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

151–160 of 366 posts

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

#151

Post by nightcracker »

sys_64738 wrote: post #52
lstamour wrote: post #20

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.

Apple? Windows? Boss?

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

#152

Post by jedberg »

komali2 wrote: post #149
jedberg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You start by making a trilogy with no coherent story across the three movies that ends by basically undoing the first two trilogies and go from there. (For the record I enjoyed the last three movies as general fantasy movies, they just didn't fit all that well into the mythology).

The "cool" parts were cool. The fights were way better than the clone wars trilogy. The return to using puppets and other physical props was great. Trying for a strong woman lead - excellent. The characters - garbage. The story - trash. Spiking a star destroyer with a FTL ship - universe-ruining, but it certainly sounded dope. It didn't "ruin" star wars though. Nothing can ever change how great the first (first-made)…

> Spiking a star destroyer with a FTL ship - universe-ruining, but it certainly sounded dope.

They addressed that in Episode 9, with the throwaway line: "You can't do a Holdo again, that's a 1 in a million chance!"

> Well, nothing other than destroying all original copies

They'll have to pry my OT Laserdisks out of my cold dead hands.

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

#154

Post by mhh__ »

nabla9 wrote: post #132
amelius wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The implementations are short and simple for easy reading, so they are not the most efficient or practical. Early versions of the code had bugs, so you should not use the old versions of the book.

The key is to do what Steven Muchnick did for his Compiler textbook: Write the algorithms in a made up programming language so no one can run them and find the bugs.

I'm not being facetious, it's called ICAN, and as far as I can tell no compiler exists for it. Other than that it's a great book though, although maybe showing its age in that there isn't much discussion of OOO and ILP etc. And SSA.

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

#155

Post by milesvp »

benibela wrote: post #125
colejohnson66 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Con…

What happens if you post a photo of GPLed code on it?

Then you might have a problem since you don't have the rights to transfer that license to twitter, and I can't imagine the infectious nature of GPL would apply in this context. I suspect given the format of twitter, it would likely fall under fair use for most code snippets, but certainly you'd be muddying the chain of ownership. My guess is that something like this would never make it to court. There'd be some legal letters sent around, and anyone involved would quickly back down. No one wants to go to court to have something like this ruled on over 120 characters. If it was, you can bet it'd be a very strategic tweet that was intended to force everyone into a courtroom (and I can't even imagine what that would look like).

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

#156

Post by alinde »

pridkett wrote: post #101

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 #SkyMilesLif…

(from the same site) > 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

I'd argue this is also not limited to Twitter posts?

> User warrants and represents: (a) he/she is the sole and exclusive owner of the Submission, including all rights therein [...]

Because no one ever posted something they didn't own. I don't know the legality of any issues that this can bring, but this seems comical.

What would be the alternative though?

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

#157

Post by mikeg8 »

pridkett wrote: post #101

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 #SkyMilesLif…

Can any lawyers chime in here? How would that actually hold up in a copyright lawsuit brought against them?

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

#158

Post by JackFr »

OrangeMango wrote: post #126
ballenf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, so my thought when I bought it was to offer to sell it back to Disney for $25k or something. I could most likely get a pro-bono defense while Disney would pay a lot more than that in a lawsuit which I would most likely win. Most likely. I still haven't acted on it yet.

You won’t win. The marginal cost to Disney of suing you is close enough to $0 that it’s not worth mentioning. Further the likelihood of a lawyer representing you pro bono in an unwinnable nuisance suit is much lower than you imagine.

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

#159

Post by jdsully »

Frost1x wrote: post #97
michaelhoffman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many organizations, legal boilerplate has nothing to do with what's reasonable in the law or even what a lawyer thinks is necessary.

Much text in business has become the ever growing wrapper for: "As the writer, I get as much monetary value as I can or at least make you believe as such and you give up as much monetary value as possible, or at least as much as I can scare or deter you from seeking. I also have no responsibilities and all rights, while you have all responsibilities and no rights." It's simply expanded out a bit more and often gives…

> I even still get emails from people who add footers that they own the information and if you receive it wrongfully, you're "required" to delete it.

In ye olden days if you accidentally received someone else's mail it was a felony to open it. If anything the legal restrictions have been drastically reduced when it comes to email.

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

#160

Post by tzs »

ballenf wrote: post #80
londons_explore wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So this license granted the purchaser permission to use Disney IP in exchange for the purchase price of the book...how is that different from a contract?

The distinction between a contract and a license is a lot smaller than most people in software seem to think it is [1].

[1] https://www.technollama.co.uk/a-licence-or-a-contract

Post reply on HN