331–340 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well you do want a small chance the judge will side with you.
In practical terms both versions likely have zero chance of success. Sadly. Although scientifically speaking, the rounding off error of your original formulation is bigger :)
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…
This reminds me of the Russian gentleman who received an offer for a new credit card but didn’t like the fine print. So he changed it. And mailed the contract back to the bank who... didn’t read the fine print and accepted the terms. When he sued the bank to enforce his contract for a no-fee account with an unlimited line of credit at 0% interest he won. Fortunately for the bank he was prudent in his spending despite…
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…
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?
Fair use is a balance of a number of conditions (in the US). One of them is how commercial the use is, and spin off merchandise is pretty commercial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Disney probably does have implicit permission from anybody who tags them and uses that hashtag to use their quotes for a social media project, since Twitter is generally considered to be a forum for public discourse. This might also be enshrined in Twitter's ToS. That's not the problem. The problem is that they claim that anybody who tweets at them and uses their hashtag is entering into a contract agreement with the…
It isn't.
Twitter's ToS gives Twitter a license. But not third parties on Twitter.
Disney could buy a license from Twitter who would be able to use the rights they're granted by their ToS, but they would need another contractual agreement to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
If you and I tweet back and forth agreeing that I'll sell you a sandwich for $5, that's a contract. No court is going to hear an argument that I was talking to Twitter and then Twitter was talking to you so it doesn't count. Anyone tweeting @Disney is clearly "sending it to Disney". Also I think there's a time delay on seeing the reply link on replies to your own comments.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least it's not arbitration.
https://www.ycombinator.com/legal#tou
If that agreement was present when I first joined, I might not have joined at all. It's blatantly out of step with HN's community in general, and it makes me lose a bit of respect for YCombinator.
"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!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of the Russian gentleman who received an offer for a new credit card but didn’t like the fine print. So he changed it. And mailed the contract back to the bank who... didn’t read the fine print and accepted the terms. When he sued the bank to enforce his contract for a no-fee account with an unlimited line of credit at 0% interest he won. Fortunately for the bank he was prudent in his spending despite…
Except he didn't win. I believe he lost in appeal as it was deemed he acted in "bad faith".
You realize the tweet right below that one clearly states that it only applies to tweets containing a specific hashtag, right? "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!"