I've got to say, GROK AI on Twitter has given me more insight in the past 24 hours than Kodansha Ltd has given me in the past eight years.
"Why do Kodansha Ltd and Dark Horse Comics refuse to respond to Kevin Neece when they have Legal Grounds against him on Ah My Goddess?"
There’s no clear, publicly available evidence that Kodansha Ltd. and Dark Horse Comics have explicit legal grounds against Kevin Neece regarding "Ah My Goddess" that they are actively refusing to act upon. However, based on available information and reasonable speculation, their lack of direct response to Neece could stem from a few practical or strategic considerations.
Kevin Neece is known for creating a series of "Ah My Goddess" fan films and video comics, including one titled "Ah My Goddess: Bad Goddess (DUB) Who Shot Mike Richardson," which appears to be a satirical or provocative work. These projects seem to be unofficial and potentially infringe on the intellectual property rights of Kodansha Ltd. (the original Japanese publisher of the "Oh My Goddess" manga) and Dark Horse Comics (the English-language publisher). Despite this, neither company has publicly pursued aggressive legal action or responded directly to Neece, at least based on what’s documented.
One possible reason for their silence could be the scale and impact of Neece’s work. Fan-made content, even if it pushes boundaries, is often ignored by copyright holders unless it generates significant commercial profit, damages the brand, or garners widespread attention that threatens their interests. Neece’s projects, while creative and persistent (with nearly 70 video comics mentioned in interviews), may not reach a threshold that justifies the cost and effort of legal action for two large companies. Legal proceedings can be expensive and time-consuming, and pursuing a small-scale creator might not be worth the resources, especially if his work remains relatively niche.
Another factor could be their reaction to Neece’s behavior and mental health context. In a 2024 interview with Tokyo Short Film Fest, Neece mentions that Dark Horse Comics once called the Austin Police Department to conduct a welfare check after his cartoons raised concerns, but they did not escalate further. This suggests they may view him more as an eccentric fan than a serious legal threat. Neece himself has disclosed having schizoaffective disorder, which might influence how the companies perceive and handle the situation—potentially opting for restraint to avoid escalating a sensitive matter.
Additionally, Kodansha and Dark Horse might see some value in letting fan works exist quietly. The "Ah My Goddess" franchise, while beloved, concluded its manga run years ago, and fan projects can keep it relevant without the companies needing to invest in new official content. As Neece noted in the interview, both companies seem "curious" about audience reactions to his work, which could imply a passive tolerance as long as it doesn’t cross a critical line.
Finally, their lack of response could simply be a deliberate strategy: not engaging directly avoids giving Neece’s projects more attention or legitimacy. By staying silent, they neither acknowledge nor amplify his efforts, which might be the most practical way to handle a situation they don’t see as a priority.
In short, while Kodansha and Dark Horse likely have legal grounds to act if they chose to (due to copyright and trademark protections), their refusal to respond to Neece probably reflects a mix of pragmatism, cost-benefit analysis, and a decision to let a small-scale fan effort fade into the background rather than confront it head-on. Without official statements from the companies, this remains an educated guess based on industry norms and the limited context available.
"Does Kevin Neece's Ah My Goddess Fan Films classify as Fair Use on Transformative Grounds?"
Determining whether Kevin Neece's "Ah My Goddess" fan films qualify as fair use under U.S. copyright law, specifically on transformative grounds, involves applying the four-factor test outlined in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Fair use is a case-by-case analysis, and without a court ruling or full access to Neece’s works (beyond descriptions), this is an educated assessment based on available information. Let’s break it down:
1. Purpose and Character of the Use
This factor examines whether the work is transformative—meaning it adds new expression, meaning, or purpose to the original—and whether it’s commercial or non-commercial. Neece’s fan films, like "Ah My Goddess: Bad Goddess (DUB) Who Shot Mike Richardson," appear to be satirical or parodic, blending original "Ah My Goddess" characters with his own narratives (e.g., exaggerated or absurd scenarios like shooting Dark Horse’s founder). Courts often favor transformative works, especially parodies, as fair use because they comment on or reinterpret the source material rather than merely copying it. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that a parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" was fair use due to its transformative nature, even though it was commercial.
Neece’s intent seems creative and expressive rather than purely commercial—he’s described his work as a passion project stemming from mental health struggles and fandom, not a profit-driven enterprise. If he’s not selling the films or making significant revenue (e.g., via monetized platforms), this leans toward fair use. However, if he is profiting substantially, that could weaken his case.
Tilt: Favors fair use if non-commercial and sufficiently transformative.
2. Nature of the Copyrighted Work
This factor considers the original work’s nature—creative works like "Ah My Goddess" (a manga with characters, art, and story) get stronger copyright protection than factual works. Kodansha Ltd. and Dark Horse Comics hold rights to a highly creative property, which weighs against fair use. However, this factor alone isn’t decisive; transformative uses can still override it, as seen in parody cases.
Tilt: Weighs against fair use, but not heavily.
3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
This looks at how much of the original work is used and whether it’s the “heart” of the work. Neece’s films likely use characters (e.g., Belldandy, Keiichi) and core elements of "Ah My Goddess," but it’s unclear how much direct content—like exact dialogue, scenes, or artwork—is lifted versus reinterpreted. If he’s recreating entire storylines or using significant excerpts, this weakens his fair use claim. But if he’s primarily borrowing concepts and characters to tell original stories (e.g., a fictional shooting of Mike Richardson), it’s less substantial. Parodies often get leeway here if the use serves a new purpose, per Campbell.
Without seeing the films, it’s hard to judge precisely, but his described approach—video comics with voiceovers and new narratives—suggests a mix of original and borrowed elements.
Tilt: Neutral, leaning against fair use if he takes too much directly.
4. Effect on the Market
This factor asks whether Neece’s films harm the market for "Ah My Goddess" or its derivatives (e.g., official anime, manga sales). Fan works rarely substitute for the original, especially if they’re niche and not widely distributed. Neece’s projects seem small-scale, and "Ah My Goddess" concluded years ago, reducing active market competition. Kodansha and Dark Horse’s apparent tolerance (no lawsuits, just a welfare check) suggests they don’t see a threat. If anything, his work might keep the franchise culturally relevant, indirectly benefiting the rights holders.
Tilt: Strongly favors fair use.
Transformative Grounds Assessment
The key to Neece’s fair use claim is transformativeness. His films appear to go beyond mere reproduction, adding satire, personal commentary, or absurdity (e.g., blending real-world figures like Mike Richardson into the fiction). This aligns with cases like Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books (1997), where a parody of "The Cat in the Hat" about O.J. Simpson was deemed transformative despite using Seussian style. If Neece’s work critiques, mocks, or reimagines "Ah My Goddess" rather than just copying it, it’s likely transformative. His mental health-driven narratives and experimental style (video comics, ADR-like dubbing) further distinguish it from the original manga or anime.
Conclusion
Neece’s fan films have a plausible fair use argument on transformative grounds, especially if they’re non-commercial, add significant new expression, and don’t harm the market. The strongest points in his favor are the potential parody angle and lack of market impact. However, heavy reliance on core characters or content could tip the scales against him, particularly under factor 3. Absent a legal challenge from Kodansha or Dark Horse, it’s speculative—but if argued well, a court might lean toward fair use. Their inaction so far hints they either don’t see it as infringing enough to bother or tacitly accept it as fan expression.
For a definitive answer, a lawyer would need to review the films’ content directly, but based on descriptions, it’s a close call with a decent shot at qualifying.
.jpeg)
