Whose mouse is it anyway? (2022)

He is the world’s most famous personality, better known in this country than anyone living or dead, real or fictional. Market researchers say his 97% recognition rate in the U.S. edges out even Santa Claus.

He is the one -- and, for now, only -- Mickey Mouse.

As Mickey turns 80 this fall, the most beloved rodent in show business is widely regarded as a national treasure. But he is owned lock, stock and trademark ears by the corporate heirs of his genius creator, Walt Disney.

Brand experts reckon his value to today’s Walt Disney Co. empire at more than $3 billion. Acts of Congress have extended Mickey’s copyright so long that they provoked a Supreme Court challenge, making Mickey the ultimate symbol of intellectual property.

All signs pointed to a Hollywood ending with Disney and Mickey Mouse living happily ever after -- at least until a grumpy former employee looked closely at fine print long forgotten in company archives.

Film credits from the 1920s revealed imprecision in copyright claims that some experts say could invalidate Disney’s long-held copyright, though a Disney lawyer dismissed that idea as “frivolous.”

Advertisement

Although studio executives are not yet hurling themselves from the parapets of Sleeping Beauty’s castle, the unexpected discovery raises an intriguing question: Is it possible that Mickey Mouse now belongs to the world -- and that his likeness is usable by anybody for anything?

For the record, any knock-offs would have to make clear that they did not come from Disney, or else risk violating the separate laws that protect trademarks. And the potentially free Mickey is not the most current or familiar version of the famous mouse.

Copyright questions apply to an older incarnation, a rendition of Mickey still recognizable but slightly different. Original Mickey, the star of the first synchronized sound cartoon, “Steamboat Willie,” and other early classics, had longer arms, smaller ears and a more pointy nose.

The notion that any Mickey Mouse might be free of copyright restrictions is about as welcome in the Magic Kingdom as a hag with a poisoned apple. Yet elsewhere, especially in academia, the idea has attracted surprising support.

“That ‘Steamboat Willie’ is in the public domain is easy. That’s a foregone conclusion,” said copyright scholar Peter Jaszi of American University’s Washington College of Law after studying the issue at The Times’ request.

The issue has been chewed over by law students as class projects and debated by professors. It produced one little-noticed law review article: a 23-page essay in a 2003 University of Virginia legal journal that argued “there are no grounds in copyright law for protecting” the Mickey of those early films.

(Video) Ryan the Oversexed Moose - Whose Line Is It Anyway? US

Roger Schechter, a George Washington University expert on copyright, called the article’s argument “a plausible, solid, careful case.” By contrast, a Disney lawyer once threatened the author with legal action for “slander of title” under California law. No suit was filed.

No one expects Disney, which declined interview requests, to surrender Mickey without an all-out legal brawl. And the cost of what has been an academic exercise would soar if moved into a federal courtroom.

“Law and equity might line up on the side of forfeiture,” said Michael J. Madison, associate dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. But “Disney has enough ammunition on its side to dissuade all but the most well-financed competitor, or any but the most committed public-interest advocates, from challenging Mickey.”

The story begins once upon a time, when a longtime Disney devotee dared awake the dragon in the Disney company’s powerful legal department.

--

Gregory S. Brown, 51, a former Disney researcher who has lived in the same one-bedroom apartment in Hollywood for two decades, seems an unlikely giant-killer.

Thin, pale and bespectacled, he looks the part of an obsessive archivist. He has worked little since a heart attack in 1998, getting by mostly on disability payments.

As a child, Brown was intrigued by a book on the hard slogging by Walt Disney and his brother Roy to establish themselves in the early days of film and animation. That launched a lifelong fascination with the business side of the Disney empire.

While in high school, Brown visited Disney offices to research a term paper and ended up getting hired as an assistant to Disney archivist David R. Smith in 1974. Brown helped catalog correspondence between the Disney brothers and had access to other internal records.

Brown was struck by the early disorganization of the Disneys. It took years, for example, for the brothers to decide whether their company should be a corporation, a proprietorship or a partnership.

Brown moved on from Disney to UCLA, the American Film Institute and a brief and unremarkable producing career, and then he teamed with a friend in a 1980s takeover bid for Harvey Productions -- home of Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Conducting a “due diligence” assessment of Harvey’s assets -- making sure that no legal or financial problems could haunt the purchase -- Brown found a stinker.

After release of the movie “Ghostbusters,” Harvey had sued Columbia Pictures in 1984, complaining that the cartoon ghost in the logo of Bill Murray’s crew looked an awful lot like Casper’s sidekick, Fatso. Columbia Pictures convinced a judge that a lapsed copyright had dumped Fatso into the public domain, ending the case.

Brown also discovered that Harvey had failed to renew other copyrights covering the company’s ghosts. Casper was public property too.

Now armed with knowledge about the frequency and implications of copyright confusion, Brown launched a business venture exploiting some of that murkiness. He would market recreated animation cels from a 1933 Mickey Mouse short called “The Mad Doctor.” Brown had discovered that the Disneys failed to renew copyright claims on that film.

But the Disney company sued so quickly that Brown never sold a cel. Although “The Mad Doctor” was indeed out of copyright, that long-ago oversight had not freed Mickey, whose ostensible copyright protection predated the short.

Brown lost. Worse, he was clobbered with a $500,000 judgment.

In the waning days of his case, Brown returned to the arguments of Disney lawyers who wrote that Mickey Mouse had been created by Walt Disney Co. in 1928. The former archivist knew that the company didn’t exist then. He wondered: Whose name is really on the original copyright?

(Video) Who needs a mouse anyway...

Brown was one of the few who knew that odds of a mistake were high. “Everybody screwed up copyright in the ‘20s, ‘30s and ‘40s,” said Schechter, the author of several books on copyright law. “Under the 1909 act, courts were really insistent on formalities.”

Brown went searching for flawed formalities -- and found one. It was on the title card at the beginning of a “Steamboat Willie” cartoon that had just been rereleased on a 1993 LaserDisc honoring Mickey’s 65th birthday. It said in full:

“Disney Cartoons

Present

A Mickey Mouse

Sound Cartoon

Steamboat Willie

A Walt Disney Comic

By Ub Iwerks

Recorded by Cinephone Powers System

Copyright MCMXXIX.”

For Brown, it was as if the glass slipper fit him perfectly. The key was location of the word “copyright” in relation to the name “Walt Disney.” There were two other names listed in between -- Cinephone and Disney’s top studio artist, Ub Iwerks. Arguably, any one of the three could have claimed ownership, thereby nullifying anyone’s claim under arcane rules of the Copyright Act of 1909.

Welcome to the wonderful world of copyright law.

--

Brown leapt on the ambiguity, asking the court to reconsider its ruling against him on grounds that Mickey Mouse was out of copyright. But he was too late. Without ruling on the merits of Brown’s arguments, the judge tossed it aside as untimely.

It was not the end. Debate over Mickey’s copyright status simply changed settings.

Arizona State University professor Dennis Karjala, a Brown acquaintance, suggested that one of his law school students look into the claim as a class project. Lauren Vanpelt took up the challenge and produced a paper agreeing with Brown. She posted her project on the Internet in 1999.

Across the continent, a Georgetown University law student stumbled on Vanpelt’s paper more than a year later. “I just came across it,” recalled Douglas Hedenkamp. “I was intrigued.”

(Video) Amy Winehouse - Rehab

Hedenkamp examined copyright registration forms at the Library of Congress. He went to UCLA’s archives and watched old shorts, noting the same title cards. He agreed: They revealed an excess of ambiguity.

Today, title-card claims are no longer required. But when courts rule on historical copyright issues, they follow the laws in place at the time -- in this case, says Hedenkamp, the 1909 law requiring that the word copyright or its symbol be “accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor” -- a rule scholars said means in the immediate proximity.

The authoritative legal treatise “Nimmer on Copyright” says that a copyright is void if multiple names create uncertainty, and courts have agreed. In 1961, a federal judge in Massachusetts cited the “accompanied by” rule in throwing out a copyright claim by newspaper cartoonist Art Moger. Moger’s name was included in the title above his panels, but the name of another artist ran inside the boxes.

“The fact that [Moger’s] name is prominently displayed . . . does not, by any means, rule out the possibility” that the other artist is the copyright holder, the judge wrote.

Hedenkamp finally wrote to Disney’s in-house lawyers, an attempt to satisfy his curiosity. Had he missed something? Or was there really a problem with Mickey’s copyright?

Disney legal advisors were not amused. General Counsel Louis Meisinger wrote back that it would be “inconceivable that any modern court would find any confusion about the identity of the proprietor of Mickey Mouse cartoons.”

He even threatened Hedenkamp with legal action if the young scholar openly advanced such claims.

“With respect to your plans to otherwise promote these as being in the public domain,” Meisinger added, “please be advised that slander of title remains actionable under California law for both compensatory and punitive damages.”

Nonetheless, Hedenkamp let the genie out of the bottle, spelling out his arguments in the Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, a publication of the University of Virginia’s law school. It attracted little attention off-campus.

--

Although losing Mickey would be the greatest rights setback for the world’s biggest family entertainment company, it wouldn’t be the first.

One of Walt Disney’s earliest creations was Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. After the cartoon proved popular, a New York distributor used an advantage in its contract to take control of Oswald, then hired away many of Disney’s artists. Mickey was the product of a desperate comeback attempt by Walt and his brother.

After that painful experience, the Disneys “held on to everything they did with a ferociously strong grip,” former company Vice Chairman Roy E. Disney said recently.

Disney’s carefully controlled licensing pioneered a sweeping business strategy that today uses television to promote movies that sell toys and bring people out to theme parks.

Though Disney sees itself as the hero of a corporate Cinderella story, the company’s aggression in copyright cases has verged on the cartoonish.

There was the time that it threatened to sue three Florida day-care centers for painting Disney figures on their walls. And this year, Disney did sue a home-based business for $1 million after a couple put on children’s parties with ersatz Eeyore and Tigger costumes.

Ironically, the company has mounted international efforts to claim some characters for the public domain -- such as Bambi and Peter Pan -- even as it defends Mickey Mouse. Many of Disney’s most famous figures were the creations of others, including Cinderella, Pinocchio, Pooh and Snow White, though it has vigorously protected its depictions of them.

In such battles, Disney has been known to employ arguments every bit as arcane as anything raised against it by Brown.

(Video) Who Is That Mouse Anyway?

Take the saga of Bambi, by Austrian Felix Salten. The story of the fawn was first published in Germany in 1923 without a formal copyright notice, which wasn’t required there. Three years later, Salten republished it with a notice.

In the 1930s, Salten’s rights were assigned to Disney, which made the famous 1942 movie. When Salten’s heirs renewed the copyright in 1954, they correctly listed 1926 as the year of Bambi’s first copyright.

But in a 1994 dispute over royalties with a small publisher that had acquired the Salten family’s rights, Disney lawyers said the 1954 copyright was void because it was filed three years too late -- based on the fact that the story was first published in 1923. A federal judge sided with Disney, ruling Bambi was in the public domain.

Though that finding was reversed on appeal, the legal ordeal bankrupted the publisher.

--

Today, Brown still lives off disability payments. His appeal was dismissed when he missed a filing deadline. Disney then seized $20,000 from his accounts, which Brown says was all he had.

The former Disney devotee has soured on the company. But he continues to be charmed by the genius behind Mickey Mouse.

“If Walt Disney had lived another 20 years, the world today would be a much better place,” Brown said. “I don’t know anyone else I could say that about, except maybe Bobby Kennedy.”

Hedenkamp, after writing his law review article, never heard from Disney again. Now 32, he works at an Irvine firm handling commercial law.

He describes himself as a “huge fan” of Disney. He also says that because Disney has taken advantage of so many characters created by others, it is only fair that artists get to borrow from Disney.

“Other people should get to put their spin on those old characters,” Hedenkamp said.

Roy Disney said he had never heard the theory about problems with the title cards. Nor was he surprised.

During those early years, he said, “Nobody knew what they were doing.”

Meisinger, the former general counsel, is now a Los Angeles County judge. Asked about the Hedenkamp article in an interview in his chambers, Meisinger gave an instant nod of recognition but ignored an invitation to take up the argument again.

“Everything has to fall into the public domain sometime,” he said, then headed back to court.

--

joseph.menn@latimes.com

Times researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

(Video) Chappelle's Show - The Wayne Brady Show - Uncensored

FAQs

Whose mouse is it anyway? ›

He is the world's most famous personality, better known in this country than anyone living or dead, real or fictional. Market researchers say his 97% recognition rate in the U.S. edges out even Santa Claus. He is the one -- and, for now, only -- Mickey Mouse.

What is Mickey Mouse famous line? ›

More Quotes From Mickey Mouse

To laugh at yourself is to love yourself.” “All you need is a little bit of magic.” “Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.” “Best friends stick together.”

Did Mortimer become Mickey Mouse? ›

Mickey Mouse was created by animator Walt Disney in 1928 after Universal Pictures retained the rights to his first creation, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit. The mouse's original name was Mortimer; according to one version, Disney's wife hated the name and changed it to Mickey.

Why did Mortimer Mouse become Mickey Mouse? ›

His wife, Lillian Disney, felt that the name was too pompous and instead suggested “Mickey Mouse”, and the name stuck. Mortimer model sheet for Mickey's Rival.

Who made Suicidemouse AVI? ›

Origin. The video was uploaded by YouTuber Nec1 on November 25th, 2009 that came with a long story about a fabricated backstory about the animation.

He is the one -- and, for now, only -- Mickey Mouse.. It produced one little-noticed law review article: a 23-page essay in a 2003 University of Virginia legal journal that argued "there are no grounds in copyright law for protecting" the Mickey of those early films.. In the waning days of his case, Brown returned to the arguments of Disney lawyers who wrote that Mickey Mouse had been created by Walt Disney Co. in 1928.. The former archivist knew that the company didn't exist then.. But when courts rule on historical copyright issues, they follow the laws in place at the time -- in this case, says Hedenkamp, the 1909 law requiring that the word copyright or its symbol be "accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor" -- a rule scholars said means in the immediate proximity.. Or was there really a problem with Mickey's copyright?. When Salten's heirs renewed the copyright in 1954, they correctly listed 1926 as the year of Bambi's first copyright.. But in a 1994 dispute over royalties with a small publisher that had acquired the Salten family's rights, Disney lawyers said the 1954 copyright was void because it was filed three years too late -- based on the fact that the story was first published in 1923.. A federal judge sided with Disney, ruling Bambi was in the public domain.. "If Walt Disney had lived another 20 years, the world today would be a much better place," Brown said.. "Other people should get to put their spin on those old characters," Hedenkamp said.. During those early years, he said, "Nobody knew what they were doing.". "Everything has to fall into the public domain sometime," he said, then headed back to court.

Note in particular the difference between “Turn right at the first intersection you encounter” (which necessarily can *only* be done at the first intersection you encounter) and “Turn right at an intersection” (which can be done at the second intersection, if the first intersection only allows a left turn and thus the second intersection was in fact the soonest you could “turn right at an intersection”).. Travel straight (without turning) through an intersection; then turn right onto a cross-street having a name alphabetically later than the name of the street you are turning off of; then, at the first intersection thereafter that you encounter, add to your scratchpad the alphabetically latest letter contained in the name of the cross-street at that intersection as it appears on its street-naming sign; then travel straight (without turning) through that intersection.. Radio to each of your teammates asking them to report the Xth letter of the Xth word in the full, unabbreviated name of the street they are currently on (if possible for them to do so), where X is the number of their car, and after they correctly comply (if possible for them to do so) add to your scratchpad the only reported letter that does not already appear on any of the team’s 4 scratchpads; then observe that you do not have exactly the same number of letters on your scratchpad as any of your teammates has on theirs; then travel straight (without turning) through an intersection thereafter with a cross-street extending only to your right; then travel straight (without turning) through an intersection thereafter with a cross-street extending only to your left.. Travel straight through an intersection with a cross-street extending only to your right (but do not turn there); then travel straight through an intersection thereafter with a cross-street extending only to your left (but do not turn there); then turn right at the first intersection you encounter thereafter; then park your car on the street you are then on as you arrive at the first intersection you encounter thereafter.. Turn right at an intersection; then turn right at an intersection thereafter; then turn right at an intersection thereafter; then turn left at an intersection thereafter; then park your car on the street you are then on as you arrive at the first intersection you encounter thereafter.

Using data of ‘employment in public and organised private sectors’ published by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), we can calculate that in the decade between 1980 and 1990, every one percentage point of GDP growth (nominal) generated roughly two lakh new jobs in the formal sector.. In the subsequent decade from 1990 to 2000, every one percentage point of GDP growth yielded roughly one lakh new formal sector jobs, half of the previous decade.. In the next decade between 2000 and 2010, one percentage point of GDP growth generated only 52,000 new jobs.. The RBI stopped publishing this data from 2011-12, but one can safely infer using proxy data that in the 2010-2020 decade, the number of new jobs generated for every percentage of GDP growth fell even further.. To put it differently, India’s GDP growth today has to be four times its GDP growth in the 1980s to produce the same number of formal sector jobs.. GDP growth may be an important economic measure, but it is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a political measure, since it impacts only a select few and not the vast majority.. This divorce of GDP growth and jobs is both a reflection of the changed nature of contemporary economic development with emphasis on capital-driven efficiency at the cost of labour and GDP being an inadequate measure.. If growth in GDP does not translate into equivalent economic prosperity for the average person, then in a one person-one vote democracy, exuberance over high GDP growth can backfire and trigger a backlash among the general public who may feel left out of this party.. Sri Lanka produced two lakh jobs for every percentage of GDP growth in the 1990s decade; this dwindled to 90,000 by 2020.. While economic mismanagement and political cronyism may have been the trigger for the recent mass protests in Sri Lanka, the underlying malaise is the dissonance between GDP growth and economic prosperity for the average person.. But the perils of the obsession over GDP growth will be felt by politicians who have to answer voters on lack of jobs and incomes despite robust headline growth.. Back in 2008, the then President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, assembled the ‘Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress’ and tasked Nobel Laureate economists Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and others to develop a more comprehensive measurement framework of economic and social performance as an alternative to the excessive reliance on GDP as a sole measure.. It is time for India’s political leaders, especially those in the Opposition, to not be drawn into facile quibbles over GDP growth every quarter and instead clamour for an overhaul of India’s economic performance measurement framework to reflect what truly matters to the common person.

In the New Testament, the word often translated as “sanctification” is sometimes translated, “holiness.” The Greek is hagiasmos (ἁγιασμὸς), the noun form of the verb “to sanctify,” “to make holy” ( hagiazo , ἁγιάζω).. 1.“They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts of it are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”. The subjects of sanctification are described as, “they who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated.” It should be noted that chapter 11 on justification begins in a similar way: “Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth.” Chapter 12 on adoption begins, “All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption.” And now chapter 13 describes the subjects of sanctification as “they who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated.”. It is not my place in this post to address all of these terms used to describe various elements of the salvation sinners receive in Christ: effectual calling, regeneration, justification and adoption (you can read more about these in an upcoming volume from Mentor Books ).. Notice, again, that this chapter begins with these words, “They who are united to Christ…” Calling, regeneration, justification, adoption, and sanctification are to be found in Christ and our union with Him.. Justification is not adoption or sanctification, adoption is not justification or sanctification, and sanctification is not justification or adoption.

A few comedians perform in front of audiences and a guest panel within the show.. Well, most fans of Whose Line Is It Anyway are in a dilemma about whether the show is scripted or not.. In addition, many of them have even leaped to the conclusion and claimed the show to be scripted.. There is nothing like the addition of script in the show.. Collin, one of the show’s comedians, shared in an interview that the show’s success has become a mouthpiece for it.. In addition, the comedian urged the viewers to have a close look at the rhythm of jokes of other shows and Whose Line Is It Anyway.. Now comes the main part of looking at real elements of the show, which will prove that the show is not scripted.. You will be surprised to know that the producers perform the editing to make all the episodes lie within the frame of a 22-minute show.. Within the process, the show makers ensure that they don’t touch the authenticity of the show.. Therefore, it is right to receive that the real performance of the show is never scripted.. If you are also a big fan of the show, don’t miss the latest episode of the show!. Moreover, the producers have not shown their intentions to script the show.

The women of Uppity Negress podcast calls this group the “ pick mes “where cis women interested in dating cis men do particular things for men to find them desirable.. They can see me as a potential long term romantic partner and they can make good on the ills left behind by those before them…the numerous men who have rapped the same lines before and left collateral damage because they’ve hurt me so badly (this is going into my memoir but when men who have gone out with me more than once end things, they tend to give an unsolicited exit interview offering the reasons why I suck as a girlfriend and why they’ve decided to date a specific other woman…and in many cases, they share explicit detail on who the woman is and why they deem her better than me).. They mention wanting to have sex with me, which honestly, I’m game to having one night stands and have offered this many times…but men continue to say that what they want with me is much more than that but in the end, it becomes the one night stand as they vanish after the first date.. I log onto the dating app where I initially met them and they’ve blocked me (with OKCupid, you can tell because your message thread vanishes and you can’t find them on your “like” list) and when I go to contact them via the cell phone number they’ve provided, I call and get transferred to voicemail OR the text message is never “delivered” as many of these men have iPhones.. Though not directly related, yet it could be as I suspect many of the men who move through the world in this way are also some of the men pushing for these laws, I find it quite strange that there’s so many cisgender heterosexual men who are 1) willing and wanting to have unprotected sex, 2) disengaging with women upon completion of desired sexual act, AND 3) pushing legislation preventing me from making the decision that I need to make if the unlikely outcome of the one night of splendid bliss is what I’m being blocked from having the autonomy to make the best decision for myself.

By participating in the groundbreaking course, “Increasing Effectiveness of Litigation Through Improvisational Theatre for Lawyers.”. Today we are in our fourth year of co-teaching a course created at Pepperdine University School of Law/Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution called, “Improvisational Mediation and Negotiation.” To create authenticity, we brought in two top improvisation instructors, Joseph Limbaugh and Kimberly Lewis from Los Angeles’ acclaimed ACME Comedy Theatre to help facilitate the course.. For most people who have little or no exposure to improvisation, their chief reference is the popular television show, “Whose Line Is It, Anyway,” in which two or more actors make up a short comedic scene on the spot based on an audience suggestion.. One of the cornerstones of improvisation is the concept of “Yes, and…” As two performers develop a scene together, each makes offers; an offer being anything they say or do that helps define the elements, reality or story of the scene they are creating.. Ideally, accepting an offer is followed by adding a new offer that builds on the earlier one; this process is known to improvisers as “Yes, and…” Every new piece of information added helps the actors refine and develop the action of the scene together.. Inexperienced improvisers tend to naturally want to block their fellow improvisers’ offers, and usually need coaching to break this habit.. Attorney Lisa Maki has also used “Yes, and…” to great effect: “In mediations during and since the class, I have used this method to open up my ability to listen and really understand where the defense and the mediator are coming from, allowing me to pick up signals early on to guide me to a resolution of a case, rather than shutting down and out all of what the defense and mediator are communicating.. The connection between the improviser and the lawyer becomes clear when you realize that, like an improvised scene, a lawyer has to incorporate new information and adapt their story as they go forward.. Improvisation isn’t just creating a story from scratch, it is creating a story from scratch cooperatively with other performers.. Improvisational guru Keith Johnstone was frustrated with the robotic stiffness of some performers when he realized they were not using the natural social skills on stage that they used in life, such as a concept called “Status.” Johnstone defines Status as. Most people don’t deal with lawyers on a regular basis, and when they do need a lawyer it is usually because they are faced with difficult circumstances that only the lawyer with his or her specialized knowledge can help them with.. This creates a status gap between the lawyer and his or her client that can be more easily overcome by someone who is trained to observe the status another person is presenting and to match it.. Learning and observing status is a very effective way for lawyers to become aware of their status habits.. Let’s review: it improves communication and creative problem-solving skills, encourages thinking outside the box, helps to overcome fear and stumbling blocks, builds dynamic presentation and storytelling skills, increases authenticity and spontaneity, nurtures innovation, reduces negativity, and increases cooperation.

Videos

1. Whose Line Is It Anyway?- Action replay- Wedding Night
(WhoseLine Forever)
2. The Best Questions With Hats | Whose Line Is It Anyway?
(Whose Line Is It Anyway?)
3. Club Mickey Mouse | Whose Bag Is It Anyway? | Disney Channel Asia
(Disney Channel Asia)
4. When your mouse is trolling you. But you win anyway.
(voltaseeno)
5. Hickory Dickory Dock | CoComelon Nursery Rhymes & Kids Songs
(Cocomelon - Nursery Rhymes)
6. Joe Walsh brain worms whose line is it anyway
(04TurboEcotec)

You might also like

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Dong Thiel

Last Updated: 07/16/2022

Views: 6288

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (59 voted)

Reviews: 90% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Dong Thiel

Birthday: 2001-07-14

Address: 2865 Kasha Unions, West Corrinne, AK 05708-1071

Phone: +3512198379449

Job: Design Planner

Hobby: Graffiti, Foreign language learning, Gambling, Metalworking, Rowing, Sculling, Sewing

Introduction: My name is Dong Thiel, I am a brainy, happy, tasty, lively, splendid, talented, cooperative person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.