only would the mangaka of the original work have moral rights over the work, so would the director of SEason 1--so studios would need to get the approval of both. Either would hold an absolute veto, no matter how unreasonable. It could not be negotiated away from the director beforehand.
It's not clear that Director Kazuomi is correct in his analysis of Japanese IP law in this instance. And it's also not particularly clear that MAPPA is unique pr even in a minority in their stance that moral rights don't exist for anime adaptations for directors.
The issue of "Moral Rights" might also be separated from the issue of proper crediting of artists--even if the studio was not LEGALLY required through Moral RIghts to list the name of the director, you could certainly argue they violated an ethical obligation.
It's a complicated question. But I think anime fans should understand the implications of what Director Koga is saying about the rights of anime directors before wholeheartedly agreeing with him.
https://www.reddit.com/r/anime/comments/1ndz8ra/director_koga_kazuomi_blasts_mappa_over_refusal/ |
