Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by rswail » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

hprotagonist wrote: post #43

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…

“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Bew…

The man from Snowcrash quoting HHGTG about a Disney Star Wars promotion. We've reached peak nerd.

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

#352

Post by rswail » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

holler wrote: post #287

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…

haha, this reminds me of those posts you'd see on facebook all the time from uninformed users: """I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its c…

You left out mentioning the "Rome Statute" and Sydney University.

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

#353

Post by icebraining » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

HenryBemis wrote: post #243

DangitBobby wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's silly. Making money is not illegal. A contract simply cannot permit something that is illegal, such as murder.

Frogpelt kinda touched this. You can take some creative licenses for example. Feel free to use "that photo" or "that sound" but not for profit. BBC let free their sound library, and you can use any clip you want, except not for profit.

Right, but that's explicit in the license. On the other hand, it's broadly accepted that you can sell stuff that includes BSD-licensed works, despite the BSD license not explicitly saying you can.

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

#354

Post by yummypaint » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

gentleman11 wrote: post #277

yummypaint wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another option is to collectively create such a massive backlash that they don't dare do this again. Maybe also lots of bots flooding the tag with text that can pass automated screening but is utterly unsuitable for them to publish?

What a pathetic option: we are so powerless that our only recourse is to complain

Yeah it sucks. The real solutions are all political in nature. My hope is that this kind of collective action might ultimately help create the political will needed to doggedly persue IP law reform.

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

#355

Post by icebraining » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #211

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…

Apple applied very similar terms to their "Shot on iPhone" campaign. The public outcry was over paying the winners, but Apple's terms for the campaign gave themselves a license to use any submission, which was defined as a public post that used a certain hashtag and contained certain information. The fact that no one seems to remember this about "Shot on iPhone" is a good clue that few people actually care about this…

As other have pointed out, one particularity of this hashtag is that it was already heavily used: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23maythe4th%20until%3A2020-03-...

Obviously Disney won't use any tweet sent previous to yesterday, but any one of those persons could have used the hashtag again today without having the faintest clue of what Disney claimed.

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

#356

Post by gmanley » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #348

justusthane wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your example, I would be Tweeting you explicitly saying “I’ll give you $5.” Maybe that’s a binding contract. That’s not what Disney is doing. What Disney is doing would be like if I said “Anyone who Tweets at me owes me $5.” That’s obviously not a binding contract.

Disney is saying "in exchange for a chance to spread your message in our marketing materials, you agree to our follow our ToS".

You're really twisting words here. No that is not what is happening. I never agreed to any exchange. I should be able to tweet at Disney with that hashtag and not agree to their ToS. Nothing about a hashtag implies consent. It is not their service to set terms for. I already agreed to the twitter ToS. I shouldn't have to be worried about accidentally agreeing to terms just because I used the right combination of hashtag and twitter user.

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

#357

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 9:49 PM UTC

FalconSensei wrote: post #291

chrisseaton wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only copyright the text of the source code, as if it was literature. Write your own source code to implement the same algorithm using the same efficient techniques, and you're fine (as long as it isn't patented.)

so... rename the variables?

[deleted]

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

#358

Post by ncmncm » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #292

gamblor956 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licenses are a type of contract, (like a square is a type of quadrilateral). Contract law applies to all licenses, but IP licensing law does not apply to all contracts.

Not all licenses are contracts. Some are deeds instead. ("Contracts" and "deeds" are different – contracts require consideration, deeds don't – a deed can be completely one-sided; deeds have far stricter formality requirements than contracts.) There may also be cases of licenses which are neither contracts nor deeds – such as the concept of a "license by estoppel".

What he said.

The GPL, e.g., is not a contract. It says so right in it, for the benefit of those confused (including, as I noted, many lawyers and even judges).

A contract that has not been affirmed by exchange of consideration and at least implied consent is void. Licenses, as I have been told, may be entirely one-sided, and need not depend on explicit actions by either party. They are different, neither a superset nor a subset of contracts. There is, however, a bunch of cracked case law around licenses created by jurists confused about the topic.

I am no lawyer.

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

#359

Post by pnw_hazor » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

jonplackett wrote: post #319

pnw_hazor wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well-developed (highly-litigated) areas of law don't work this way. A phrase in children's book is unlikely to be considered sufficient evidence that Disney has conveyed an unlimited license to sell Mickey puppets. At best, the language might protect an unsophisticated infringer from having to pay statutory damages or Disney's legal fees. For example, if a naive person (non-lawyer, non-business person) sold a few of…

Anything with a Disney logo on has Walt’s signature. I bet that book has it on some place.

Again, such a signature is going to provide no support for a claim that Disney is providing a license to sell homemade Mickey puppets. Especially if the signature is automatically included on most or all of Disney products.

In contract law, signatures on a document memorializing a contract provide (often fairly strong) evidence that the signing parties have agreed to the contract.

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

#360

Post by snickerbockers » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 8:49 PM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #341

shakna wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has happened. People replying to the tweet, with the hashtag, but trying to discuss the intent with Disney are clearly not attempting to enter into the contract. The problem is Disney co-opting two regular parts of Twitter's service, and then claiming that represents a Disney service. It isn't, and can clearly be used for purposes beyond establishing a contract.

Disney has someone reading these tweets and selecting them for marketing materials. That is the service, not Twitter itself. You can set up a phone line or P.O box with the same terms of service agreement. Twitter is not sacred. You can call that "co-opting" those services I suppose, but I don't see why that's a bad thing. Services exist to be used. Disney is going to use some common sense when reviewing these tweets…

>They are not out here trying to trap helpless children into a contract

Yes they are. Did you not read their tweet? They literally called it a contract and said that they believe anybody who replies to them with that hashtag is agreeing to its terms. Their choice not to exercise the rights they are granted by that contract doesn't mean that there isn't a contract.

The only thing that does mean there isn't a contract is that their logic is bullshit and they can't unilaterally decide that somebody else has entered into a contract with them.