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

321–330 of 366 posts

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

#321

Post by baxuz »

Just read their TOS. Check this shit out:

"We do not claim ownership of your User Generated Content; however, you grant us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, irrevocable and royalty-free worldwide license under all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, privacy and publicity rights and other intellectual property rights for the full duration of those rights to use, reproduce, transmit, print, publish, publicly display, exhibit, distribute, redistribute, copy, index, comment on, modify, transform, adapt, translate, create derivative works based upon, publicly perform, publicly communicate, make available, and otherwise exploit such User Generated Content, in whole or in part, in all media formats and channels now known or hereafter devised (including in connection with the Disney Products and on third-party websites, services, applications, and/or platforms), in any number of copies and without limit as to time, manner and frequency of use, without further notice to you, without attribution (to the extent this is not contrary to mandatory provisions of applicable law), and without the requirement of permission from or payment to you or any other person or entity."

So, @disneyPlus is a platform for The Disney Products. So if someone tweets some fanart with that handle, Disney is free to monetize on it?

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

#322

Post by Zod666 »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #272
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.

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…

What about parody? South park made fun of Mickey mouse a few times and they didn't change his name. Say I make a cartoon crackhead mickey where he's on the pipe and bangs hookers. Then I want to release a toy of my parody. Im joking but I don't think anyone has ever released toys of parody. Parody is under fair us,would that also extend to merchandise stemming from the parody?

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

#323

Post by philipov »

baxuz wrote: post #321

Just read their TOS. Check this shit out: "We do not claim ownership of your User Generated Content; however, you grant us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, irrevocable and royalty-free worldwide license under all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, privacy and publicity rights and other intellectual property rights for the full duration of those rights to use, reproduce, transmit, print, publish, publicly…

Yes. Don't be a fan of Disney.

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

#324

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #272
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.

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…

How do we determine who's sophisticated? Sure, it might be one of those "I know it when I see it" things, but is there a legal process to determine that someone is enough of a moron that the law can cut them some slack?

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

#325

Post by philpem »

thayne wrote: post #247
SteveNuts wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

it would be an invalid patent (or at least should be), because 1. There is prior art 2. it is obvious to a domain expert But given the US patent office's track record, I wouldn't be too surprised if you were able to get a patent. Just don't expect it to hold up in court.

But then, if you're patent trolling - does it even need to hold up in court?

IF cost_of_settlement < cost_of_court_action THEN pay_up(); /* ? */

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

#326

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

notechback wrote: post #164
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…

Ironically one of the things the 1886 convention was intended to counter was publishers printing works without permission. It was about AUTHOR'S rights. In subsequent versions this has been transformed in something very different. Copyright was not always as it is today.

Copyright was first and foremost created to reinforce censorship, which tends to collapse when the means of (re-)producing "creative works" become cheaply available to the masses. It is older then liberalism: the right to copy a work was a right of the publishers given to them by the monarch, with the intent to limit who can publish what and under the threat of violence when disobeyed.

Transforming this "copy-right" from a right given by the monarch to a right given by the authors was a key event on the way of Liberalism replacing Monarchism and changing all common law to be based on human rights. One should notice that this "exclusive right to copy" restricts the right to use such "intellectual property", which is why Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive must be opposed unless, at least, fair use is granted.

Early modern copyright was even more restrictive: its intent was to restructure what became an uncontrollable market: having authors license their works exclusively to some large publishers starved the small presses and ensured a controllable elite that would not dare to print seditious materials. Owning an unregistered printing press was illegal under the threat of violence. It is naive to belief the primary intent was to prevent harm to the income of the authors. Until today the right to copy is mostly a right of the publishers. Authors sign it away and consumers do not get it.

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

#327

Post by matharmin »

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?

Code cannot be patented - copyright covers that.

Patents on software are not that simple - it needs to describe an entire physical system that gives value to a user, not just an abstract function that does computation.

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

#328

Post by jmiskovic »

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…

On the contrary, it is impossible to avoid them because you have no way of knowing if hashtag is "claimed". The only way for this to work would be for Twitter, Instagram and others to warn you about these special terms when you try to use it.

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

#329

Post by lispm »

analog31 wrote: post #224
mhh__ wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I understand it, Lisp was originally expected to be a teaching or proof language with no implementation, then it got implemented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)#Hi...

No, Lisp was developed from 1958 onwards as a list processing language for the IBM 704.

http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/lisp/lisp.pdf

Page 7:

> The implementation of LISP began in Fall 1958. The original idea was to produce a compiler, but this was considered a major undertaking, and we needed some experimenting in order to get good conventions for subroutine linking, stack handling and erasure. Therefore, we started by hand-compiling various functions into assembly language and writing subroutines to provide a LISP ”environment”.

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

#330

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

baxuz wrote: post #321

Just read their TOS. Check this shit out: "We do not claim ownership of your User Generated Content; however, you grant us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, irrevocable and royalty-free worldwide license under all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, privacy and publicity rights and other intellectual property rights for the full duration of those rights to use, reproduce, transmit, print, publish, publicly…

That is what Disney hopes to achieve with this whole thing, yes.
Post reply on HN