Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 366 posts

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#71

Post by hbosch »

slg wrote: post #60
mholt wrote: post #44

Update from Disney: > 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 ... as if that's really any better.

Now the interesting question is whether they were simply lazy in the language and this was their initial intent or if the 5 hours of the original tweet being ratioed motivated a change. The new clarification is absolutely better to not claim ownership over the entire hashtag, but it is questionable to claim in one tweet that any replies made to a different tweet are an agreement to a private TOS.

I know there is a rally around this happening now, but I think it's pretty obvious that Disney was simply saying if you reply to their message with that hashtag then they want to be able to re-post your message as part of their marketing.

Of course the way they said that could have been worked on.

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#72

Post by KajMagnus »

londons_explore wrote: post #49
chasing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, well anyone reading this message legally agrees to send me $20 in the mail.

Plz send mailing address.

Is it $20 each time I read it or just once?

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#73

Post by WilliamEdward »

hbosch wrote: post #71
slg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now the interesting question is whether they were simply lazy in the language and this was their initial intent or if the 5 hours of the original tweet being ratioed motivated a change. The new clarification is absolutely better to not claim ownership over the entire hashtag, but it is questionable to claim in one tweet that any replies made to a different tweet are an agreement to a private TOS.

I know there is a rally around this happening now, but I think it's pretty obvious that Disney was simply saying if you reply to their message with that hashtag then they want to be able to re-post your message as part of their marketing. Of course the way they said that could have been worked on.

Yes, obviously, but why would anyone need to consent to disney's own private terms of use on a different website for this? That's the shady part here. There could be anything in that TOS, and this tweet will trick a lot of people into agreeing with something they didn't read and shouldn't have to.

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#74

Post by hedora »

mholt wrote: post #44

Update from Disney: > 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 ... as if that's really any better.

@DisneyPlus: I agree you may reuse this tweet and any tweets my affiliates send to #MayThe4th, subject to our standard licensing fees. A list of the fees and affiliates is freely available, subject to a thirty day processing delay.

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#75

Post by saagarjha »

shadowgovt wrote: post #18

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.

How is that a copyright violation, though? The tweets are publicly available on the internet, and presumably the maker space is just showing the Twitter website like anyone could themselves…

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#76

Post by warent »

OrangeMango wrote: post #40

At a rummage sale a few years ago, I bought a book published by Disney in the 1960s or 1970s which had instructions on how to make Mickey Mouse puppets. It also said to "have fun" making them. Selling things for a profit is a lot of fun. As far as I'm concerned, I now have a perpetual, transferable license to make and sell Mickey Mouse puppets. I even asked a lawyer.

Selling and making are two different things

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#77

Post by eximius »

hbosch wrote: post #71
slg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now the interesting question is whether they were simply lazy in the language and this was their initial intent or if the 5 hours of the original tweet being ratioed motivated a change. The new clarification is absolutely better to not claim ownership over the entire hashtag, but it is questionable to claim in one tweet that any replies made to a different tweet are an agreement to a private TOS.

I know there is a rally around this happening now, but I think it's pretty obvious that Disney was simply saying if you reply to their message with that hashtag then they want to be able to re-post your message as part of their marketing. Of course the way they said that could have been worked on.

Yes, that was their intent.

But the over-lawyer-ification and impracticality of opting out of corporate terms of service is an widespread problem. This is an interesting expansion of that problem, so it deserves highlighting.

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#78

Post by theseanstewart »

hpoe wrote: post #11

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…

We've got a 23-19!

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#79

Post by pbhjpbhj »

hbosch wrote: post #71
slg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now the interesting question is whether they were simply lazy in the language and this was their initial intent or if the 5 hours of the original tweet being ratioed motivated a change. The new clarification is absolutely better to not claim ownership over the entire hashtag, but it is questionable to claim in one tweet that any replies made to a different tweet are an agreement to a private TOS.

I know there is a rally around this happening now, but I think it's pretty obvious that Disney was simply saying if you reply to their message with that hashtag then they want to be able to re-post your message as part of their marketing. Of course the way they said that could have been worked on.

Disney being excessive in claims to IPR. Who else is shocked. /s

Re: Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use

#80

Post by ballenf »

londons_explore wrote: post #53
OrangeMango wrote: post #40

At a rummage sale a few years ago, I bought a book published by Disney in the 1960s or 1970s which had instructions on how to make Mickey Mouse puppets. It also said to "have fun" making them. Selling things for a profit is a lot of fun. As far as I'm concerned, I now have a perpetual, transferable license to make and sell Mickey Mouse puppets. I even asked a lawyer.

I'm not sure that would pass the "meeting of minds" test of contract law...

That book isn't an example of a contract, unlike the crazy Disney tweet.

The book terms form a license. Backed by the purchase price of the book. Disney's likely argument is that only original purchasers of the book are covered by the license, that non-transferability was implied.

Post reply on HN