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

191–200 of 366 posts

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

#191

Post by greenshackle2 »

saagarjha wrote: post #173
greenshackle2 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of songs are available on public radio broadcasts, that doesn't mean I have the right to remix them and play them in my concert hall.

But surely other people can listen in when you play the radio?

If it's a business in the US, it depends how many speakers you have. More than 6 (but no more than 4 in the same room), you're supposed to pay licensing fees. [1]

If it's a non-commercial space, I don't know, I'm sure there's some complicated piece of regulation you have to look at to figure it out.

[1]https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2015/07/articles/does-a-loc...

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

#193

Post by kenned3 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #135
coffeevradar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. The public did not benefit in any way from its extension. Quite the opposite: every time the duration of copyright terms is extended, the public is robbed of its rights so that corporations which have already made billions off of their copyrighted works can make even more money. When was the last time some copyrighted work entered the public domain? P…

This! Disney has morphed copywrite without any input from the public. What sort of contract is valid if only one party changes the terms and the other never agreed to it?

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

#194

Post by colejohnson66 »

exolymph wrote: post #187
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…

If you can't be snarky to people making wildly incorrect claims with utter confidence, what is the point of the internet?

From the guidelines[0]:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#195

Post by henryfjordan »

ballenf wrote: post #86
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.

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…

I mean, why wouldn't you be able to form a contract through tweets? You can form a contract through any medium you want, especially just to give permission to Disney to use your tweet.

I don't think Disney is setting any precedent or anything else weird by saying "send us messages you want us to publish, by the way here are the specific terms we want to use" on Twitter, they've been doing that for a long time before twitter even existed. Think about America's Funniest Home Videos, they did exactly this for decades but over TV.

Your tweet fails to give Disney any "consideration" so it's not going to be a valid contract and not because it's in a tweet. Offer them clearer terms and a dollar and then maybe you'd have a point. Right now they offer you a chance to see your tweet in some marketing materials, better than nothing right?

Lastly, this is incredibly specifically scoped. Does anyone tweeting "Love the new movie #MayTheFourth @Disney" really expect Disney not to want to use it? They are going to have someone review the tweets before they use them. How could this possibly come back to bite Disney?

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

#196

Post by Delphiki »

_kst_ wrote: post #112
MattGrommes wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took this as more like when you write a letter to a magazine and they say to write "Ok to print" so they can use it later. If you send them a message for use in MayThe4th celebrations, they can then use it in promotions.

Except that tweets aren't sent to Disney. They're sent to all Twitter users.

> The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus

Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney?

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

#197

Post by Negitivefrags »

mschuster91 wrote: post #133
Frost1x wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are right, the amount of garbage legal stuff has expanded - but mostly as a result of people doing shit they're not supposed to do. Let's take the email footer... and an email directed to the wrong person: in ye olde times, the recipient would go "not my crap, delete it" and that's it - but now, there is a real risk the recipient uses the information and publishes it, leading to monetary damage or penalties (e.g.…

Okay, but can anyone find a case where this went to court and a lawyer successfully argued "Your honor, it's not our fault the info was leaked because we put a disclaimer at the bottom of the email when we sent it to the wrong person!"

I'm skeptical.

If the language doesn't actually prevent liability anyway, then get rid of it.

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

#199

Post by qppo »

komali2 wrote: post #141
qppo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Walt Disney Corporation doesn't have social media run by interns, they have one of the more active and experienced social media apparatuses out there. They have to, they're one of the largest media companies in the world. Ironically they militantly protect their brand, and have conflicting mandates and reasons for doing so (it's not just to keep the image, it's to keep others from deriving value from their brand)…

If this is considered world-class social media marketing by the Marketing World, I sense an opportunity for disruption via a social media agency that exclusively employs the Worst Marketers in the Marketing World.

I mean all the power to you if you want to disrupt that market but this isn't a marketing thing, it's the conflicting goals of different organizations within a business.

I'd speculate that the people running social media didn't want to send out these tweets and the people in legal told them they had to, so they do it a week ahead of time on a less visible twitter account and hope it blows over a bit.

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

#200

Post by _kst_ »

_kst_ wrote: post #112
MattGrommes wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took this as more like when you write a letter to a magazine and they say to write "Ok to print" so they can use it later. If you send them a message for use in MayThe4th celebrations, they can then use it in promotions.

Except that tweets aren't sent to Disney. They're sent to all Twitter users.

For some reason I don't see a reply link on lewisgodowski's comment.

> Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney?

Disney apparently does "consider" that to be sending it to Disney. Since Twitter doesn't belong to Disney, I don't see how that could have any legal relevance. Twitter has its own terms of service.

(I am not a lawyer.)

Post reply on HN