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

101–110 of 366 posts

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

#101

Post by pridkett »

This isn’t unique to Disney. Delta Airline has been pushing #SkyMilesLife and other assorted hashtags for a while and they’ve had fine print that says they get a license to use the content with those hashtags. It was even on the signs hanging in the jet bridges back when people used to get on things called airplanes and travel to far off lands.

Now it lives on through a website.

> By tagging photos using #SkyMilesLife and/or #DeltaMedallionLife, user grants Delta Air Lines (and those they authorize) a royalty-free, world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to publicly display, distribute, reproduce and create derivative works of the submissions (“Submissions”), in whole or in part, in any media now existing or later developed, for any purpose, including, but not limited to, advertising and promotion on Delta websites, commercial products and any other Delta channels, including but not limited to #SkyMilesLife or #DeltaMedallionLife publications. Delta reserves the right to use or not use content tagged #Skymileslife and/or #DeltaMedallionLife and user will not be entitled to compensation if photo is used.

from: https://skymileslife.delta.com/

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

#102

Post by amelius »

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.

This reminds me of a book called "numerical recipes in C", full of algorithms that were very useful except you couldn't really use them because the authors protected their use with a very restrictive license.

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

#103

Post by exolymph »

rory_h_r wrote: post #100

Everyone is dunking on Disney but Twitter actually owns all your Content.

No it doesn't, it just has a very broad and permissive license, because how the fuck else could the website function.

Do you mean "own" metaphorically?

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

#105

Post by sarakayakomzin »

coffeevradar wrote: post #98
ballenf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the precedent that Disney is setting here. Will be a little harder for them to argue against my Tweet next month: "Walt Disney World was awesome! Thanks to all the hard workers who made the day special. By replying to this Tweet, Disney Corp. hereby agrees to abide by the copyright laws in place as of the release dates of its motion pictures, instead of the longer dates obtained through perversion of the legal…

Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. In any case, it is a matter of law, just like earlier, shorter copyright protections were. It's totally legitimate to favor shorter copyright, but essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. It strikes me as odd that you would be interested in applying the law fairly while also referring to the law as a perversio…

> Copyright is fairly applied to Disney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act the Mickey Mouse Protection Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication

>There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You In February 2010, the royalty for a single use was US$700

It's pretty hard to tell if you're arguing in bad faith or just unaware of the reality of the situation.

>essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. is it arbitrary? does someone really need to profit off something 70 years after they have died?

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

#107

Post by alextheparrot »

coffeevradar wrote: post #98
ballenf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the precedent that Disney is setting here. Will be a little harder for them to argue against my Tweet next month: "Walt Disney World was awesome! Thanks to all the hard workers who made the day special. By replying to this Tweet, Disney Corp. hereby agrees to abide by the copyright laws in place as of the release dates of its motion pictures, instead of the longer dates obtained through perversion of the legal…

Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. In any case, it is a matter of law, just like earlier, shorter copyright protections were. It's totally legitimate to favor shorter copyright, but essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. It strikes me as odd that you would be interested in applying the law fairly while also referring to the law as a perversio…

Some would argue that the undefined duration does not match “limited times” and that the copyright is no longer “promoting useful arts”. While some of these questions have been answered in Disney’s favour in recent times, it is clear that the “matter of law” is anything but clear.

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

#108

Post by Izkata »

shadowgovt wrote: post #15
ipsum2 wrote: post #9

.

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,…

They added a clarification tweet that it does indeed only apply to the replies to the original tweet.

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

#109

Post by colejohnson66 »

exolymph wrote: post #103
rory_h_r wrote: post #100

Everyone is dunking on Disney but Twitter actually owns all your Content.

No it doesn't, it just has a very broad and permissive license, because how the fuck else could the website function. Do you mean "own" metaphorically?

Don’t be snarky.

Anyways, this is from Twitters TOS[0 §5]:

> You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non­exclusive, royalty­free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

Basically, they don’t take copyright of what you post (in contrast to what OP said), but it doesn’t matter because they can do what they want with it.

[0]: https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com/content/dam/legal-twitte...

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

#110

Post by TimTheTinker »

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...

This wouldn't fall under contract law - it's more like an implicit license grant.
Post reply on HN