Disney Trades Person for Intellectual Property

Dotnaught writes "Walt Disney Company's ABC has traded sportscaster Al Michaels to General Electric Co.'s NBC for cartoon character Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. NBC acquired the rights to the cartoon through its purchase of Universal Studios, which itself gained ownership of the animated rabbit through a contract that Walt Disney signed early in his career. Having to sign Oswald away supposedly prompted Disney to create Mickey Mouse, a character he'd own outright. The company that bears Disney's name fought tooth and nail to retain ownership of Mickey Mouse when the cartoon character's copyright was about to expire."

Comments

Re:Almost a copy

[fufubag]

That is because Walt lost the rights to Oswald and had to come up with a new character. So Mickey is kind of like Oswald 2.0

Disgusting?

[jcorno]

He asked to be traded. They didn't walk into his office and say, "We traded you for a cartoon character, pack your shit and start walking." He wanted to work for NBC, NBC wanted him, and this was ABC's price for letting him go.

Dumbed down summary and YRO?

[sdo1]

First off, what on earth does this have to do with "Your Rights Online"?

Second of all, there was a lot more in the trade than just the cartoon. According to Media Week ESPN wanted:

(1) The cable telecast rights NBC owns to air Ryder Cup golf matches on Fridays in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014; (2) The rights to air expanded Olympics highlights on ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNEWS through the 2012 Games; and (3) The rights to the animated cartoons, Oswald The Lucky Rabbit, which were created by Disney animators in the 1920s, but distributed by Universal Studio, which got the rights to the cartoons.

and...

NBC will run an on-air promotion through 2011 for ESPN's Monday Night Football telecasts each week during its SNF telecasts... Also through 2011, ESPN obtained expanded-highlights rights for NBC Sports telecasts of Notre Dame football, the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness.

So, I fail to see what's news here. In the entertainment business, this sort of IP and rights trading/selling happens all of the time. Saying "trading a person for a cartoon" is an incredible dumbing-down of what happened.

So tell me again what this has to do with my rights online?

-S

Re:Dumbed down summary and YRO?

[RevMike]

Second of all, there was a lot more in the trade than just the cartoon.

More importantly, it was not even a trade!

Disney did not go to Al Michaels and say "Pack your bags and report to NBC." Al Michaels requested that he be released from his contract with Disney in order to make a new contract with NBC. Disney and NBC worked out a compensation agreement to compensate Disney for the loss of Al Michaels' services.

When we talk about "trading" people, it generally means they have little or no choice. This was a case of past and future employers working to honor the request made by the person.

Re:It's actually

[sdo1]

Does anyone even READ these stories? He and John Madden have been a broadcast team for a while. They apparently like working together and they like the product they bring to the table Madden's contract expired and he signed a new contract with a competing broadcaster (Sunday Night Football moves from ESPN to NBC next year and Monday Night Football goes from ABC to ESPN). Madden signed to do Sunday Night Football for NBC. Michels asked to be released from his ABC/ESPN contract to go to NBC to continue broadcasting with Madden. Michels is a good football announcer. A valuable property to ABC/ESPN (what's why they have him under contract... that's the whole POINT of signing contracts). Michels wanted out. ABC negotiates with NBC to have him released from his ABC contract. ABC gets stuff (including the rights to the cartoon), NBC gets Michels.

And? No pissing off. Nothing strange going on. Just a change in situation and a mis-alignment of contract dates between two people who apparently consider themselves a broadcast "team".

-S

Re:It's actually

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Well, first think is Eisner is out at Disney. Robert Iger is now the CEO (for about the last year I think).

I don't really understand the problem here. A bit strange thats for sure, but I'm not seeing anything to get worked up about. Michaels was under contract with ABC/ESPN/Disney but decided he wanted to go to work with his friends who moved to NBC. NBC wanted him. "They could have just as easily asked them for nothing". Sure I guess they could, but why would they? I guess if Kobe Bryant decided he wanted to play in New York, the Lakers COULD just let him go for nothing but why on Earth would they? You are giving up something of value, so you come to an aggrement on what you feel would be of equal value. Now they could have just been hard-asses and told Michaels to screw off he's staying put. However, I thought they were really cool about this and came to a very friendly settlement. Disney has been trying to get back the rights to Oswald for some time, its actually a pretty major piece fo the Disney lagecy which Iger has said he wants to bring back. So you can argue it has little monetary value, but it clearly does have value to Disney. Like Luke's light saber would have value to Lucus. One of the first things they created and started them on the road to thier empires. Olypmic highlights and rights to televise some golf must have some value (I have NO idea how much), but generally Disney (of whom I not normally a huge fan) gave Michaels and NBC what they wanted in what seems a very friendly exchange where both sides got what they wanted.

Why is that so bad?

Blowing this a little out of proportion?

[artemis67]

There's a dollar value on Al Michaels contract and there's a dollar value on the copyrights to the Oswald character. Instead of exchanging dollars, they exchanged items of equivalent value. It's called "bartering" and it predates any known currency system.

What's the big deal?

Besides, it's obvious why Disney did this... as a Walt Disney creation and a forerunner to Mickey Mouse, this is an important and historic part of the Disney legacy, and it's fitting that Disney should seek to acquire the copyright.

Re:Blowing this a little out of proportion?

[CyricZ]

No. They would have had nothing. Mickey Mouse and much of their earlier (and even later) works would be in the public domain. So yes, in a way they would still be able to use such characters, but so would anybody else.

The value of Mickey Mouse to Disney is mainly in Disney's monopoly over its use (or the licensing of its use). Without that monopoly, anybody could potentially make money via the use of the Mickey Mouse image without giving Disney a cent. So that Mickey Mouse backpack your kids might want may be made by some manufacturer in China, without Disney making any money off of it. Of course, because of their lobbying, they now likely would be making money off of such a product.