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

261–270 of 366 posts

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

#261

Post by andoriyu »

frogpelt wrote: post #222
warent wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you can only have fun making the puppets while simultaneously murdering someone? Following your logic, Disney endorses murder. Complete nonsense.

@DangitBobby Making money off of someone else's IP is illegal though.

But he was given an implicit license grant with no commercial restriction.

Technically speaking Disney can give you rights to murder anyone, it's just won't hold in court because:

- It's not theirs to give - Law > contracts and licenses

Only argument I see if that book owned by some small company, probably and LLC, that couldn't possibly give you rights to Disney IPs since they are licensing it themselves.

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

#262

Post by rovr138 »

bronson wrote: post #106

If I delete the tweet, that revokes permission. Right Disney?

You can't legally store the tweets per twitter's tos. You can store the tweet's id

Supposed to at least

Edit,

I was mistaken. Looks like it's only if you redistribute to third parties,

> The best place to get Twitter Content is directly from Twitter. Consequently, we restrict the redistribution of Twitter Content to third parties. If you provide Twitter Content to third parties, including downloadable datasets or via an API, you may only distribute Tweet IDs, Direct Message IDs, and/or User IDs (except as described below). We also grant special permissions to academic researchers sharing Tweet IDs and User IDs for non-commercial research purposes.

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

#263

Post by pnw_hazor »

nulbyte wrote: post #259
pnw_hazor wrote: post #257

Disney should have licensed the rights they need directly from Twitter. Twitter users already grant Twitter the same rights Disney was asking for. Those rights include letting Twitter share, modify, or re-license the user generated content with few limitations. Here Disney is trying to clear the rights to include user generated or user provided content in promotional material. This is similar to how they get the righ…

I don't think they even need to ask. The way I read the terms, they already had it, so I think they are angling to put themselves in control unilaterally and one-up Twitter. Disney's terms have prohibition on "offensive" content, while Twitter's terms acknowledges you maybe exposed to offensive content. Twitter says others may use the content on other media and services: > This license authorizes us to make your Cont…

Absent another side agreement, I don't think Disney has more or less rights to content posted on Twitter by other users than any other user.

Thus, if they intend to launch a multi-million dollar commercial project using content posted to Twitter, they need to do some work to clear the rights.

The Twitter TOS allows Twitter to do stuff with user posted content. It doesn't allow Disney have unlimited rights to do stuff with content posted at @DisneyPlus by other Twitter users.

Absent licensing the content directly from Twitter, they could have asked for the rights for the few tweets they end up deciding to use. Thinking outloud -- I guess that wouldn't work if they wanted live stream tweets...

edit: fixed - somehow my third para said the opposite of what I meant

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

#264

Post by Retric »

frogpelt wrote: post #222
warent wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you can only have fun making the puppets while simultaneously murdering someone? Following your logic, Disney endorses murder. Complete nonsense.

@DangitBobby Making money off of someone else's IP is illegal though.

Nope, Disney makes money from other people’s IP all the time.

Perhaps you meant something else.

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

#265

Post by ncmncm »

tzs wrote: post #160
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.

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

A license is different from a contract because there is a separate body of law for licenses and another for contracts, with different requirements.

A contract can involve a license, and a license can involve a contract, explicitly. But they are different things. You need a lawyer to explain precisely how they are different, and how they interact. (Many judges and many lawyers are not very clear on license law.)

But one important difference is that there is no need for mutual agreement or exchange of value, in license law. If you don't agree, you don't have the license. You start out bound by its restrictions, under the Law of the Land, and they are only relaxed by its owner choosing to relax them.

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

#266

Post by pnw_hazor »

SteveNuts wrote: post #239
ww520 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reinvention is ok in term of copyright. Patent would prohibit it.

What would happen if I patented "left pad" in a bunch of languages?

Behold the three pillars of IP protection.

Copyright protects the What (tangible creative works, such as, printed publications, movies, sound recordings, source code, and so on)

Trademark protects the Who (who made this service or product)

Patent protects the How (how does this widget do what is does)

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

#267

Post by rovr138 »

contravariant wrote: post #235
ALittleLight wrote: post #209

It actually doesn't seem so bad on looking at it. It seems like they just want to use your tweet in some kind of collage or something and they were trying to cover their bases by claiming the right to do so. I think it would've been better to say "If you use this hashtag we may retweet you or feature your comment in promotional material" rather than asserting that you would agree to something by using a hashtag.

Yeah, except that I don't think they are allowed to feature your comment in promotional material without consent (tweets aren't public domain to the best of my knowledge). Same way you can't just reuse a Star Wars trailer in your own promotional material.

https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/agreement-a...

> B. License from Twitter. Subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement and the Developer Policy (as a condition to the grant below), Twitter hereby grants you and you accept a non-exclusive, royalty free, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, revocable license solely to:

> 1. Use the Twitter API to integrate Twitter Content into your Services or conduct analysis of such Twitter Content;

> 2. Copy a reasonable amount of and display the Twitter Content on and through your Services to End Users, as permitted by this Agreement;

Point 2, you licensed the content to twitter and they license it via the developer portal.

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

#268

Post by avianlyric »

jdsully wrote: post #215
zucker42 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a more apt analogy if you receive mail addressed to you, you open it, and you find a letter meant for someone else?

In that scenario you actually have the legal obligation to return the letter to the post office. The law as written makes it a crime to throw it away or otherwise obstruct delivery. Being asked merely to delete it is a much lower obligation. https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-federal-law...

I don’t think that applies in the given scenario.

GP said that the letter is addressed to you, but the content is intended for someone else. You can’t obstruct delivery because it’s been delivered to the right place (the address on the envelope).

If obstruction of delivery applied in this case then we would end up with the ludicrous scenario where I could deliberately address letters to you, that are intended for my boss, then demand that you somehow deliver or return the letters once you’ve opened them.

Imagine if I sent you thousands of these letters, it would be a postal and legal DDOS.

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

#269

Post by DangitBobby »

frogpelt wrote: post #222
warent wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you can only have fun making the puppets while simultaneously murdering someone? Following your logic, Disney endorses murder. Complete nonsense.

@DangitBobby Making money off of someone else's IP is illegal though.

Not if that someone else permits you to do so, which is exactly what is being claimed here.

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

#270

Post by jrochkind1 »

martincmartin wrote: post #118
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.

You could use the algorithms, just not their implementation of the algorithms. If you rewrote it from scratch, following their text (not their source code), you were fully allowed to use it.

Hypothetically, until we get to Google v. Oracle, and now really nobody has any idea what the hell is going on.
Post reply on HN