Anyone that responds to this thread legally agrees to surrender all intellectual property posted or mentioned by them in any manner on the internet messaging forum hackernews located at news dot ycombinator dot com, hereunder referred to as the interweb place, will be the sole property of hpoe and those he chooses to designate. These terms may not be modified, altered, or amended except with written agreement of both parties, that is notarized and approved by a Form 23-19B.
Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
11–20 of 366 posts
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#12The tweet says “by sharing your message with us using #MayThe4th”. I wonder if they expect both the hashtag AND a mention of @disneyplus. Still weird though.
Any public tweet is shared.
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#13Anyone that responds to this thread legally agrees to surrender all intellectual property posted or mentioned by them in any manner on the internet messaging forum hackernews located at news dot ycombinator dot com, hereunder referred to as the interweb place, will be the sole property of hpoe and those he chooses to designate. These terms may not be modified, altered, or amended except with written agreement of both…
Hey wai- ah crap
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#14Is it possible this is just boilerplate legal stuff that was whipped up for a campaign and the social media person just copied and pasted it with a minor tweak so it makes sense for Twitter?
The language reminds me of standard contest language I've read many times before...
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#15.
They're trying to CYA for future ad campaigns, but they can't actually CTA their way.
No dice, Disney. The way this works is if you want to use the tweets shouted into the ether, you can, and if someone doesn't like it, they can sue you, and then the US (and probably international) law gets to figure out on your dime via the lawyers you will pay whether you misused the tweets.
... or, Disney does the not-lazy thing, gathers up the tweets, issues individual requests to use to every user who tweets into the hashtag, and only moves forward with the ones they get consent for.
... or, third option, Disney puts up their own website where users can submit tweets by URL, and submitting a tweet to that website (signed off by a user's Disney account) confirms the user is claiming they own copyright of the tweet and is authorizing Disney to use it.
But yeah, more than zero effort on Disney's part required.
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#16Anyone that responds to this thread legally agrees to surrender all intellectual property posted or mentioned by them in any manner on the internet messaging forum hackernews located at news dot ycombinator dot com, hereunder referred to as the interweb place, will be the sole property of hpoe and those he chooses to designate. These terms may not be modified, altered, or amended except with written agreement of both…
Follow up:
Many users of hackernews have expressed their disagreement and disapproval of our TOS. After careful investigation, we realize that our original policy was ill conceived and worded in such a manner that people were aware of the vigorous bodily actions which we were performing on them. Due to this we offer our heartfelt apologies, and a guarantee that we will rewrite this policy in a manner that is so obfuscated that no person can realize they are being thoroughly hosed until our lawyers descend. As part of our apology we are offering a coupon that entitles all parties who were effected to 10% off a year subscription to our service provided they will sign a Form 24-62C releasing hpoe and affiliated parties from all damages done to them or their relatives past, present or future, in perpetuity.
Thank you our customers mean so much to us.
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#17I think the value of hiring more experienced folks to run social media (i.e. not an intern, someone with any amount of experience) is that they can actually point out how ridiculous this will come off, and argue against this type of tweet. It really doesn't take that much corporate self awareness to see how bad it looks to try to force TOS on free speech on a public forum.
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#18I've seen maker-spaces where a billboard was set up that automatically displayed a rolling marquee of tweets that had been sent with #TheMakerSpacesHashtag in the shop.
... can't help but wonder if the space put themselves at risk for being sued over a copyright violation if someone didn't like their tweet on that billboard.
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#19Just for #MayThe4th? It would be a real stretch in the first place if they made this statement about #MayThe4thBeWithYou, but just #MayThe4th???
[deleted]
Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use
#20If I understand disneytermsofuse.com correctly and I am not a lawyer, they’re claiming #MayThe4th is a Disney Product under the terms therein? Or that the Twitter account is a Disney Product? Because the terms say:
> The Disney Products may ask for or allow you to communicate, submit, upload or otherwise make available text, chats, images, audio, video, contest entries or other content (“User Generated Content”), which may be accessible and viewable by the public. Access to these features may be subject to age restrictions. Whether a Disney Product made available by us or in connection with Disney Products appears on a Disney website, service and/or platform or is integrated with a third-party website, service, application, and/or platform, you may not submit or upload User Generated Content that is defamatory, harassing, threatening, bigoted, hateful, violent, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, or otherwise offensive or that harms or can reasonably be expected to harm any person or entity, whether or not such material is protected by law.
... and they continue like that for a few paragraphs. Doesn’t look like they’ve updated the terms to account for this use.
Either way, reminds me of when sites tried to block “links” or require their website terms to apply to simply linking to a site...