I'm referring to this. The author of the article treats it facetiously, but it's no secret that the key to giving "rights" to cartoon animals is granting them legal status as sentient beings, i.e. beings required and able to provide testimony in a court case. Now, it appears, that's what has happened here thanks to a "clerical error." Yes, and let's just look into the backgrounds of these clerks who have committed this "error." Will we find that they're members of the Animation Liberation Front?
I'm reminded in a roundabout way of the famous Boop V. Boston case, in which the cartoon character Betty Boop was brought up on obscenity charges by the Boston City Attorney. I wonder if Disney and Warner Bros will go to the lengths of Fleisher's in the Boop case, in which they actually hired a young woman to portray Ms Boop in court? Her testimony, full of absurd non-sequiturs and biting satire, was released as a record (unfortunately only available on a 78 rpm vinyl) and became a minor novelty hit, overshadowing Glen Miller's controversial song about Italians, which was released around the same time. By the way, the Boop V Boston case revolved around an animated stag film entitled "Buried Treasure," in which the character of Ms Boop didn't actually appear.