I almost have to laugh,
I just took a class in business school that covered this exact sort of copy right infringement. Right about now I do wish I could go and get the notes from the class on this exact issue, to show you exactly what is going on in the debate in the courts.
Like it or not, lawyers are going to debate this legal argument, and its quite sad that you would attack a person you don even know because of there profession. You never know who is going to be the pro-bono legal counsel for a battered womens shelter.
Wohoo just found my notes here we go:
The owner has the life + 70 or if its a corporation its creation + 120 years. So whoever is declared the owner by the Japanese courts will have these rights for a long time, unless they are sold.
The test were looking for is the "Likelihood of confusion" as made by a "reasonable person" -> EG: If you took 20 people randomly from the US and asked them to look at the Macross art, and the 'Hammer, would they believe they were the same?
Also along these lines, we have the derivative art: This is the exclusive right of the owner, so even if your arguing that the 'Hammer and the unseen are derivative artwork there still the owners.
BTW: you can not copyright the giant robot concept, only the expression of that concept that is Macross.
Hate the facts if you would like to, and if so, vote your change, but do not hate those folks who are working to uphold your authors rights as were put in the US Constitution.