61–70 of 366 posts
It just appended a reply to its own tweet that says: "The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus . These replies may appear in something special on May the 4th!" https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1254849654585323525
I'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.
I would be more worried about an influx of pranks.
If 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”), whi…
I doubt very much you can enforce a term that is a date in the year.
I 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.
> It really doesn't take that much corporate self awareness I think you underestimate how well anyone in management actually understands this. One job had me constantly pushing back on three or more paragraphs of legal text in the damndest of places. In one case, the legal text was larger than the form itself to say "we need your email to contact you with changes related to your account". Every time I contacted our c…
if they had instead just said like "We're compiling something special for May 4th! Tweet @Disney using the hashtag #MayThe4th with your favorite Star Wars memory and you may see your memories featured (subject to TOS)" I think generally it's more honest. but yeah i guess no one cares to be 'that person'.
It just appended a reply to its own tweet that says: "The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus . These replies may appear in something special on May the 4th!" https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1254849654585323525
Disney: "As per our first tweet, when the user replied to use with #MayThe4th, they were giving consent to use their tweet in our ad campaign."
Judge: "Were you aware of the first tweet?"
Plaintiff: "No, your honor. I posted my tweet in reply to the Disney+ account because I saw my friends doing it. The thread was ten thousand messages long; I didn't read the whole thing."
Not exactly a slam-dunk case for the plaintiff here, but I'd have to see precedent to show how a TOS that cannot practically be read is enforceable.
Just for #MayThe4th? It would be a real stretch in the first place if they made this statement about #MayThe4thBeWithYou, but just #MayThe4th???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. For this to hold up, either: - everyone has to silently acquiesce to this, - Disney has to actually file a court case against everyone who violates their "terms" and win them all. I think they're trying for the first option. Suing thousands of people for stupidly unreasonable reasons is not a good look, especially for a company where image is everything.
Why would Disney have to sue anyone? The violation will come from Disney, not thousands of people. Disney is saying they have the right to use any tweet containing the hashtag, including your name (and probably profile picture). If they use your tweet and you don't like it, you can sue them for copyright violation or using your name in advertising. However, there is no way in hell you can win that suit, because it is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 obfus…
At least it's not arbitration.