I don't think the characters look that much like Gackt either. Sure some of them have similar hairstyles and clothes, but
they're not even close facially. I'm sure Nomura is inspired by him a lot (for some bizarre reason) and Nomuras characters all look pretty similar, it's like he can only do 2-3 faces at most.
/off topic
Really? You don't see the similarity in facial structure in terms of jaw-lines, brow shape, nose width and height, lip-shape etc.?
I don't really see them either. Gackt doesn't have a very distinctive face to start with; he has a bland chameleon face, a kind of generic anime-face, that could be almost anybody, male or female. So of course it's easy with a wig and a little make-up to make him look like almost any character. He could be made to resemble Vincent, Reeve, Reno, Tseng, Tifa, Aerith (maybe not Yuffie as she's just too young). The only ones he couldn't masquerade as are Rude, Barret, and Red XIII.
I think this is putting the horse before the cart.
Most humans do not have "bland chameleon-faces" and the characters of any design would only resemble such a face if they too where designed with faces that are within the spectrum of reach for such a face - or, if you will, with "bland chameleon-faces".
You could put as much make-up on me as you want to - I would still not look like any of those characters, because of my cheek-bones, jaw-line and nose-shape.
If Gackt can look like any of these characters with some make-up, that's because non of these characters are particularly distinctly designed, and because his facial structure, generally, is within reach of those generalities.
What else would you call that except resemblance?
Besides it's a non-sequitor and a contradiction in either case to say what you're saying here.
If Gackt doesn't resemble these characters, then he doesn't resemble them. Whether it's his make-up that makes him resemble them or not is not relevant.
You're literally saying that Gackt doesn't resemble them because he can resemble anyone. However, if he resembles anyone, then he resembles them as well.
Seeing as how most people do not resemble these characters though, and Gackt apparently does by virtue of being able to resemble anyone, it does not make sense to say he does not resemble them.
The correct thing to say here is that Nomura's characters all look indistinct and androgynous, as does Gackt - and since they share that commonality, they resemble one another.
But are we talking about major changes? Like I said, Genesis is already pretty much Generic Looking Bishounen. It would take hardly any tweaking for him to become Even More Generic Looking Bishounen.
We're talking major because when it comes to this particular "generic Bishonen"(I don't really agree that it's even that generic, except in terms of Nomura's own designs - because that particular style of design is actually not that common outside of his work) is tied to a license agreement.
Again - it is not the likeliness as you or I perceive it that matters here - it is what is written in contract in relation to a statement of resemblance.
What that means is that while Cloud could resemble Gackt on a fluke and be of no issue what so ever - Genesis, which was designed to resemble Gackt on purpose, is therefore also held to a higher standard if it is to re-purposed for use outside of the license contract.
It is a matter of creating a character that can no longer conceivable be thought of as still retaining the characteristics of the licensed character.
In terms of a character like Cloud, if someone like Gackt were make a law-suit due to similarities or something ridiculous like that - minimal difference is enough to provide a defense.
In the case of a character that was literally modeled after Gackt though - now you'd actually have to make major changes in order to make a defense against a claim of breach contract.
I'm ... not sure you said what you meant to here? Your comparison doesn't make sense. It would apply if I was saying that Nomura owned the outfit for having designed it. That would be analogous to saying Uematsu owns his FF musical contributions because he composed them.
But in both cases -- Nomura's designs and Uematsu's compositions -- they are owned by SE. This is as true of the "Prelude" theme as it is of Genesis's outfit.
No, you're misunderstanding the comparison and the purpose of it.
The part I high-lighted should make it apparent. In the case of SE owning Uematsu's music, this is is different from them owning the rights to Gackt's clothing because Uematsu is no longer a Square Employee, whilst Nomura is.
The point I was trying to make is that intellectual rights do not automatically follow creators, or anyone in particular. Rights can be signed over to anyone, as long as the legalities are in order.
It is perfectly possible for me to design something for you, and for you to hold all rights to that thing. It's also possible for me to design something for you and for me to still retain all rights. It's also possible for me to design something for you, and for a 3rd party to hold all rights.
There is no hard and fast rule enabling anyone to determine simply based on who made something, who holds the intellectual property to that thing.
I was trying to illustrate that it's perfectly possible for Nomura to have designed Gackt's outfit, and the outfit still being Gackt's intellectual property.
I'm not saying that's the case though. I was merely trying to point out that you cannot assert that Gackt does not hold that property simply by virtue of it having been designed by Nomura.
That assumption does not hold water.
Gackt doesn't own the outfit or the character. He owns the likeness and voice of the character -- both of which could be easily changed in five minutes.
They could not. Again, doing this to avoid licensing breach for something like Crisis Core would require going into the files of the game, altering the 3D model, then also redoing the HD model used in the cutscenes, and re-render all of them, and then re-recording all the voice-clips used for his character throughout the game.
That is a massive, and expensive job that completely defeats the purpose of releasing the game digitally to begin with.
It certainly cannot be done in 5 minutes - or even 10, or 20 for that matter.
I seriously don't see what the complication is in putting a slightly different face on Genesis when his face (i.e. Gackt's) is already so generic.
Which again, is the problem. Since Gackt's face is "generic" as you put it - changing Genesis's face to not look like him sufficiently to avoid license breach would require major alterations.
In the context of CC, the job is large due to voice work and CG. In the context of the remake, the problem is that what point is there in reintroducing a character from the compilation if he now looks and sounds vastly different from his original incantation?
I do have to wonder, though, whether Gackt or his record label has the final say in matters such as these. Licensing legal matters are the biggest vat of shit, I swear.
That's not the issue really. The issue is that when I license is signed, you have to abide by it, or redraw it with the relevant parties.
Who has the last say depends on what the terms of the contract was.
Presumably, there was no clause in it for digital re-release, which is fairly common as far as the world of music goes.
This can be addressed, but only as long as the original parties come to an agreement on the matter.
In terms of Gackt's involvement the most likely explanation why no redraw has been made, and why no work-around has been found is the following :
Gackt worked on commission, which means he only got paid once for his work, and is not receiving additional money for copies sold of the game. That is the most common in which VAs etc. are paid for their involvement in games.
However, if a game is later digitally re-released, SE would still be profiting off of Gackt's face and voice, and he would not.
This is unacceptable to most people within the music industry, and so the most likely scenario here is that the original license agreement was one time use for one time distribution.
The reason there has been no renewal is simply because paying Gackt again for the license to use him defeats the purpose of a digital re-release since the game probably won't sell all that many copies being a straight up re-release, yet since there's also a possibility the game might sell better than projected, they'd still have to pay Gackt a pretty good sum of money in order to incentivize him to allow re-use.
I.E To digitally re-release CC, they would have to pay Gackt more money, while not even knowing if that investment would make a decent return.
At that point, why would you release it?
