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

That's a LUCKY rabbit

[mfh]

That should read: Disney Trades Person for Lucky Rabbit

Oswald the Lucky Rabbit looks very similar to Mickey (I haven't seen any of the films with him yet), but this is certainly a win for the whole gang at Disney -- one for Walt. Something they can all be proud of.

Re:That's a LUCKY rabbit

[uncoveror]

Now that they own Oswald, no one can sue saying that Mickey is an unauthorized derivative work based on Oswald. He obviously is. I am surprised that there wasn't a suit like that decades ago.

Disgusting

[eldavojohn]

(AP) At the NYSE, soul trading closed down five and a quarter points Friday afternoon. The worth of an average human soul has plummeted recently to a value not seen since the great depression. Disney has been pioneering the movement of trading souls regularly for concepts, legal action or maybe just a few dollars more.

Michael Eisner wasn't competent enough to comment.

trade ya

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll trade you my little brother for the rights to that piece of code you've got there.

What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Oh man...

[qw0ntum]

I wonder what it feels like to know that you are worth a cartoon character?

From the mysterious future: Al Michaels commits suicide; friends cite work-related depression.

Re:Oh man...

[Ragnarrokk]

I wonder what it feels like for most us, knowing we'd be valued far less than said cartoon character...

``Ragnarok

Re:Oh man...

[AndroidCat]

It could be worse. They could have Oswald doing the Monday Night Football play-by-play.

Re:Oh man...

[sdnoob]

It could be worse. They could have Oswald doing the Monday Night Football play-by-play.

dennis miller?

Re:Oh man...

[SierraPete]

Reportedly he chuckled about it and said that someday he'd be the answer to a trivia question. Shows a degree of humility on his part--he's all ready the answer to a number of trivia questions to include who was calling the game when the mighty USSR Hockey team got beat by a bunch of amateur Americans.

Re:Oh man...

[AndroidCat]

Tell you what, since Oswald can't do Color (being kind of black and white), Dennis Miller could do that.

Re:Oh man...

[thesandtiger]

I don't know - depends on the cartoon character.

If some company valued me so highly that they wouldn't part with my services unless they could obtain a cash-cow like, say, Mickey Mouse, I'd feel pretty good about myself.

Of course, if I were traded for "Hippo #3" from a Betty Boop musical cartoon number, well, that would be a dark time.

Almost a copy

[broothal]

Notice the striking resemblance between Early Mickey Mouse and Oswald the lucky Rabbit

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

Re:Almost a copy

[rolfwind]

Ironically, shouldn't that have been copyright infringement on Disney's part?

If somebody came up with something so similiar to Mickey Mouse for the same audience (not parody), I'm sure Disney would send out the big guns to deal with it.

Re:Almost a copy

[fufubag]

There must have not been enough lawyers back then.

Re:Almost a copy

[A beautiful mind]

You're starting to think like "them".

Disney's character was an improvement over Oswald's character. That is precisely the behaviour we'd like to encourage if we would want developments to happen. Mozart and Bach anyone?

The biggest problem with IP as of today is that it doesn't support group development. It was all fine and dandy to patent and copyright stuff in the 18th century where you could invent something just based on your own effort, but today it is very rarely possible any more. Humans need to work in groups (~scientific community) to be able to progress human knowledge and copyright and patents discourage that.

I agree with your second sentence though, but it is only the corporate greedy reaction to the current atmosphere IP laws create.

Re:Almost a copy

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? More likely they settled the issue back in the dark ages.

Re:Almost a copy

[Deadstick]

Much like another celebrated cartoon pair. Milton Caniff was working for the NY Daily News when he created Terry and the Pirates. It was wildly successful in syndication; the paper netted millions and Caniff got a ten percent raise.

Caniff went to the editor and said he thought he was entitled to a piece of the action. The editor pointed out that he was only an employee, the paper owned the copyright, and he could have a nicer desk if he liked. Caniff said OK, best of luck with your comic strip, walked out and reincarnated Terry as Steve Canyon...Terry quickly went tits-up.

rj

Re:Almost a copy

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Much like another celebrated cartoon pair. Milton Caniff was working for the NY Daily News when he created Terry and the Pirates. It was wildly successful in syndication; the paper netted millions and Caniff got a ten percent raise.

Caniff went to the editor and said he thought he was entitled to a piece of the action. The editor pointed out that he was only an employee,

I'm no fan of copyright, but the editor has a point here. As an employee, Caniff gets a steady salary and benefits, whether or not he comes up with the next million-selling cartoon. In fact, almost everyone over their whole lives won't come up with a great invention / work of art / whatever, so the employee trade-off works well for almost everyone in the world.

If Caniff had wanted to keep his creation, he should instead have started out for himself, and suffered years of uncertainty and poverty until he came up with his great character. Which he might never have done. But at least he could have kept the full rewards.

Rich.

Re:Almost a copy

[Jafafa Hots]

Actually, many of the cartoon characters of the time were Mickey knock-offs. Warner Bros. for example had Foxy and piggy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxy_(cartoon_charact er)

Re:Almost a copy

[westlake]

If Caniff had wanted to keep his creation, he should instead have started out for himself, and suffered years of uncertainty and poverty until he came up with his great character. Which he might never have done. But at least he could have kept the full rewards.

Milton Caniff was born in 1907. Terry and the Pirates first appeared in 1934, after a four year "apprenticeship" in the profession. Caniff brought cinematic story-telling and sophisticated artistic technique to the comic strip, his most famous creation, the enigmatic asian adventuress, the Dragon Lady.

Re:Almost a copy

[Deadstick]

Point is, he did keep the full rewards, by starting over for himself. The newspaper assigned another employee to draw Terry and the Pirates, and quickly found out that it was Caniff's own creativity, and not just one static piece of IP, that powered the strip. Steve Canyon was Terry in everything but name (even the Dragon Lady was reincarnated as Copper Calhoon), and Caniff drew it for over forty years after Terry fizzled out.

Caniff loved to make fun of liberals, and that knocked Steve Canyon out of quite a few newspapers in the Vietnam years, but he died a wealthy man. As I said, very much a mirror of the Mickey/Oswald story.

rj

Re:Almost a copy

[Anonymous Coward]

well, you're not right either. Caniff had been getting a steady salary (and were there "benefits" back then?) but he had no guarantee of future employment, nor could they hold him in the future. So, it worked out just the way it should have.

Re:Almost a copy

[Stephen Samuel]

Today, it would have probably just consisted of a 'cease and desist order'. Some of the similarity was just from the fact that it was the same person drawing a rodent. -- and Walt might have had some cause for a countersuit, if it came to a full lawsuit (Universal had, apparently, hired out his entire studio while he was in LA negotiating with them).

Re:Almost a copy

[Ztream]

I find it hilarious that you're using the Danish Google server to show us cartoons :)

Re:Almost a copy

[ross.w]

In which case now watch Oswald 1.0 quietly disappear.

My guess is that Disney's intent is to bury Oswald to avoid confusion with the now far more profitable Mickey Mouse.

Also avoids the risk of NBC pulling an SCO over Mickey Mouse.

Yep your right...

[technoextreme]

For a second I was going to point you in Oracle's direction. Then I actually read the freaking article. Nothing like trading someone for four rounds of golf,olympic highlights, and a stupid bunny.

Re:Yep your right...

[RevMike]

Except for the fact that it is a misleading headline....

How is this a "trade"? Al Michaels signed a contract. Disney adhered to their obligations under that contract. Al Michaels requested that he be released from his obligations. Disney requested compensation for that release and NBC paid compensation.

It would be a trade if Disney sold Al Michaels contract to NBC, and Al Michaels had no recourse except to refuse to work.

It's actually

[technoextreme]

I wonder what it feels like to know that you are worth a cartoon character?

You actually mean: I wonder how it feels like to know that you are worth a cartoon character, four rounds of golf, and olympic highlights?

Re:It's actually

[TallMatthew]

Almost makes you think they did it just to piss Michaels off, hmm? They could have just as easily asked them for nothing.

ESPN (parent company -- Disney, to the chagrin of all sports fan with a soul) paid $8.8 billion for the rights to broadcast football games on Monday night for the next eight years. Al Michaels, one of the preeminent broadcasters in sports, agreed to announce the games, then decided he didn't want to.

That devalued Disney's investment significantly. My guess is this is Eisner's way of telling Michaels what he really thinks of his talents.

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?

Re:It's actually

[qw0ntum]

Does anyone even APPRECIATE humor anymore?

Sheesh.

Re:It's actually

[TallMatthew]

Does anyone even READ these stories?

Don't have to. Listen to WFAN four hours a day.

The difference between Al Michaels and Mike Tirico in terms of viewer recognition, which leads to ratings and advertiser confidence, which leads to money, is significant. Al Michaels is a fixture. Mike Tirico is a nobody. ESPN was banking on Michaels to give their broadcast national credibility as this is the first year MNF is being broadcasted on their network after 30+ years on ABC.

Al led ESPN to believe he would do the job, even after John Madden left. When people like Al Michaels change their mind, it's a big deal. This is big money. He can't just go work at NBC and have ESPN say "Ok, go ahead, have fun, we understand." Part of the reason they paid so much money for this contract was with the understanding that he'd stay. Believe me, they're pissed.

Steve Jobs needs a rabbit for his Apple

[postbigbang]

The rabbit will live in the iPod. Oswald will read his Powerbook, to gain Intel. His ferocity will grow into a dual core personality. Although we're not sure what comes NeXT, we're sure that there's no need for pesky sports announcers, after all. They just bitch and complain.

New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[db32]

Kinda reminds you of slavery doesn't it? People being trade for arbitrary ammounts of money or things of value? Said people going to work. Now I'm sure mr man here won't be allowed to quit anytime in the near future since there must be a 'contract' in place to keep him from leaving and them losing their 'money' in the trade.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[maximthemagnificent]

I'm sure he's kept chained with golden handcuffs. I wouldn't mind such a deal.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[antifoidulus]

Um, we are talking about a SPORTS announcer here. Baseball teams trade players for cash all the time, and yet I fail to see how baseball players are "enslaved" by any means of the word...
And if that is what slavery is paying nowadays, sign me up!

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[db32]

So? There were black entertainers kept and traded the same way, not just field labor. I have never been terribly fond of the way professional sports operate either. Look at all of the performance drug scandals, the money deals, the disgusting ammount of money that is made, the relatively small ammount that makes it down to the players, the trading of bodies. Physical labor, performance enhancing drugs, big profit, trading 'players' for bigger profit, nope nothin absolutely sheisty goin on there. :( I am far more interested in college sports since the money generated there actually goes back into the college, and there just seems to be a whole lot fewer problems in that whole system too.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[sdo1]

He was UNDER CONTRACT. That's not slavery. He signed a contract that said in essence "I agree to work for ABC/ESPN for some number of years." He wanted to be released from said contract and ABC sought compensation for this. The parties came to a mutual agreement and everyone is seemingly satisfied. I just don't understand why anyone is upset about what happened.

Sorry, but that's NOT slavery. No one put a gun to his head and said "sign this contract or we shoot!"

Nothing to see here. Move along.

-S

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[db32]

It is the increasing tendancy across the board to treat people as little more than a commodity.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[sielwolf]

This happens all the time. In professional sports coaches and personnel not bound by the collective bargaining agreement are "traded" between teams with compensation of draft picks. Just this year Herman Edwards went from the coach of the Jets to the Cheifs, who then gave the Jets a 4th round draft pick. But even in the business world, employees have a certain dollar value associated with them. All of us do. It's fantasy to assume we are unique special snowflakes and our companies cherish that. The only difference is that there is only one Al Michaels and most of us come from a pool of interchangeable workers. The market for marquee sports announcers is not liquid so instead of just letting him go, they'll arbitrate the contract they own.

And not being able to leave is simple: Al only has to yell "Fuck the fucking fuckers" on live TV, force the FCC to hit NBC with a giant fine and then threaten to continue doing so until they let him go.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[db32]

That is sort of the inequity in it. They can force you to sign a contract (if you want the job, you gotta sign), that says you can't leave, you can't work for the competition, etc etc. But you can't tell them you are quitting, because you signed the contract, but they sure as hell can fire your ass. The non compete ones are the worst ones, not only do they own you while you are there, it prevents you from doing your job for anyone else after you leave.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it hardly reminds me of slavery. Why not? Because the fundamental prerequsite of slavery -- coercion -- is nowhere to be found.

Show me an example of force or fraud, and then I'll listen to you compare it to slavery.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[tepples]

He was UNDER CONTRACT. That's not slavery.

Under what definition of "slavery"?

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[damsa]

I am far more interested in college sports since the money generated there actually goes back into the college, and there just seems to be a whole lot fewer problems in that whole system too.

Ironic stance considering college football players don't get paid and can be cut from the team for any reason at all.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

Just this year Herman Edwards went from the coach of the Jets to the Cheifs, who then gave the Jets a 4th round draft pick.

That was the worst trade I've seen, though Herman Edwards isn't that great of a coach at all. I'm also glad Terry Bradway isn't the GM anymore.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like an indentured servant.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[db32]

They can also walk away anytime they want. They aren't there to play sports, they are there to go to school. The sports thing is supposed to be, you know, extra. Since their primary purpose there is to go to school, playing sports where the money goes back into the school kinda helps everyone involved. How often to college sports players get traded to another school for the profit of the owners?

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol.. gotta love slashdot. A guy who makes the same amount of money in a year that it would take most people 20 years of working to make is somehow a slave.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[damsa]

They really can't walk away at any time, at least for the top division 1 schools as that would jeopardize their chances for their pro careers. It's similar to grad students who work at almost below minimum wage can't really walk away at any time without jeopardizing their PHDs or chances at a professorship later on.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[db32]

Well that boils down to their motiviations for being there in the first place. Since I have problems with the way professional level sports are handled, I don't have a whole lot of concern for folks who go to college to play instead of getting an education. Kinda the definition of extracurricular activities really. So many of them take classes because they have to so they can stay at the school and continue to play sports for a chance at a pro career. As for the ones who are at college to get an education, who also play sports, they can walk away any time.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[sdo1]

Slaves have no choice. He WILLINGLY entered into the contract. That's a choice. If he didn't like the terms, he didn't have to sign.

-S

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[tepples]

Slaves have no choice. He WILLINGLY entered into the contract.

In a few slave law traditions, the law did not grant ownership of a child of a slave to the parent's master; persons willingly sold themselves into slavery.

Re:New Meaning to Corporate Slavery

[Tim C]

The definition that doesn't include people willingly entering into contracts for personal gain (generally financial).

If you want to call this slavery, then you might as well call me a slave - I have a contract (of employment) with my employer which stipulates that should I wish to leave, I have to give them three months notice. Apart from the length of time involved, how is it any different?

hello i am a potato

[Anonymous Coward]

hello i am a potato

Re:hello i am a potato

[Anonymous Coward]

prepare to be mashed

greed/fear/ego based corepirate nazi stock markup,

[already_gone]

felonious FraUD hypenosys execrable trades yOUR/planet's future for just a little more monIE?

what a surprise?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they want is... everything. at what cost to US? not a pretty picture at all. quite infactdead from our viewpoint.

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Relax, it's just sports

[Jarlsberg]

It's sports - they don't need a live human being to ask inane questions such as: "How many medals do you think we'll win the olympics", or "You just scored the winning goal, how did that feel?".

Now, I'll sit up and take notice if they'll replace a news anchor with Morbo, but I don't think that'll happen any time soon. (If you don't know Morbo, you're not with the in crowd on Slashdot.)

Re:Relax, it's just sports

[geofferensis]

"(If you don't know Morbo, you're not with the in crowd on Slashdot.)"

I don't think any post on Slashdot has ever made me happier.

I have no clue who/what Morbo is.

Re:Relax, it's just sports

[Tycho]

I also have no idea who/what "Morbo" is and I have probably been here longer than than the grandparent or you because I have a lower slashdot UID.

Re:Relax, it's just sports

[geofferensis]

How long you have been somewhere and being "in" at somewhere are very different things. So UIDs are irrelevant. But your UID is very low, quite impressive.

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.

Re:Disgusting?

[sdo1]

Exactly! He was under contract with ABC. NBC wanted him and he wanted to go to NBC (and I'm OK with that... I think he and Madden make a pretty decent football announcing team). ABC wanted compensation for releasing him from his contract. ABC (ESPN) asked for a few things and they got them.

I completely fail to see why this is in any way disgusting, morally corrupt, or out of the realm of normal and moral business dealings at all.

I agree that one might argue that the perpetual copyright extensions are a bad thing for the public at large, but that's really not part of this story at all.

-S

Re:Disgusting?

[Anti_zeitgeist]

"We traded you for a cartoon character, pack your shit and start walking."

That line alone was enough for me to laugh.....its not everyday you hear that.

Re:Disgusting?

[Anonymous Coward]

perpetual copyright extensions are a bad thing for the public at large, but that's really not part of this story at all.

Yes, it is, as the part of the story that brought this to our attentions would not exist without perpetual copyright extensions. And they really are a bad thing as they violate the Constitutional requirement that copyright "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Progress in arts and sciences is not promoted by extending the previously limited-time exclusive right to a writing that has already been written. It gets even worse when works that had already had their limited time government-granted monopoly expire then get it back by virtue of the unconstitutional law. In neither case is progress in arts or sciences made (the works were already made). In point of fact, regress is what is accomplished, as no one else is allowed to use the work in the way public domain works can be (*cough* cinderella *cough* snow white *cough* beauty and the beast*).

What was the ruling on the Mickey Mouse Scheme before the grand court btw? 5-4? 6-3? 7-2? 8-1? Who were the judges who voted to unphold the Constitution?

Re:Disgusting?

[Stephen Samuel]

He asked to be traded.

Yeah, but you can imagine the ego deflation when he got the call into the office...

"We've come to an agreement with NBC. You're being traded for a rabbit."

Re:Disgusting?

[Rei]

Just as an example of how out of control perpetual copyrights have gotten, the "Happy Birthday" song is under copyright till at least 2030. It's fair use to sing it in front of family and friends, but if you want to use it, say, at your restraunt or in a student film, you have to pay royalties to a AOL-Time Warner subsidiary.

Re:Disgusting?

[Nikker]

I completely agree but personally I think it would suck being traded for a really crappy drawing of a rabbit

Re:Disgusting?

[Reziac]

After looking at the Rabbit (your link), I think this isn't about the rabbit at all, but about the fact that Mickey Mouse *appears* to be a "derivative work" based on said rabbit. If Disney fails to control the rabbit, they could conceivably weaken their ownership of Mickey.

That said, I enjoy Al Michaels and am glad he got this chance to work where he wants to be.

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:Dumbed down summary and YRO?

[rhizome]

I'm on a mailing list where this was discussed by people who work in the business side of the entertainment industry. Plagiarized to preserve anonymity, this explains things better than I ever could and puts the story in terms that non-lawyers can understand.

People are not "assets" and employment contracts are not property. Employment contracts are agreements about work and not documents of indenture which give the "owner" the right to release or not release a worker on the basis of extrinsic value acquired for a trade of "rights" and "property." Executives and artists are often left unprotected by basic rules of common decency because the compensation packages are so huge or the work seems not to be "real" in the classic sense of a blue collar worker. But executives and artists are no different than other people who are protected under laws governing employment and the reasonable protections we all need for those relationships. An employment contract at its most severe implication provides that the worker will not work elsewhere. (You can no longer get a court anywhere in the United States to enforce an employment contract by requiring the worker or artist to actually work for the party holding the contract.) But what Disney said here is: "No, we will let you work elsewhere, we don't need you to work here, BUT we won't let you go unless Disney gets concessions in the form of "things" completely out of the employee's control to provide. In that moment, the person became a property. As a moral and social matter, that's disgusting and a behavior that should no longer be tolerated. Sure, lots of people are treated like property all over the world. That doesn't make it just or even appropriate.

So, you are partially right in that there isn't a whole lot of "online" in this story about "your rights," but it does speak to a host of issues (temp-to-perm anyone?) that people here can relate to. But I'm not trying to argue for the appropriateness of this story, just to illustrate that in fact there is some funky business going on here.

So an IP contract led to Mickey

[bobalu]

Interesting, seems the need to re-create a character due to legal IP restrictions led to a huge entertainnment empire.

Re:So an IP contract led to Mickey

[eclectro]

It makes you wonder if copyrights were ever allowed to expire again, what other new and wonderful creations might be created, doesn't it??

Re:So an IP contract led to Mickey

[westlake]

It makes you wonder if copyrights were ever allowed to expire again, what other new and wonderful creations might be created, doesn't it??

It makes you wonder who would get off their fat ass to create something new, if they had seventy-five years of Disney to rip off first.

Re:So an IP contract led to Mickey

[eclectro]

if they had seventy-five years of Disney to rip off first.

You mean like what Disney does when they rip-off the public domain and create their own versions of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and The Jungle Book??

Somebody, please mod parent as troll.

Re:So an IP contract led to Mickey

[westlake]

You mean like what Disney does when they rip-off the public domain and create their own versions of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and The Jungle Book??

You could fill out a substantial portion of your video collection with historically significant independent productions based on these old stories. The young Julie Andrews in Rogers and Hammerstein's Cinderella, for example. Korda's technicolor Jungle Book. So why the obsession with Disney? The coldly practical answer is that the Disney versions remain marketable.

Wikipedia Link

[nuintari]

Uhhh, why is there a picture of a vag on the wikipedia page about copyright extensions?

Re:Wikipedia Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some /. troll thinks it's funny. Sad really. Just removed it, but I note from the edits I'm not the first.

Re:Wikipedia Link

[trparky]

You know, the person who posted that image is the kind of immature idiot that needs to be taken out back and castrated, we don't need more idiots like that.

Re:Wikipedia Link

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the kind of person who posted it is probably of several orders magnitide smarter than you and knew there would be exactly the kind of reply you just made. Seems like you took the bait and showed your lack of maturity by taking it so damned seriously.

Its just a fucking internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It can be reversed. If you don't like it, then maybe you should re-think the merits of having an encyclopedia that can be edited in situations like this.

Re:Wikipedia Link

[nuintari]

Yeah, I agree, is this a common problem on wikipedia? I'm not a frequent visitor to the site.

huh?

[spiritraveller]

what does this have to do with online?

what does this have to do with rights?

nothing?

ok... just checking.

Re:huh?

[tepples]

what does this have to do with rights?

Copyrights. Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. Mickey Mouse. Sonny Bono. Orphan works.

Re:huh?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

what does this have to do with online?

what does this have to do with rights?

what does this have to do with me?

It's a regular business dealing that's only interesting for involving really old IP.

It profits a man nothing ...

[expro]

"It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ...But for Oswald?" (Thomas Moore, sort of)

Apologies in advance for the attempt at humor, but it was what popped in to my head.

Re:It profits a man nothing ...

[JamesGecko]

What benefit will it be to you
if you gain the whole world
but lose your own soul?
(Mark 8:36)

Will this change the Mickey Mouse Rule?

[246o1]

The current rule in US copyrights is that anything copyrighted after Mickey Mouse will always be copyrighted, as Disney manages to rent Congress whenever the latest extension is about to expire. Will this have to be changed to the Oswald the Lucky Bunny Rule, once they start marketing this motherfucker like he's new?

Anyone else watch Cheap Seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear ABC. Stop.
My name is Al Michales. Stop.
Your trading me for an ancient cartoon character. Stop.
Stop. Stop.
My resume is being worked up now. Stop.

Poker Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least he wasn't lost in a poker game for a DBX Console.

\Read your act of God clause.

It's not plagarism, it's fair use

[NigelJohnstone]

Totally different from

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/archive/index.php?t-101 52.html

Disney Sues Over Teddy Bears

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- The Walt Disney Co. has sued a Swedish importer for copyright infringement and requested the destruction of 25,000 teddy bears it says are illegal replicas of Winnie the Pooh. The stuffed bears, which were made in China, were intercepted by Swedish customs in April and wear the "hunny" loving bear's trademark red shirt, according to a lawsuit filed with the district court in Malmoe, 340 miles southwest of the Swedish capital, Stockholm. They also have the same eyes, ears and nose and project "the same attitude and facial expression as Winnie the Pooh," the lawsuit said. Disney sued the importer, Malmoe-based Harle-quin Trade, to prevent the bears from being sold in Sweden, but the issue could be solved outside of court if the importer agreed to destroy the bears, attorney Ann-Charlotte Soederlund said. "Destroying teddy bears might seem a bit silly. But what if it's a pirate copy and it's dangerous and some child dies? Then Disney will be blamed," she said. Harlequin Trade president Hans Brefelt declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said his company had a "mutual understanding" with Disney. According to the lawsuit, Harlequin Trade reached a set-tlement with Disney earlier this year after trying to import alleged replicas of two other characters in the be-loved children's' stories created by British author A. A. Milne in the 1920s -- Piglet and Eeyore.

Re:It's not plagarism, it's fair use

[kimvette]

No photo of the teddy bear in question though. :( Why do articles like this invariably omit photos?

Rating Football Announcers

[lseltzer]

I think he and Madden make a pretty decent football announcing team

Ehh, they're OK, but Buck and Aikman are the best now. Everyone's trying to catch up to Fox these days on football. And the ESPN teams really are awful.

If Michaels is worth Oswald then I'd think that Buck is worth at least an Elmer Fudd, and Aikman is Daffy Duck-class, maybe even Roger Rabbit.

Re:Rating Football Announcers

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you're not astroturfing? Fox's sports coverage is pathetic.

Re:Rating Football Announcers

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to agree. IMNSHO, none of the TV sports play-by-play/game commentary is all that great. And I work at a major sports network...

You're all forgetting one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Williams, being a mere mortal, only has a limited time on this world. Oswald, being a copyrighted creation, can potentially live "forever," as Disney will continually lobby the government to keep extending the lifetime of copyrights.

Re:You're all forgetting one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Williams, being a mere mortal, only has a limited time on this world.

You're forgetting something too.

The man's name!

RTFA, Please, Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

(Blowing an opportunity to moderate here to say) If you take time to read the article, you will find that Michael wants to go to NBC because the people he has worked with for the last 20 years will be there:

A four-time Emmy Award winner, Michaels agreed last July to stay with ABC/ESPN as the Monday game switched to the cable network next fall. But he asked to back out and instead will broadcast Sunday night NFL games on NBC with John Madden, his partner on ABC during the past four seasons....

...Michaels, 61, began to think about hopping networks during the past season, realizing he wanted to work with Madden, producer Fred Gaudelli and director Drew Esocoff, who also are moving from ABC to NBC.

"As the weeks went on, I began to realize more and more how much I was going to miss being with those people," he said. "That's my family, that's my broadcasting family, and they're moving out of the house, and I wanted to move back in with them."

Jeesh. All these comments about feeling bad about being traded for a rabbit are spurious.

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?

[ph4s3]

If Disney et. al. hadn't fought so hard to make copyright perpetual they could've had the rabbit and Al Michaels too.

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.

Re:Blowing this a little out of proportion?

[Fred_A]

Poor Disney, they would have to actually invent a new character instead of keeping on milking a century old mouse.

Harsh old world we live in.

Why does Mickey Mouse need a copyright?

[SuperAlgae]

For a distinct character/symbol like Mickey Mouse, isn't a trademark enough? Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely. Did Disney push for copyright extension primarily to protect their other IP?

Re:Why does Mickey Mouse need a copyright?

[246o1]

The copyrights protect Mickey Mouse films, not Mickey himself (so it seems), who is actually fine just under trademark. Here's an interesting FindLaw article on the issue: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_s prigman.html

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone actually bothered to read the article, Al Michaels said he was going to miss being with the same people who were moving to NBC. He was staying with ABC, but changed his mind later and initiated talks about getting out of his contract for ABC and signing with his friends at NBC. Slashdotters probably don't know this, but Al Michaels is a fairly popular sports announcer and ABC wasn't going to give him up for nothing. So ABC makes a list of things it wants, which happens to include the rights to Oswald. I think that is probably more of a symbolic move than anything else, though I wouldn't put it past Disney to try to milk a few movies out of it. What's old is new again. I guess the article title is accurate. Al Michaels moves to NBC, and in exchange ABC will get the rights to air certain content, so I guess Al Michaels was traded for intellectual property. I don't see the big deal, though; both networks got something of value out of the deal.

Join me, when I say...

[rathehun]

WHAT??

Do consider us poor readers on RSS, when writing your titles out.

Thanks,
R.

MFN leaving ABC

[kevin.fowler]

With the crappy job Al Michaels did covering the superbowl... they could have traded him for a bag of Doritos. I think collecting a bit of Disney history is a good deal. ESPN can actually show detailed Olympics hilights. And now that Monday Night Football is leaving ABC, this is not surprising.

Re:MFN leaving ABC

[/dev/trash]

ABC == Disney == ESPN

Michaels to Madden:

[ThatsNotFunny]

"I wish I could quit you..."

As Roger Rabbit would say...

[Alpha_Traveller]

Roger: PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPhhhhppPPppLLLEEASE EDDIE!?! Can I get Oswald? Please?
Iger: Only if you bring me the head of Al Michaels.
Roger: Okay! Can I bring a few rounds of golf too?
Iger: Sure, but only if they complain that Al's not enough.
Roger: Great! I'll also ask for some Olympic Highlights, and see what I can do about getting the Toon rights to Star Trek back!
Igre: You go right ahead Roger.
Roger: Thanks! I'll be Riiiiiighhhhhttttt Back!

Who stole who's IP?

[EccentricAnomaly]

Something they can all be proud of

I don't know about that... I was reading the site linked in the article and found this blurb... and other googling revealed many accounts that Ub Iwerks was the real creator of Oswald and Mickey... not Walt. (http://www.vitaphone.org/flip.html)

MGM's first sound cartoon character was Flip The Frog. Flip The Frog was created by Ub Iwerks. Ub Iwerks was the CREATOR of Mickey Mouse and had drawned the early Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphony cartoons. (Walt Disney didn't know how to draw and never learned. Take a look at some of the Laugh O Grams that he drew and you'll see how poor his drawing skills were. You can look at the Mickey Mouse poster on the bottom of this page and see what it says: A Walt Disney Comic...Drawn by Ub Iwerks. ) Disney propaganda would have you believe otherwise but the case can be settled by looking at the newspapers, advertisements and magazines of the era. Below you can see a clipping from a 1930 German newspaper hailing the new creation of Ub Iwerks, the creator of Mickey Mouse. Ub Iwerks had actually drawn a frog and his girlfriend in the Silly Symphony cartoons. In one of the last SIlly Symphonies that Ub Iwerks drew the foucs of the film were these two frogs. This cartoon is called Summer. Ub Iwerks with the help of Pat Powers started this new cartoon series after leaving Disney. The first cartoon that Ub Iwerks made for the series was also the first COLOR sound cartoon that was ever made. (Even though Disney would have you believe other wise. Incidentally the first sound cartoon was not the Mickey Mouse cartoon called "Steamboat Willie" but an Aesop's Fable which Disney had seen and copied in 1928 called "DINNER TIME". The first Flip The Frog cartoon had a mouse playing a violin and you can see above. When reading books on so-called animation history some SOB Disney propagandists even refer to the mouse in FIDDLESTICKS as a copy of Walt's Disney Mickey Mouse! Will Disney ever stop taking credit from other people who deserve it?

Re:Who stole who's IP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Ub Iwerks was the "creator" of Mickey. Walt came up with the ideas and rough sketches, and Iwerks did the animation.

In fact, Ub Iwerks did most of the animation for all the early Disney cartoons. The opening credits stated something along the lines of: "Walt Disney presents an Ub Iwerks animation..." with "Walt Disney" in small lettering and "Ub Iwerks" in large lettering. When Iwerks left, they hired several people to replace him, it was too much work for any other single person.

Re:Who stole who's IP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Walt Disney came up with the idea of Mickey Mouse and Ub Iwerks did the animation. Disney can be credited for creating the concept of Mickey, and Iwerks for actually drawing him.

You can see here that Iwerks got prominent billing on the cartoons he animated. Disney didn't take credit for Iwerk's work at all. Walt Disney created Mickey and the plots for the cartoons (hence they are called "Walt Disney comics"), and Iwerks animated them (so they are "by Ub Iwerks").

Anybody who says that Disney stole credit for Mickey from Iwerks is very confused.

Re:Who stole who's IP?

[ConceptJunkie]

Chester Lampwick invented Mickey in 1919. Beat them all by years.

No, wait... that was Itchy. Never mind.

Re:Who stole who's IP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exec: Ok, all in favor of naming our newest character Bugs Bunny?
(all hands but one raise)
Exec: All in favor of Efrom the Retarded Rabbit?

Re:Who stole who's IP?

[Catbeller]

"Look out, Itchy, it's an IRISHMAN!"

Re:Who stole who's IP?

[westlake]

Will Disney ever stop taking credit from other people who deserve it?

Ub Iwerks was the superior technician, but Disney was hell-bent on taking animation beyond novelty acts like Flip The Frog. Fiddlesticks and the Colorful Mediocrity of Ub Iwerks

There is a reason why a younger generation of story-tellers like Brad Bird look to Disney, to Frank Thomas, Ollie Johnson, The Nine Old Men who took the art of animation where Iwerks could not go.

IP trades hope

[eyepeepackets]

Does this mean that some day in the near future I have a chance to trade some (IP) for Veronica Zemanova? That's considerable motivation: Just thinking about it makes my initiative stat hover some where near the astroid belt.

What to code, what to code! *groan*

Cherrios.

According to an NBC spokesman...

[Chris Mattern]

...the trade does leave NBC without a first-string cartoon character, but he went on to state, "We're hopeful we can pick one up in next year's draft."

Chris Mattern

NBC Universal animation

[tepples]

the trade does leave NBC without a first-string cartoon character

Bull. NBC Universal still has plenty of cartoon characters.

Re:NBC Universal animation

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull.

That was a joke son, a joke I say.

Re:NBC Universal animation

[6ame633k]

Oh - I thought they designed chicken little after that kid on Jerry McGuire...."The human head weighs 8 punds!"

Um, OoohRAHH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, how is this much different from the USMC owning my ass for the period of the contract I signed with them? Hell, they even were able to take legal action against people who got severly sunburned over a weekend for "damaging government property".

Re:Um, OoohRAHH!!!

[db32]

We get paid less? :) There really isn't much of a difference. Coarse, the military tends to be alot more upfront about the policy of us being government property. Anyways, USMC stands for U Signed the Motherfucking Contract right?

That was a THEFT son

[tepples]

That was a joke son, a joke I say.

So you're a Foghorn Leghorn (WB character) fan? In that case, look at what Disney "appropriated" from WB.

Trade value

[Arwing]

I think this can be a very interesting development in tech industry.
Remember the MS guy who jumped ship to google? And they had a huge court fight? How much trade value would he have fatched?
And can you imagine? the next block buster trade between rival companies, Steve Ballmer for ipod/itune? or steve job for office suite?
The possibility is simply endless, and at last, there is something in tech to compete with sports!

holy shit!

[c6gunner]

Is there any person, event, or technology on this planet that doesn't have a conspiracy theory associated with him/her/it?

Re:holy shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh... Linus Torvalds and Linux? No conspiracy there.

(Linux IS a slashdot cliche, isn't it?)

Re:holy shit!

[Arslan ibn Da'ud]

Is there any person, event, or technology on this planet that doesn't have a conspiracy theory associated with him/her/it?

Yes...but THEY don't want you to know who it is.

Re:holy shit!

[masterzora]

Whaddya mean "Linus Torvalds"? Didn't you know that Bill Gates created Linux to make sure they couldn't be considered a monopoly after they crushed Apple?

Anim'ls

[Doc Ruby]

That's the inevitable path of American culture: human rights replaced by corporate rights, and humans ourselves replaced by cartoons. We've already filled the Washington DC offices and the media stages, which institutionalize our culture, with two dimensional fictional characters. Tamagochi, though not as popular as in Japan, will surely bloom in online gaming. Eventually you'll get your Disney/Homeland Security mandatory offer to download your replacement.

Public domain???

[advocate_one]

surely the early cartoons are now in the public domain... or can we expect yet another Disney sponsored copyright term extension.

Disney to trade Jobs for Shrek

[Animats]

In other news, Disney announced the trade of Steve Jobs to Dreamworks SKG in exchange for Shrek and two minor characters to be named later.

Did anyone else first think when they saw this...

[Bushwuly]

... Ephraim the Retarded Rabbit?

(If you don't know what I'm talking about, you don't watch enough cartoons.)

not a bunny...a cartoon bunny

[Simonetta]

Shit, you can eat a real bunny. But what can you do with a cartoon?

    (Except drive 10,000,000 people into fits of psychotic violent madness and embassy-burning riots. Just depends on the cartoon.)

Re:not a bunny...a cartoon bunny

[Pneuma ROCKS]

Shit, you can eat a real bunny. But what can you do with a cartoon?

Some examples.

Improved headline

[Anonymous Coward]

So the headline should really have read "Intellectual Property traded for Not-So-Intellectual Property".

A terrible trade

[macdaddy357]

ABC traded a living and highly popular sportscaster to NBC for Oswald, a dead presidential assassin who the tinfoil hatters think was just a patsy anyway? They got taken.

The Telegram is dead. Stop.

[MsGeek]

End of an era. Stop.

Egghead is not the only character...

[MsGeek]

...Disney raided from Termite Terrace to create Chicken Little. There's a fair amount of Tweety Bird in him too. Not the Bob Clampett sadistic Tweety, but the later super-cute, be-feathered Tweety.

Osuwarudo no Usagi...

[MsGeek]

Thanks to Taito and NBC/Universal, Oswald seems to be Big in Japan. Perhaps this is just an attempt by Disney to get a piece of the action on this kawaii revival.

A Good Deal

[RWarrior(fobw)]

This has all the hallmarks of a good deal.

- ABC gets things of value to it.
- NBC gets things of value to it.
- Michaels and Madden gets something they want.
- NBC/Universal unloads something that has no value to it -- Oswold -- and gives it to Disney (owner of ABC), who sees value in it, in return for things that NBC values.

Trading contracts like this happens all the time in the professional world, most visably in professional sorts, where it's called a trade.

There's absolutely nothing evil going on here. Which is a change for Disney, I know, but everybody has their moments.

Lets Extend This Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I think such trades are a great idea.

George Bush would fit in great at Fox. Think we could trade him for Homer Simpson?

If George makes too many mistakes on the air, we can upload his mind into Max Headroom.

Free Agency

[Nom du Keyboard]

Can free agency be far behind for Al Michaels? Once he's eligable his value should really soar.

Caste Members got no rights

[6ame633k]

Disney employees are called "Cast Members" I think thet left off the "e" "caste" :)

Wow! Disney was stealing from himself!

[Eezy Bordone]

Did anyone else notice that Oswald and Mickey are the same character except for ear shapes and suspenders? (or are those coveralls he wears?)

If that happened today Universal would shut Walt down quicker than Mr. Toad's Wild ride.

So does this mean...

[werewolf1031]

...I can trade the annoying neighbor lady for one of those hot female rangers from Guild Wars? After all, they are intellectual property.

You may mock me, but c'mon, admit it -- a finer use of polygons simply does not exist. Especially when they're dancing. :)

I'd like to trade ALL of them...

[Art Tatum]

...for some peace and quiet. I'm just exhausted with the constant stream of noise and information. Turn the TV off, pack it up, and put it by the curb. Sit and listen to the clock ticking. You'll feel better after.

"Mickey" was a ripoff of PATENTED "Micky" toy

[macraig]

That's right, Disney stole the patented idea of a toy company here in the States, which was producing and selling a PATENTED wooden mouse toy with articulated joints (IIRC), which had the name "Micky" (without an "e") emblazoned across its chest. This was around the 1920's, IIRC. Disney saw the toy and basically fashioned a cartoon character after it.

Subsequently the producer (and patent-holder) of the Micky toy sued Disney for infringement, but in yet another amazing patent debacle the company LOST the suit and Disney walked away with the ability to continue creating "Mickey" cartoons and calling them his own creation.

Apparently Disney's "invention" of Mickey was neither the first nor the last time he would engage in such plagiarism. Not only could he not draw worth a damn, then, he couldn't invent worth a damn, either. I guess that leaves the term "entrepreneur" to describe Disney?

Mark

That was what Thomas Moore was making a joke about

[expro]

Certainly Thomas Moore, as depicted in "A Man for All Seasons", was referring to the verses in the Bible. He was, in amazing good humor, addressing a man who had just lied about him in court and caused him to be sentanced to death, in exchange for being appointed as an official over Wales, also poking fun at Wales in the process. He actually said something like:

"It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ...But for Wales?"

I just substituted Oswald for Wales because I thought it was appropriate. The joke, if it was any good at all, is completely lost on people not familiar with the Thomas Moore, because no humor seems inherent intended in the biblical verse as you cite it. It took the situation of Thomas Moore to make good humor of it.