🤣 I tried to tell y'all, the mouse is a thug! Don't try to get between Mickey and his money! You will learn a very hard lesson.
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/disneys-lawyers-are-better-than-ron-desantiss-lawyers/
When Disney scheduled their national LGBTQIA convention in Florida even after all the tantrum and blowback, that was the first clue that they were unbothered. That wasn't a mistake or an oversight.
*Let them fight meme.gif*
@mekkaokereke Oh my god. That is a thing of beauty.
"If the perpetual term of this Declaration is deemed to violate the 'Rule Against Perpetuities,' or any similar law or rule, this Declaration shall continue in effect until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration." 🤣
@siderea @mekkaokereke
Agreed, hilariously not in perpetuity but nearly as close to. Something that will be maintained by the United Kingdom government, 🇬🇧 will be public knowledge, indisputable and also +21 years.
👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
I wonder if the form of the condition - someone's life plus N years - is a subtle allusion to the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" (actually the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998), which extended copyright in the US to life of the creator plus 75 years. As if Disney's lawyers were saying, "Remember us? We're the folks who *bought ourselves a federal law*."
It might well be for specifically 21 years but I would have thought it’s more to do with risk management. The first condition could technically be over very quickly as it refers to “King Charles”. It is technically possible for the UK Parliament to vote to switch to a Republic which would introduce doubt to the clause.
This is unlikely for many reasons, including a UK legal detente where Royalists believe Parliament is delegated power from the crown 👑 while Parliamentarians hold that the crown 👑 is the recognised head of state by Parliament, so such a thing could cause a UK constitutional crisis, as our constitution isn’t written down.
The super clever bit is that the crown 👑 (short for kingship) is extra legal to the US and untouchable by US politicians but is also has recognised status in the Magna Carter, a foundation stone of US law. That status is “f*ck off king!” But you need to be recognised to be told to “f#ck off”. So to tackle that bit by US law, the law would fist have to disassembled itself.
The King was no doubt chosen because he can act as a private individual while also having status enshrined in law around the US constitution.
If this all happens, they’ve still got 21 years, which is ‘reasonable’, also a legal concept.
They might not have been the first to do this, but it’s ducking brilliant! 🦆
> The first condition could technically be over very quickly as it refers to “King Charles”
Incorrect. It refers to the *descendents* of King Charles alive at the time of the contract going into effect. He could kick off tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything in the slightest.
@siderea @mekkaokereke
I’m not talking about death. I’m talking about the UK becoming a Republic and there being no “King Charles”, only “Charles”. Your point holds on the descendants, just that as a point of fact this is challengeable.
Ironically, if he dies this clause becomes stronger as there is no title inferred on the decedents.
@FeralRobots @siderea @mekkaokereke
I actually agree with you about the actual US constitution, you are right, I was taking a shortcut. It is however foundational to modern US law.
All I am saying is for some reason the US legal elite got very tired of visiting a muddy field in England where it was signed and fairly recently built a very American monument there with their own money.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
See Modern Legacy
@taatm
Not on topic but I followed a link on that site & noticed this weird little spam injection - looks like someone has managed to compromise their site & inject ad links (I'm just gonna presume there's malware & not check it out) INTO THEIR SITE COPY.
Which, like...I've been in this biz a while so I know it happens but it's kinda wild seeing it on this kind of a site just...hangin' out there.
@FeralRobots @siderea @mekkaokereke
Thanks very much. I’ll edit and kill the link.
Ta v much.
It'd be actually hilarious (in a very grim and unpleasant fashion) if Disney were the ones to come up with it due to that, but the use of a Royal Lives Clause to circumvent perpetuity restrictions has been around for well over 400 years, according to Wikipedia.
@theogrin @siderea @mekkaokereke
Cool. I thought it might have been a standard legal tool.
I find it fascinating how a British monarch is used in US law though. With contract law being the lowest form of law, it shows how difficult it is to write perpetuity legislation.
The Rockefellers have been used in the past, so it's certainly not just the royal family which gets used for this sort of thing. You could probably source any public figure with a bunch of kids and a high life expectancy, and the Royal Family have long had the entire medical apparatus of the British Isles waiting on them hand and foot.
Though with Charles III's belief in homeopathy, that's maybe not as sure a bet as it used to be.
mekka okereke 
Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis
The Animal and the Machine
FeralRobots
Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊