> From: Daniel van Eijmeren [mailto:dve at kabelfoon.nl]
> Can someone help me? Preferably by temporarily putting the scans
> online?
I can send you scans of the original comic (WDC 104) in private e-mail, if you want.
They are 3.1 megabytes in total.
--Harry.
Author
Topic: 200406
(144 messages)
H.W.Fluks
Barks and the refloated ship - scan request
Message 106 -
2004-06-23 at 13:52:32
Martijn Houwen
Credits
Message 107 -
2004-06-23 at 17:01:19
Sander Dijkhuis wrote:
>I'm wondering if they're going to do the same in the coming weeklies.
Today I've send an e-mail to Thom Roep about the credits in "Donald Duck speciaal reclamenummer 2004" and the credits (who aren't) in the Dutch Weekly Donald Duck.
He answers me that the credits will not appear in the weekly, only in special albums.
Martijn
www.McDuck.nl
>I'm wondering if they're going to do the same in the coming weeklies.
Today I've send an e-mail to Thom Roep about the credits in "Donald Duck speciaal reclamenummer 2004" and the credits (who aren't) in the Dutch Weekly Donald Duck.
He answers me that the credits will not appear in the weekly, only in special albums.
Martijn
www.McDuck.nl
Lars Jensen
Barks and the refloated ship - scan request
Message 108 -
2004-06-23 at 17:51:30
Daniël van Eijmeren forwarded:
> Some of my pupils [...] wish to use [...] the Carl Barks story that
> inspired Kroeyer to refloat the ship in Kuwait. You have a link to a
> story on your site here:
> http://www.seriesam.com/barks/deta_text_s_pop_science_1965-04.html
> which describes it.
Actually, I've never seen Krøyer state that he did indeed get his idea
from the Barks story. Does anybody have any direct quotes from him on
this?
Not that I'm criticizing that New Zealand teacher. There are a lot of
contradictory and just-plain-wrong "facts" surrounding the raising of
Al-Kuwait/Al Kuwait/El-Kuwait.
For instance, when the "Popular Science" (PS) article was reprinted in
the Carl Barks Library (page 8C-666), the caption to it read: "Danish
inventor Karl Kroeyer probably remembered and then adapted an idea from
a Donald Duck story he had read in his youth". (Referring to Barks'
story, of course.) And, later on in the text, it said: "Kroeyer
undoubtedly read a Danish version, however, that translated Barks'
original floatation concept from Ping-Pong balls to tennis balls."
Not only does the writer of this caption make quite a leap in logic
(from "probably" to "undoubtedly"), he/she also unknowingly makes a
factual mistake. When Donald Duck in the PS article says: "Those tennis
balls have to run much faster [...]", he in Anders And & Co. says:
"Those balls have to run much faster [...]". And, in fact, throughout
the rest of Barks' story, as printed in AA&Co., the Ducks refer to the
balls as table tennis balls. The panels seen in the PS article are *not*
taken directly from AA&Co.! (A clue can be found in the fact that the
caption in the upper left corner of "Panel 1" has been removed from the
PS version.)
Anyway, the Barks story was first published in Denmark on May 21st, 1957
(AA&Co. 1957-11). By then, Krøyer was 42 years old. Hardly "in his
youth".
Lars
> Some of my pupils [...] wish to use [...] the Carl Barks story that
> inspired Kroeyer to refloat the ship in Kuwait. You have a link to a
> story on your site here:
> http://www.seriesam.com/barks/deta_text_s_pop_science_1965-04.html
> which describes it.
Actually, I've never seen Krøyer state that he did indeed get his idea
from the Barks story. Does anybody have any direct quotes from him on
this?
Not that I'm criticizing that New Zealand teacher. There are a lot of
contradictory and just-plain-wrong "facts" surrounding the raising of
Al-Kuwait/Al Kuwait/El-Kuwait.
For instance, when the "Popular Science" (PS) article was reprinted in
the Carl Barks Library (page 8C-666), the caption to it read: "Danish
inventor Karl Kroeyer probably remembered and then adapted an idea from
a Donald Duck story he had read in his youth". (Referring to Barks'
story, of course.) And, later on in the text, it said: "Kroeyer
undoubtedly read a Danish version, however, that translated Barks'
original floatation concept from Ping-Pong balls to tennis balls."
Not only does the writer of this caption make quite a leap in logic
(from "probably" to "undoubtedly"), he/she also unknowingly makes a
factual mistake. When Donald Duck in the PS article says: "Those tennis
balls have to run much faster [...]", he in Anders And & Co. says:
"Those balls have to run much faster [...]". And, in fact, throughout
the rest of Barks' story, as printed in AA&Co., the Ducks refer to the
balls as table tennis balls. The panels seen in the PS article are *not*
taken directly from AA&Co.! (A clue can be found in the fact that the
caption in the upper left corner of "Panel 1" has been removed from the
PS version.)
Anyway, the Barks story was first published in Denmark on May 21st, 1957
(AA&Co. 1957-11). By then, Krøyer was 42 years old. Hardly "in his
youth".
Lars
Daniel Van Eijmeren
BelSel story by Heymans/Graaff (Dutch Credits)
Message 109 -
2004-06-23 at 18:08:11
SANDER DIJKHUIS to me, 23-06-2004:
> In "Donald Duck speciaal reclamenummer 2004" they've put the credits
> at the first page of every story.
That's an issue for (adult) advertisers only, as far as I know.
> You can see it on two pictures by Martijn Houwen:
> http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Martijn87-ReclameDuck2_111.JPG
Thanks for the picture! This the debut publication of a brand-new story,
created earlier this year, by Mau Heymans (script and art) and Kirsten de
Graaff (script). In the story, Donald is addicted to a homeshopping
television show. ("BelSel")
The script was submitted in February 2004, and drawn in the period shortly
afterwards. I know, because I've proof-read and judged almost-finished
versions/edits of the script in January, before it was submitted.
What do you think of the story? Not having that issue (yet?), I haven't
seen the finished and published end-result.
Is there someone who can make readable scans of the full story available
for me in *private*? (By using a secret, private URL, for example?)
> I'm wondering if they're going to do the same in the coming weeklies.
I don't think so at all, having seen an earlier issue of this exclusive
advertisers series, approximately one or two years ago. To my mind, it's
clearly intened for "insiders-only", with a very different target than
the regular, real Dutch Disney comics.
Only the *stories* in these exclusive issues are (mostly? always?) suitable
for other Disney comics. So, I assume (wish!) the BelSel-story will sooner
or later appear in the Dutch weekly Donald Duck Weekblad, too.
>> But I'm also thinking of a negative side of giving credits within issues
>> themselves: What if the credits are wrong or discussable? This happens
>> regularly. And I believe it's rarely corrected afterwards. (Or am I wrong
>> about that?)
> This has happened in the new "Avonturen"-album, according to Daan Jippes:
> http://
> p086.ezboard.com/fstripnetstripliefhebbersforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=470.topic&index=73
Looks interesting! If only because of knowing that Daan Jippes also writes
on internet! I'm going to read his comments, later. Thanks!
--- Dani?l
> In "Donald Duck speciaal reclamenummer 2004" they've put the credits
> at the first page of every story.
That's an issue for (adult) advertisers only, as far as I know.
> You can see it on two pictures by Martijn Houwen:
> http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Martijn87-ReclameDuck2_111.JPG
Thanks for the picture! This the debut publication of a brand-new story,
created earlier this year, by Mau Heymans (script and art) and Kirsten de
Graaff (script). In the story, Donald is addicted to a homeshopping
television show. ("BelSel")
The script was submitted in February 2004, and drawn in the period shortly
afterwards. I know, because I've proof-read and judged almost-finished
versions/edits of the script in January, before it was submitted.
What do you think of the story? Not having that issue (yet?), I haven't
seen the finished and published end-result.
Is there someone who can make readable scans of the full story available
for me in *private*? (By using a secret, private URL, for example?)
> I'm wondering if they're going to do the same in the coming weeklies.
I don't think so at all, having seen an earlier issue of this exclusive
advertisers series, approximately one or two years ago. To my mind, it's
clearly intened for "insiders-only", with a very different target than
the regular, real Dutch Disney comics.
Only the *stories* in these exclusive issues are (mostly? always?) suitable
for other Disney comics. So, I assume (wish!) the BelSel-story will sooner
or later appear in the Dutch weekly Donald Duck Weekblad, too.
>> But I'm also thinking of a negative side of giving credits within issues
>> themselves: What if the credits are wrong or discussable? This happens
>> regularly. And I believe it's rarely corrected afterwards. (Or am I wrong
>> about that?)
> This has happened in the new "Avonturen"-album, according to Daan Jippes:
> http://
> p086.ezboard.com/fstripnetstripliefhebbersforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=470.topic&index=73
Looks interesting! If only because of knowing that Daan Jippes also writes
on internet! I'm going to read his comments, later. Thanks!
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Barks and the refloated ship - scan request
Message 110 -
2004-06-23 at 18:27:34
HARRY FLUKS to me, 23-06-2004:
>> Can someone help me? Preferably by temporarily putting the scans
>> online?
> I can send you scans of the original comic (WDC 104) in private
> e-mail, if you want. They are 3.1 megabytes in total.
Thanks!
Does someone have a detailed scan of the Popular Science article,
for example as reprinted in in The Carl Barks Library (page 8C-666).
It was originally published on page 118-119 of Popular Science,
April 1965.
See:
http://www.seriesam.com/barks/comicswdc100.html#ccus_wdc0104-02
http://www.seriesam.com/barks/deta_text_s_pop_science_1965-04.html
--- Dani?l
>> Can someone help me? Preferably by temporarily putting the scans
>> online?
> I can send you scans of the original comic (WDC 104) in private
> e-mail, if you want. They are 3.1 megabytes in total.
Thanks!
Does someone have a detailed scan of the Popular Science article,
for example as reprinted in in The Carl Barks Library (page 8C-666).
It was originally published on page 118-119 of Popular Science,
April 1965.
See:
http://www.seriesam.com/barks/comicswdc100.html#ccus_wdc0104-02
http://www.seriesam.com/barks/deta_text_s_pop_science_1965-04.html
--- Dani?l
Jeanmarcbano
Death In Disney Comics?
Message 111 -
2004-06-23 at 18:29:19
Two examples of death come to my mind: there is the story 'Paperino e il misterioso Mister Moster' - Donald contre Mister Moster 1955, where the explosion of the house at the end implies the death of the mad scientist Mister Moster, more important the death of Scrooge in 'Paperino anno 2001' 'Donald De Picsou en l'an 2001'; i don't think death is only forbidden in the intention of not schocking the young readers, but also because death introduces a time dimension in the lives of the characters, an historical approach of their lives which doesn't normally exist in the Donald and Mickey universes; so you'll have more chances to encounter some scenes of death in the stories of authors who have, in general, a more biographical approach of the characters.
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Dutch credits, and credits in general
Message 112 -
2004-06-23 at 19:45:33
KAI SAARTO to PASCAL OOST, 15-06-2004:
>> Crediting his work could be one (cheap) way to help a artist feel
>> appreciated.
> Not to mention the fact that comics that show the names of the
> authors tend to sell more.
Where did you get that fact from? As far as I know, it's the name Disney
that often sells the most. (Or McDonalds, Rolls Royce, etc.)
> Several publishers make a LOT of money just by reprinting old stories
> by famous artists. Its the name that sells (and not just Walt?s).
At least in The Netherlands, there's little interest in that (IMO). Only
the quality of the stories is important, and the names of the featured
Disney characters.
As far as I know, there have only been two Dutch instances where I've
witnessed people talking about Barks and other Disney artists. That was
in a comic book shop and at a comic book convention.
I don't think that sales will positively change in The Netherlands by just
adding credits to the Dutch weekly. At least, I fail to see the connection.
SONIA DYER to me, 16-06-2004:
>> Only few people care for credits when consuming products of big
>> companies. Have many people do carefully read the credits after
>> a movie is over? How many people do carefully read the detailed
>> credits of a software programme? Only freaks do.
> Well thank you for calling me a freak.
You're welcome! :-)
> I tend to look at products as creations of talented individuals,
> not as creations of faceless corporations.
That's a different matter. If I would only want to know about The Beatles
as a group, not caring for the names of the individual members John, Paul,
George, Pete, and Stuart, doesn't mean that I look at them as a faceless
corporation.
> When I see the name of one or more of the creators of something
> I enjoyed, I am pleased, and look for more of their work. With
> respect to movies, several recent ones have actually even made an
> effort to make the closing credits fun to look at (Shrek 2, Harry
> Potter 3).
So, apparently, producers and publishers have to make an *effort* to
make the closing credits fun to look at, because otherwise they would be
*boring*. But still, fun or no fun needed, do they really *read* the
credits? Or are they mostly just anxious to enjoy the *bonus* material
shown during/after the credits?
>> How many people have read Barks's non-Disney stories?
>> Have many people have really cared to even look for them?
> Like a number of people on this list, I have books full of Barks'
> earlier work because this is someone whose work I enjoy, Disney or
> not, and because it gives me greater insight into their creative
> development as an artist.
It's the same for me. I love Barks' non-Disney work!
> If people don't commonly read them, perhaps it's because they're
> not mass marketed. I doubt the average comics reader even knows
> there are Barks non-Disney stories, and therefore they don't look
> for them.
Then people should write and promote books about - for example - Barks,
with indexes and guides included. The more the better!
But at least in the USA and in The Netherlands, those books only sell in
relatively small quantities. So, apparently, there the names of people
behind big corporations are only of real interest to a relatively small
quantity of die-hard fans, crying in the desert. (Fans like me!)
--- Dani?l
>> Crediting his work could be one (cheap) way to help a artist feel
>> appreciated.
> Not to mention the fact that comics that show the names of the
> authors tend to sell more.
Where did you get that fact from? As far as I know, it's the name Disney
that often sells the most. (Or McDonalds, Rolls Royce, etc.)
> Several publishers make a LOT of money just by reprinting old stories
> by famous artists. Its the name that sells (and not just Walt?s).
At least in The Netherlands, there's little interest in that (IMO). Only
the quality of the stories is important, and the names of the featured
Disney characters.
As far as I know, there have only been two Dutch instances where I've
witnessed people talking about Barks and other Disney artists. That was
in a comic book shop and at a comic book convention.
I don't think that sales will positively change in The Netherlands by just
adding credits to the Dutch weekly. At least, I fail to see the connection.
SONIA DYER to me, 16-06-2004:
>> Only few people care for credits when consuming products of big
>> companies. Have many people do carefully read the credits after
>> a movie is over? How many people do carefully read the detailed
>> credits of a software programme? Only freaks do.
> Well thank you for calling me a freak.
You're welcome! :-)
> I tend to look at products as creations of talented individuals,
> not as creations of faceless corporations.
That's a different matter. If I would only want to know about The Beatles
as a group, not caring for the names of the individual members John, Paul,
George, Pete, and Stuart, doesn't mean that I look at them as a faceless
corporation.
> When I see the name of one or more of the creators of something
> I enjoyed, I am pleased, and look for more of their work. With
> respect to movies, several recent ones have actually even made an
> effort to make the closing credits fun to look at (Shrek 2, Harry
> Potter 3).
So, apparently, producers and publishers have to make an *effort* to
make the closing credits fun to look at, because otherwise they would be
*boring*. But still, fun or no fun needed, do they really *read* the
credits? Or are they mostly just anxious to enjoy the *bonus* material
shown during/after the credits?
>> How many people have read Barks's non-Disney stories?
>> Have many people have really cared to even look for them?
> Like a number of people on this list, I have books full of Barks'
> earlier work because this is someone whose work I enjoy, Disney or
> not, and because it gives me greater insight into their creative
> development as an artist.
It's the same for me. I love Barks' non-Disney work!
> If people don't commonly read them, perhaps it's because they're
> not mass marketed. I doubt the average comics reader even knows
> there are Barks non-Disney stories, and therefore they don't look
> for them.
Then people should write and promote books about - for example - Barks,
with indexes and guides included. The more the better!
But at least in the USA and in The Netherlands, those books only sell in
relatively small quantities. So, apparently, there the names of people
behind big corporations are only of real interest to a relatively small
quantity of die-hard fans, crying in the desert. (Fans like me!)
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
P.S. (Dutch credits, and credits in general)
Message 113 -
2004-06-23 at 19:51:52
I wrote:
"But still, fun or no fun needed, do they really *read* the credits?
Or are they mostly just anxious to enjoy the *bonus* material shown
during/after the credits?"
I meant:
"But still, fun or no fun needed, do [people] really *read* the credits?
Or are they mostly just anxious to enjoy the *bonus* material shown
during/after the credits?"
--- Dani?l
"But still, fun or no fun needed, do they really *read* the credits?
Or are they mostly just anxious to enjoy the *bonus* material shown
during/after the credits?"
I meant:
"But still, fun or no fun needed, do [people] really *read* the credits?
Or are they mostly just anxious to enjoy the *bonus* material shown
during/after the credits?"
--- Dani?l
Mikko Viinikka
Death In Disney Comics?
Message 114 -
2004-06-23 at 20:56:20
There is an old Floyd Gottfredson story from 1930, in which Mickey Mouse
tries to commit suicide in a number of ways, but doesn't succeed and at
the end changes his mind. You can read the story here:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Easel/4942/03.htm
Mikko Viinikka
Nokia, Finland
mikko.viinikka at mesta.net
tries to commit suicide in a number of ways, but doesn't succeed and at
the end changes his mind. You can read the story here:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Easel/4942/03.htm
Mikko Viinikka
Nokia, Finland
mikko.viinikka at mesta.net
Daniel Van Eijmeren
The pros and cons of crediting
Message 115 -
2004-06-23 at 21:43:05
CHRIS HILBIG to MARTIJN HOUWEN, 14-06-2004:
> I myself am a loyal Disney fan, but I'd be more inclined to purchase a
> title that has work by someone I enjoy and respect than an unknown.
> Maybe Dutch editors could get more copies sold among those 2.3 million
> readers. I'm sure there are quite a few talented Dutch writers and
> artists that could be built up into stars and could through their own
> merits, build a solid fan base that will buy week after week, month
> after month because of their names and the credibility attached to them.
If there's one thing that a lot of famous artists complain about, it's
the huge amount of fans coming to their door and mailbox, or the huge
amount of fans making their public life impossible. Even helpful Barks
seems to have MOVED from time to time, to get some rest.
Not every artist is begging for attention from fans, or for hours of
correspondence with anyone who's friendly. And I wonder how artists are
happy to just name themselves "Walt Disney", and enjoy their private
lives. I mean, some artists *like* to stand in the shadow, hidden by a
curtain with "(c) Disney" written over it.
And I also wonder if there are artists who might think: "No royalties,
then no credits." I mean, why does one want to see his/her PERSONAL name
being printed and reprinted for free, into infinity, without *any* control
on where and how?
I believe Rosa also has complained about comics being sold with all-too-
obvious credits using his name (on the covers?), and that he wanted to be
paid for those credits, because he thought it was a way of misusing his
name. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't remember the details, but I'm sure
that others can fill me in.
Rosa also has complained that editors/translators change his stories, and
that readers as a result would think it was credited artist Rosa himself
who made the "error". Without those credits, readers will just blame the
*Disney company* instead of Don Rosa. So, that would be an advantage, too.
A lot of Disney artists are too busy working for their monthly rent and
food, to have much TIME to pay attention to any potential fans. (A lot
of artists have families and kids.) Only a few Disney artists have the
opportunity to travel around the world, to visit conventions and such.
So, what use would a "famous" name be, for most Disney writers/artists?
But these are just some thoughts. I can't underscore enough that I'm mainly
*pro-credits*, but I just can't resist pondering some (IMO) negative sides
of getting credits from a royalty-free company like Disney.
Being just a person in the shadow while disguising yourself as Walt Disney,
might also be fun and satisfactory for some artists. (Or is that a rarity?)
> Disney editors in Europe are quite lucky because they don't have to
> deal with the stigma of "Disney Comics are only for kids" that those in
> the US (or North America if we include Canada) have to struggle with.
At least in The Netherlands, Disney comics are mainly intended for kids.
Stigma or not. A lot of people are willing to accept that they (at least
in theory) can be fun for adults, too. But maybe they just don't want to
be rude? :-)
> It's frustrating some of the reactions I get just mentioning comic
> books, let alone any Disney material. It's not like I'm even obsessive
> or anything. (Or I don't think I am.) But it's not easy mentioning
> comic books in everyday conversation unless it involves a movie.
I'm wondering if the Duck "family tree", "life story" and "mammal duck"
attempts are partly based on such frustrations. ("Look! This man isn't
a fantasy Duck! He has a *pedigree*, just like your dog!")
--- Dani?l
> I myself am a loyal Disney fan, but I'd be more inclined to purchase a
> title that has work by someone I enjoy and respect than an unknown.
> Maybe Dutch editors could get more copies sold among those 2.3 million
> readers. I'm sure there are quite a few talented Dutch writers and
> artists that could be built up into stars and could through their own
> merits, build a solid fan base that will buy week after week, month
> after month because of their names and the credibility attached to them.
If there's one thing that a lot of famous artists complain about, it's
the huge amount of fans coming to their door and mailbox, or the huge
amount of fans making their public life impossible. Even helpful Barks
seems to have MOVED from time to time, to get some rest.
Not every artist is begging for attention from fans, or for hours of
correspondence with anyone who's friendly. And I wonder how artists are
happy to just name themselves "Walt Disney", and enjoy their private
lives. I mean, some artists *like* to stand in the shadow, hidden by a
curtain with "(c) Disney" written over it.
And I also wonder if there are artists who might think: "No royalties,
then no credits." I mean, why does one want to see his/her PERSONAL name
being printed and reprinted for free, into infinity, without *any* control
on where and how?
I believe Rosa also has complained about comics being sold with all-too-
obvious credits using his name (on the covers?), and that he wanted to be
paid for those credits, because he thought it was a way of misusing his
name. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't remember the details, but I'm sure
that others can fill me in.
Rosa also has complained that editors/translators change his stories, and
that readers as a result would think it was credited artist Rosa himself
who made the "error". Without those credits, readers will just blame the
*Disney company* instead of Don Rosa. So, that would be an advantage, too.
A lot of Disney artists are too busy working for their monthly rent and
food, to have much TIME to pay attention to any potential fans. (A lot
of artists have families and kids.) Only a few Disney artists have the
opportunity to travel around the world, to visit conventions and such.
So, what use would a "famous" name be, for most Disney writers/artists?
But these are just some thoughts. I can't underscore enough that I'm mainly
*pro-credits*, but I just can't resist pondering some (IMO) negative sides
of getting credits from a royalty-free company like Disney.
Being just a person in the shadow while disguising yourself as Walt Disney,
might also be fun and satisfactory for some artists. (Or is that a rarity?)
> Disney editors in Europe are quite lucky because they don't have to
> deal with the stigma of "Disney Comics are only for kids" that those in
> the US (or North America if we include Canada) have to struggle with.
At least in The Netherlands, Disney comics are mainly intended for kids.
Stigma or not. A lot of people are willing to accept that they (at least
in theory) can be fun for adults, too. But maybe they just don't want to
be rude? :-)
> It's frustrating some of the reactions I get just mentioning comic
> books, let alone any Disney material. It's not like I'm even obsessive
> or anything. (Or I don't think I am.) But it's not easy mentioning
> comic books in everyday conversation unless it involves a movie.
I'm wondering if the Duck "family tree", "life story" and "mammal duck"
attempts are partly based on such frustrations. ("Look! This man isn't
a fantasy Duck! He has a *pedigree*, just like your dog!")
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
P.S. (The pros and cons of crediting)
Message 116 -
2004-06-23 at 21:50:51
I wrote:
And I wonder how artists are happy to just name themselves "Walt
Disney", and enjoy their private lives.
That should be:
And I wonder _how many_ artists are happy to just name themselves
"Walt Disney", and enjoy their private lives.
--- Dani?l
And I wonder how artists are happy to just name themselves "Walt
Disney", and enjoy their private lives.
That should be:
And I wonder _how many_ artists are happy to just name themselves
"Walt Disney", and enjoy their private lives.
--- Dani?l
Olivier
Barks and the refloated ship - scan request
Message 117 -
2004-06-23 at 21:55:32
Hi everyone!
- Dani?l -
I have found a very interesting text by searching for "Karl Kroyer"::
http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/
Halfway down the page you will come to the "When Is Something Prior Art
Against a Patent?" section; Kroyer & the ducks are mentioned in the third
subpart, "Enabling Disclosure". I copy the text in PS.
Kroyer may have read Barks' delightful story (the salvage method is funny,
but I love even more how Scrooge manages to make Donald work for him for
nothing).
What seems more certain is that someone at the Patent Office had read it,
and therefore rejected Kroyer's application-- or Kroyer may leaned over the
desk and candidly told the Patent Office clerck, "Hey, you'll never guess
how I got the idea..."
I guess this also means that the ever alert employees jot down the
references of any invention they may find in fiction, just in case.
Imagine that, coming up with a great idea, spending weeks and months and
years developing it, only to find you can't patent it because a "silly kids'
comics" artist thought of it before you and it only took him a few days and
he didn't even reap the benefits of it.
The "Sunken Yacht" story is also mentioned in "the Science of Superheroes":
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/februar/1045138682.53
http://www.sket.dk/0103.html also has the date of 1965 (January 3) instead
of 1964.
My search also turned up this page:
http://www.cbarks.dk/BRUDSTYKKERNE.htm
I can't find Kroye's name in it however.
I have a question regarding the fourth red frame starting from the bottom of
the page: could someone translate & explain me the link between JFK & Barks,
please?
This author of this page obviously has not read the comic:
http://actscom.com/store/daily2.htm
Yet another page on the Al-Kuwait story:
http://members.tripod.com/earthdude1/donald_duck/donald_duck.html
Best wishes to all of you,
Olivier
*******************************
- PS -
Enabling disclosure
Another requirement for document to qualify as prior art is that it is
enabling. In other words, the document must enable an average skilled person
to practice the invention as claimed. A science-fiction novel might describe
an invention without going into details. While this will describe the basic
idea behind the invention, it does not enable the skilled person to
construct the invention. For example, the famous Star Trek TV series
features the so-called "transporter", by which Starfleet personnel could be
"beamed down" to the surface of the planet. However, no details were ever
given on how the transporter was supposed to work, or how anyone could build
it. If someone today were to invent a working matter transporter that
operated in exactly the same way as in Star Trek, he would still be able to
obtain a patent on it. The disclosure given in the TV series would not be
sufficient to destroy novelty of the features of his transporter.
That does not mean that fiction cannot be used as prior art at all. If the
fiction describes the invention in sufficient detail, it counts as prior art
just like a technical publication would. A famous example is the case of a
method to recover sunken ships by filling them with buoyant bodies fed
through a tube. This method was used in 1964 to recover the freighter
Al-Kuwait from the bottom of the Persian Gulf. The Danish inventor Karl
Kroeyer tried to get a patent for this method, but his patent application
(amongst others, in the UK GB 1070600 and in the Netherlands NL 6514306) was
rejected for lack of novelty. The prior art? In 1949 the Donald Duck story
The Sunken Yacht (by Carl Barks) shows Donald and the nephews raising a ship
by filling it with ping pong balls shoved through a tube. Since ping pong
balls are buoyant bodies, and they were fed to the yacht through a tube, the
Donald Duck episode was considered novelty-destroying prior art.
*******************************
- Dani?l -
I have found a very interesting text by searching for "Karl Kroyer"::
http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/
Halfway down the page you will come to the "When Is Something Prior Art
Against a Patent?" section; Kroyer & the ducks are mentioned in the third
subpart, "Enabling Disclosure". I copy the text in PS.
Kroyer may have read Barks' delightful story (the salvage method is funny,
but I love even more how Scrooge manages to make Donald work for him for
nothing).
What seems more certain is that someone at the Patent Office had read it,
and therefore rejected Kroyer's application-- or Kroyer may leaned over the
desk and candidly told the Patent Office clerck, "Hey, you'll never guess
how I got the idea..."
I guess this also means that the ever alert employees jot down the
references of any invention they may find in fiction, just in case.
Imagine that, coming up with a great idea, spending weeks and months and
years developing it, only to find you can't patent it because a "silly kids'
comics" artist thought of it before you and it only took him a few days and
he didn't even reap the benefits of it.
The "Sunken Yacht" story is also mentioned in "the Science of Superheroes":
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/februar/1045138682.53
http://www.sket.dk/0103.html also has the date of 1965 (January 3) instead
of 1964.
My search also turned up this page:
http://www.cbarks.dk/BRUDSTYKKERNE.htm
I can't find Kroye's name in it however.
I have a question regarding the fourth red frame starting from the bottom of
the page: could someone translate & explain me the link between JFK & Barks,
please?
This author of this page obviously has not read the comic:
http://actscom.com/store/daily2.htm
Yet another page on the Al-Kuwait story:
http://members.tripod.com/earthdude1/donald_duck/donald_duck.html
Best wishes to all of you,
Olivier
*******************************
- PS -
Enabling disclosure
Another requirement for document to qualify as prior art is that it is
enabling. In other words, the document must enable an average skilled person
to practice the invention as claimed. A science-fiction novel might describe
an invention without going into details. While this will describe the basic
idea behind the invention, it does not enable the skilled person to
construct the invention. For example, the famous Star Trek TV series
features the so-called "transporter", by which Starfleet personnel could be
"beamed down" to the surface of the planet. However, no details were ever
given on how the transporter was supposed to work, or how anyone could build
it. If someone today were to invent a working matter transporter that
operated in exactly the same way as in Star Trek, he would still be able to
obtain a patent on it. The disclosure given in the TV series would not be
sufficient to destroy novelty of the features of his transporter.
That does not mean that fiction cannot be used as prior art at all. If the
fiction describes the invention in sufficient detail, it counts as prior art
just like a technical publication would. A famous example is the case of a
method to recover sunken ships by filling them with buoyant bodies fed
through a tube. This method was used in 1964 to recover the freighter
Al-Kuwait from the bottom of the Persian Gulf. The Danish inventor Karl
Kroeyer tried to get a patent for this method, but his patent application
(amongst others, in the UK GB 1070600 and in the Netherlands NL 6514306) was
rejected for lack of novelty. The prior art? In 1949 the Donald Duck story
The Sunken Yacht (by Carl Barks) shows Donald and the nephews raising a ship
by filling it with ping pong balls shoved through a tube. Since ping pong
balls are buoyant bodies, and they were fed to the yacht through a tube, the
Donald Duck episode was considered novelty-destroying prior art.
*******************************
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Sigh... Another correction (The pros and cons of crediting)
Message 118 -
2004-06-23 at 21:57:21
I wrote:
I mean, some artists *like* to stand in the shadow, hidden by a
curtain with "(c) Disney" written over it.
And I meant:
I mean, some artists *like* to stand in the shadow, hidden by a
curtain.
--- Dani?l, pondering the pros and cons of writing his own emails... :-)
I mean, some artists *like* to stand in the shadow, hidden by a
curtain with "(c) Disney" written over it.
And I meant:
I mean, some artists *like* to stand in the shadow, hidden by a
curtain.
--- Dani?l, pondering the pros and cons of writing his own emails... :-)
Olivier
Death In Disney Comics? - Mickey's suicide attempts
Message 119 -
2004-06-23 at 22:09:27
Mikko;
>>>> There is an old Floyd Gottfredson story from 1930, in which Mickey
Mouse
>>>> tries to commit suicide in a number of ways, but doesn't succeed and at
>>>> the end changes his mind. You can read the story here:
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Easel/4942/03.htm
I'm pretty sur I quoted Gottfredson's interview by David R. Smith at some
point on the list, but I can't find it-- but then, I have quoted the
interview several times, so I may be misremembering.
Anyway, I have found this page where someone quotes it (at the bottom):
http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007126
Olivier
>>>> There is an old Floyd Gottfredson story from 1930, in which Mickey
Mouse
>>>> tries to commit suicide in a number of ways, but doesn't succeed and at
>>>> the end changes his mind. You can read the story here:
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Easel/4942/03.htm
I'm pretty sur I quoted Gottfredson's interview by David R. Smith at some
point on the list, but I can't find it-- but then, I have quoted the
interview several times, so I may be misremembering.
Anyway, I have found this page where someone quotes it (at the bottom):
http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007126
Olivier
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Reply to Dan Shane
Message 120 -
2004-06-23 at 23:00:13
DAN SHANE to me, 14-06-2004:
>> Have many people do carefully read the credits after a movie is
>> over? How many people do carefully read the detailed credits of
>> a software programme?
> That is all of importance to some, perhaps, but not to all. And
> by your analogy Steven Spielberg did not make E.T. Universal
> Pictures did. Universal did the special effects, wrote the
> screenplay, directed the actors, and wrote the score.
Okay. But whether it was Steven Spielberg or Universal Pictures, I
don't think it was just *one* person who did it. Still, one name is
used to name them all. ("Steven Spielberg", or "Universal Pictures".)
> I agree there are probably no individuals outside of family members
> who care who held the director's hat while he was mopping his brow,
> but can you really claim that no one ever cared who Ray harryhausen
> was, even though he never directed a major motion picture in his life?
I think that people who deserve credits, deserve to be credited. I'm
just discussing the ways *how* it can be done, and the main audience's
*interest* in credits.
> Software is a completely different animal from visual entertainment
> except in the arena of video games.
Why would software be different? Most software interfaces need art, text,
colour, and a structure, too. Just look at Microsoft's Windows operation
system.
> And even there many titles are sought out specifically by the name
> of the author.
Yes, but mostly only by a few expert users. Not by the main audience. The
main audience thinks the words "Microsoft" or "Apple" are all they need
to know.
> Now I'm beginning to get your dirft. You seem to be looking at it
> from a marketing standpoint rather than from the creators' or
> readers' view.
This is UNTRUE! I don't see why you would want to put me down as being
so damned shortsighted.
> I learned a long time ago it is useless to try to get a marketeer
> to understand how the real world works.
Too bad for your marketeer then. What do you expect me to do with such
comments? And do YOU really think that YOU know how the "real world"
works, Dan? That would be fun!
It's my personal religion that NO ONE knows how the "real world" works.
(Unless you're a god, or so.) The never-ending daily wars prove it every
second again. So far my little pocket preech. :-)
>> There are even ADULTS who tend to think that Donald Duck and
>> Mickey Mouse are actual living creatures, copmplete with
>> life-story, family tree and traumas.
> Really? I've never met one who thought they were anything but
> realistic characters. Could you introduce me to someone who
> believes these critters are real people?
You can do that for yourself. There have been many discussions about
that subject, here on DCML.
>> Full credits placed on every *other* children's book ever
>> published? This is not true.
> Not literally, no. Disney Little Golden Books often followed the
> Disney comics model. But you have chosen to interpret hyperbole
> literally. The rest of us probably understood what Don meant.
Yes, of course, even *if* your famous friend makes a mistake, he's
*still* right! And I'm still wrong when I try to correct him!
Is THAT the real world, according to you?
Hyperboles are very confusing in emails. When using a hyperbole, you
can be sure that EVERYONE IN THIS UNIVERSE will misunderstand you. Or
is that a hyperbole, too? See how confusing it is!
--- Dani?l
>> Have many people do carefully read the credits after a movie is
>> over? How many people do carefully read the detailed credits of
>> a software programme?
> That is all of importance to some, perhaps, but not to all. And
> by your analogy Steven Spielberg did not make E.T. Universal
> Pictures did. Universal did the special effects, wrote the
> screenplay, directed the actors, and wrote the score.
Okay. But whether it was Steven Spielberg or Universal Pictures, I
don't think it was just *one* person who did it. Still, one name is
used to name them all. ("Steven Spielberg", or "Universal Pictures".)
> I agree there are probably no individuals outside of family members
> who care who held the director's hat while he was mopping his brow,
> but can you really claim that no one ever cared who Ray harryhausen
> was, even though he never directed a major motion picture in his life?
I think that people who deserve credits, deserve to be credited. I'm
just discussing the ways *how* it can be done, and the main audience's
*interest* in credits.
> Software is a completely different animal from visual entertainment
> except in the arena of video games.
Why would software be different? Most software interfaces need art, text,
colour, and a structure, too. Just look at Microsoft's Windows operation
system.
> And even there many titles are sought out specifically by the name
> of the author.
Yes, but mostly only by a few expert users. Not by the main audience. The
main audience thinks the words "Microsoft" or "Apple" are all they need
to know.
> Now I'm beginning to get your dirft. You seem to be looking at it
> from a marketing standpoint rather than from the creators' or
> readers' view.
This is UNTRUE! I don't see why you would want to put me down as being
so damned shortsighted.
> I learned a long time ago it is useless to try to get a marketeer
> to understand how the real world works.
Too bad for your marketeer then. What do you expect me to do with such
comments? And do YOU really think that YOU know how the "real world"
works, Dan? That would be fun!
It's my personal religion that NO ONE knows how the "real world" works.
(Unless you're a god, or so.) The never-ending daily wars prove it every
second again. So far my little pocket preech. :-)
>> There are even ADULTS who tend to think that Donald Duck and
>> Mickey Mouse are actual living creatures, copmplete with
>> life-story, family tree and traumas.
> Really? I've never met one who thought they were anything but
> realistic characters. Could you introduce me to someone who
> believes these critters are real people?
You can do that for yourself. There have been many discussions about
that subject, here on DCML.
>> Full credits placed on every *other* children's book ever
>> published? This is not true.
> Not literally, no. Disney Little Golden Books often followed the
> Disney comics model. But you have chosen to interpret hyperbole
> literally. The rest of us probably understood what Don meant.
Yes, of course, even *if* your famous friend makes a mistake, he's
*still* right! And I'm still wrong when I try to correct him!
Is THAT the real world, according to you?
Hyperboles are very confusing in emails. When using a hyperbole, you
can be sure that EVERYONE IN THIS UNIVERSE will misunderstand you. Or
is that a hyperbole, too? See how confusing it is!
--- Dani?l