迪士尼的法务部有多大规模？

日本有个学校的学生画了个巨大的米老鼠，然后........很快就被勒令擦掉了，确实是真的。

感谢 @baskice 博士昨天邀请，很有趣的问题，略有了解，昨夜写了一下。

笔者注：以下行文信息均来自于公开信息，包括但不限于迪斯尼 2017 年度 10-K，以及 FindLaw 上的律师信息。

• 第一个问题，迪士尼的法务部有多大规模？

因崔斯汀，在说迪士尼的法务部之前，还是有必要通过迪士尼的 10-K（For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2017）说一下，迪士尼的各部门总人数：截至2017年9月30日，公司所有的员工是约20万人。

众所周知，迪士尼的法务部门是比较大的，笔者不完全地附列如下：

迪斯尼总部 77 名；

迪士尼公司 ABC有线电视网络集团总部 4名；

迪士尼公司美国广播公司 - ESPN（分公司）10名；

迪士尼公司 - 华盛顿州西雅图 1名；

迪士尼公司 - 美国广播公司（分公司）18名；

迪士尼公司 - 皮克斯动画工作室（总部）2名；

迪斯尼乐园度假村 - 阿纳海姆 5名；

迪士尼公司 - 迪士尼互动（总部）2名；

迪士尼公司 - 美国广播公司（总部）22名；

迪士尼公司 - 迪士尼度假开发公司（总部）1名；

迪士尼公司 - 欧洲迪斯尼SCA（法国）（总办事处）12名；

迪士尼公司（法国）SAS（总部）1名；

迪士尼公司（日本）有限公司（总部）3名；

迪士尼影城 - 迪士尼戏剧集团（分公司）1名；

迪士尼有限公司（英格兰）（总部）5名；

迪士尼影城（总部）5名；

迪士尼动画工作室（总部）1名；

迪士尼幻想工程（总部）2名；

迪士尼世界有限公司（总部）16名；

······

统计看来，迪士尼大概有数百名员工分布在世界各地。

当然就法务部门的规模而言，实际上前几年总法Braverman曾写过文章主动披露in-house的数量：

In recent years, Disney has significantly reorganized its studios, parks and resorts to allow the divisions to work more cooperatively. That has caused Braverman to rethink the organization of Disney’s legal department, which has some 350 attorneys companywide.

笔者翻译：近年来迪士尼对其各业务部门（工作室，公园和度假村等）进行了大量重组，以促使各部门之间合作更加融洽。以上的重组计划导致总法Braverman重新构建了拥有约350名律师的迪士尼法务部组织结构。

• 由上个问题所引申出的第二个问题，迪士尼为什么要维持这么大的法务部规模，其所偏重的业务是什么？

笔者按：既然对本问题感兴趣，所接受的英文教育足以阅读 10-K 中的部分摘录信息，故在此不再翻译。

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION
The Company’s businesses throughout the world are affected by its ability to exploit and protect against infringement of its intellectual property, including trademarks, trade names, copyrights, patents and trade secrets. Important intellectual property includes rights in the content of motion pictures, television programs, electronic games, sound recordings, character likenesses, theme park attractions, books and magazines. Risks related to the protection and exploitation of intellectual property rights are set forth in Item 1A – Risk Factors.

以及：

The success of our businesses is highly dependent on the existence and maintenance of intellectual property rights in the entertainment products and services we create.
The value to us of our intellectual property rights is dependent on the scope and duration of our rights as defined by applicable laws in the U.S. and abroad and the manner in which those laws are construed. If those laws are drafted or interpreted in ways that limit the extent or duration of our rights, or if existing laws are changed, our ability to generate revenue from our intellectual property may decrease, or the cost of obtaining and maintaining rights may increase.
The unauthorized use of our intellectual property may increase the cost of protecting rights in our intellectual property or reduce our revenues. New technologies such as the convergence of computing, communication, and entertainment devices, the falling prices of devices incorporating such technologies, increased broadband internet speed and penetration, increased availability and speed of mobile data transmission and increasingly sophisticated attempts to obtain unauthorized access to data systems have made the unauthorized digital copying and distribution of our films, television productions and other creative works easier and faster and protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights more challenging. The unauthorized use of intellectual property in the entertainment industry generally continues to be a significant challenge for intellectual property rights holders. Inadequate laws or weak enforcement mechanisms to protect intellectual property in one country can adversely affect the results of the Company’s operations worldwide, despite the Company’s efforts to protect its intellectual property rights. These developments require us to devote substantial resources to protecting our intellectual property against unlicensed use and present the risk of increased losses of revenue as a result of unlicensed distribution of our content.
With respect to intellectual property developed by the Company and rights acquired by the Company from others, the Company is subject to the risk of challenges to our copyright, trademark and patent rights by third parties. Successful challenges to our rights in intellectual property may result in increased costs for obtaining rights or the loss of the opportunity to earn revenue from the intellectual property that is the subject of challenged rights.

因迪士尼的业务高度依赖于其知产业务和商业展开，所以维持如此规模的法务人员数量不足为奇。

想起之前跟几位从事娱乐法的好朋友聊天，聊起来叫鸭行业内部的轶事（不是那个“叫鸭”），怪鸭霍华德和唐老鸭因为容易混淆的双鸭之战，迪士尼没事儿就给漫威发律师函指导如何修改霍华德的形象，大家倒是经常调笑“迪士尼的律师函已经在路上”，不过这些调侃也从侧面反映出迪士尼对知识产权的看重。

当然迪士尼也不总是给大伙儿发律师函的，去年其被肉联厂怼了一波，还支付了一笔高额的诉讼和解金。

Certain Items Impacting Comparability
Results for fiscal 2017 were impacted by the following:
A $255 million non-cash net gain in connection with the acquisition of a controlling interest in BAMTech
A $177 million charge, net of committed insurance recoveries, in connection with the settlement of litigation
Restructuring and impairment charges totaling $98 million

这里影响迪士尼2017年度业绩的重要因素之一就是诉讼和解金，迪士尼向南达科塔州肉类加工企业BPI（Beef Products Inc）支付了一笔1.77亿美元的诉讼和解金。

所谓的背景信息就是双方拉锯5年之久的新闻诽谤“公司商誉权”案件。

ABC于2012年报道BPI在其销售的牛肉产品中添加70%的“粉红肉渣”，以减少整体脂肪含量，但此成分未在标签上披露。该成分是通过加热和旋转从含有少量牛肉的小块脂肪中提取出来的。
BPI公司于2012年9月控告ABC涉嫌诽谤，暗示“粉红肉渣”不是牛肉，损害了该公司名誉，因此造成经济损失19亿美元，并索赔57亿美元。迪士尼与BPI于17年6月就此案达成秘密和解。

笔者按：ABC是迪士尼全资新闻子公司American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

额外地说，迪士尼极为舍得给自己公司的in-house提供薪资，16年的时候给其总法Alan Braverman支付了 11473666 美元（折合人民币大约7500万左右）的顶级薪资，在世界首屈一指，当时法律业界的律师法务们发出这样羡慕嫉妒恨的惊叹：

Disney's top lawyer is best-paid general counsel！

当然这些法务给公司带来了极大的利益，也是物超所值：

The Walt Disney Company. Faced with the eventual expiration of its media copyrights, Disney executives transferred the value of that intellectual property into thousands of newly registered trademarks for various characters, names and images.This legal strategy achieved two important goals. First, it shifted the company’s property to a legal regime that offers an indefinite lifetime. Second, it facilitated the expansion of name and character merchandise licensing, which now accounts for a global, multibillion-dollar, high-profit-margin business. Without a working knowledge of the law, however, this shrewd strategy never would have been properly executed, and considerable shareholder value would have been lost. And Disney is but one of many companies that have successfully deployed sophisticated legal strategies to capture the profits of innovation-related activities, particularly in the field of intellectual property management.

最后要略微纠正一点，虽然大家闲着没事就调侃“迪士尼的律师函正在路上”，但我觉得更贴切的是“迪士尼的律师正在路上”，因为他们不仅搞别人，也被别人搞：

Over the years, Disney has been sued by a Pennsylvania woman who claimed she was groped by a Donald Duck; by a man who said he was stranded on the “it’s a small world” ride for 40 minutes; by a man who claimed a breach of contract for his contestant appearance on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, claiming that the $16,000 question—which he responded to incorrectly—was not “an absolute question with a singularly correct answer”; and by a woman who claimed her script was used to develop Desperate Housewives, citing, in part, the similarity between both works including the similar use of the word “fun” and that they both contained a red car.

一女子感觉被唐老鸭欺骗，起诉迪士尼；

一男子在迪士尼乐园感觉骑车时间过长，起诉迪士尼；

······

总之很多人感到不爽就起诉迪士尼， @尚阿鹏 尚律师要不要找个诉由搞一搞？

所以无奈乎有在迪士尼公司干过的in-house朋友自嘲：

Every legal matter has the potential to be a giant news story, which, in turn, makes Disney an appealing company to sue！