35 ms·

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

888 points by slg 7y ago

BitwiseFool 7y ago
I don't see this holding up - especially because it's ripe for abuse. What's to stop me from making a TOS for my own hashtag?
- smnrchrds 7y ago
  For it not to be held up, someone has to take Disney to court and win. Good luck with that. It's the whole single-digit millionaires don't have effective access to legal system, turned up to 11. I can only see a double-digit billionaire having the resources to fight this to the end.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    Not convinced you'd even a lawyer to fight this though. It's just so obviously wrong.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Not quite. For this to hold up, either: - everyone has to silently acquiesce to this, - Disney has to actually file a court case against everyone who violates their "terms" and win them all. I think they're trying for the first option. Suing thousands of people for stupidly unreasonable reasons is not a good look, especially for a company where image is everything.
    - smnrchrds 7y ago
      Why would Disney have to sue anyone? The violation will come from Disney, not thousands of people. Disney is saying they have the right to use any tweet containing the hashtag, including your name (and probably profile picture). If they use your tweet and you don't like it, you can sue them for copyright violation or using your name in advertising. However, there is no way in hell you can win that suit, because it is Disney and it will take years or decades and millions of dollars to fight it in the courts. So if they use your tweet in advertising without your consent, your options are (1) to give up and move on, or (2) to spend the rest of your time on earth and all the money you have and will earn to fight them in courts.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Ah, I see.
      - yummypaint 7y ago
        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?
        gentleman11 7y ago
        What a pathetic option: we are so powerless that our only recourse is to complain
        yummypaint 7y ago
        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.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    I have an anecdote about this. I worked at Disney for some time and a coworker was an avid 2nd amendment person. They left their firearm in their car as is legal for any employer with a very short list of exceptions. I think munitions development is one of the exceptions, and Disney qualifies because of their massive fireworks shows. I'm very foggy on these details as it's been many years since. Anyways, he was chatting it up with a security person and it came out in convo that he had his firearm in his car. He was immediately fired and removed from the property. He tried to fight it in court. Now this individual was remarkably stupid just as a general person, regardless of this event. I don't have any interest in debating the merits of what happened to him one way or the other. However, it was interesting that the Disney lawyer explicitly informed his lawyer that their strategy would be to just bleed him dry into bankruptcy by getting continuances and stuff forever into the future, which would force him to keep paying his lawyer to show up and do stuff, but would never move the case forward.
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      If Disney explicitly told this guy's lawyer that was their plan, his lawyer would be game to let them drag it out because he'll get all his attorney's fees back at the end on Disney's dime. You have to legitimately believe you can succeed in court, you cannot just file stuff to slow the process. Now maybe they just implied that or something, but I very much doubt the story happened exactly as described.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        In order for the drag it out and get attorney's fees back plan to work, you have to be really confident you'll win. I doubt that was the case.
      - pnw_hazor 7y ago
        Hmm, maybe that was what the plaintiff lawyer said to encourage the guy to drop a case he didn't want to do anymore after learning more of the details. Often employee-side lawyers take cases based on contingency fees or shared/blended deals that mix hard money with contingency fees. If the case turns out to be a turd, some lawyers do just about anything to get out of it. On the other hand, Disney's lawyers would have unlimited budgets and would be incentivized in stringing out the case as long as possible to get that sweet Disney money. They would have no interest in encouraging an early settlement unless they thought they would lose.
  - RandomBacon 7y ago
    What if Alice and Bob get together and decide that one of then does the same thing like Disney, and the other takes the other to court in order to create a precedence. Same outcome, just Disney is not involved.
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    Disney's strategy here will obviously be to just honor any and all complaints and take that content down. They gain nothing from a fight, and there are plenty more Star Wars fans out there who would be happy to have their tweets promoted by Disney.
- CaveTech 7y ago
  "By creating digital advertising, you agree to pay me, in perpetuity, all profit generated." - Me There's clearly no legal standing for a 3rd party organization to make blanket agreements for platforms they don't own.
  - fphhotchips 7y ago
    I've been thinking about this all morning and the platform isn't the problem. After all, plenty of software is based on using someone else's platform to form legal agreements. The problem here is the requirement of Consideration in contracts. Twitter can bind me to their TOU because they give me the ability to use their platform. Disney can't, because they can't stop me from using #MayThe4th on Twitter - there's no consideration from them to me, so there's no contract. If you could trademark dates, however...
- gentleman11 7y ago
  The whole patent and copyright system is ripe for abuse and it never stopped anybody
- sakarisson 7y ago
  You don't have millions of dollars for lawyers.
ravenstine 7y ago
Just for #MayThe4th? It would be a real stretch in the first place if they made this statement about #MayThe4thBeWithYou, but just #MayThe4th???
- na85 7y ago
  Makes me want to set up a twitter bot that tweets things that are purposely against Disney's bullshit TOS and tags it with #MayThe4th.
  - berbec 7y ago
    #winniethepooh #taiwaneseindependence #MayThe4th
    - jrockway 7y ago
      I was going to give them that 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 key and see if it still upset them. Getting China involved does seem like a good idea, though!
    - userbinator 7y ago
      #JuneThe4th
  - hombre_fatal 7y ago
    Well, the point of their clause is to make it harder for you if you want to sue them for including your tweet in their marketing material. Not so they can go after your tweet.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- imhoguy 7y ago
  Hereby I take over #MayThe5th so beware!
itronitron 7y ago
Are there similar terms of use for any written communication that includes the names Disney or Mickey Mouse?
- avian 7y ago
  Yes, they are called the trademark law.
carlchenet 7y ago
Community manager trying to create buzz imho
- chance_state 7y ago
  ie. All press is good press? Because I don't think this is coming across as good press on its own.
ipsum2 7y ago
.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  They're trying to CYA for future ad campaigns, but they can't actually CTA their way. No dice, Disney. The way this works is if you want to use the tweets shouted into the ether, you can, and if someone doesn't like it, they can sue you, and then the US (and probably international) law gets to figure out on your dime via the lawyers you will pay whether you misused the tweets. ... or, Disney does the not-lazy thing, gathers up the tweets, issues individual requests to use to every user who tweets into the hashtag, and only moves forward with the ones they get consent for. ... or, third option, Disney puts up their own website where users can submit tweets by URL, and submitting a tweet to that website (signed off by a user's Disney account) confirms the user is claiming they own copyright of the tweet and is authorizing Disney to use it. But yeah, more than zero effort on Disney's part required.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    The hilarious thing to me is that folks love that sort of attention and go out of their way to get a highlighted tweet - just DMing a few dozen folks with tweets you like to see if they're willing to have their random brain farts re-posted elsewhere will get you a lot of positive responses.
  - Izkata 7y ago
    They added a clarification tweet that it does indeed only apply to the replies to the original tweet.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      It's a good clarification of their intent, but I don't think it puts them on legal ground that's any less shaky. They'd still have to prove users had any intent at all of complying with their TOS in undertaking a public action that is only tangentially related to Disney's little slice of Twitter (hell, they'd have to prove users were aware of the TOS to even be compliant or not), and good luck with that if it ever came to court.
geoah 7y ago
The tweet says “by sharing your message with us using #MayThe4th”. I wonder if they expect both the hashtag AND a mention of @disneyplus. Still weird though.
- itronitron 7y ago
  Any public tweet is shared.
- netsharc 7y ago
  Well, what you quoted seems to suggest the use of that hashtag constitute "sharing".
hpoe 7y ago
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 parties, that is notarized and approved by a Form 23-19B.
- c54 7y ago
  Hey wai- ah crap
- hpoe 7y ago
  Follow up: Many users of hackernews have expressed their disagreement and disapproval of our TOS. After careful investigation, we realize that our original policy was ill conceived and worded in such a manner that people were aware of the vigorous bodily actions which we were performing on them. Due to this we offer our heartfelt apologies, and a guarantee that we will rewrite this policy in a manner that is so obfuscated that no person can realize they are being thoroughly hosed until our lawyers descend. As part of our apology we are offering a coupon that entitles all parties who were effected to 10% off a year subscription to our service provided they will sign a Form 24-62C releasing hpoe and affiliated parties from all damages done to them or their relatives past, present or future, in perpetuity. Thank you our customers mean so much to us.
  - beckingz 7y ago
    At least it's not arbitration.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      https://www.ycombinator.com/legal#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal#tou
      - beckingz 7y ago
canadianwriter 7y ago
Is it possible this is just boilerplate legal stuff that was whipped up for a campaign and the social media person just copied and pasted it with a minor tweak so it makes sense for Twitter? The language reminds me of standard contest language I've read many times before...
- viklove 7y ago
  It's not only possible, but highly likely. Still doesn't make it OK or not worthy of ridicule though. Internal company processes have no impact on how the public (and judicial system) will react to them.
mangoman 7y ago
I think the value of hiring more experienced folks to run social media (i.e. not an intern, someone with any amount of experience) is that they can actually point out how ridiculous this will come off, and argue against this type of tweet. It really doesn't take that much corporate self awareness to see how bad it looks to try to force TOS on free speech on a public forum.
- kayodelycaon 7y ago
  > It really doesn't take that much corporate self awareness I think you underestimate how well anyone in management actually understands this. One job had me constantly pushing back on three or more paragraphs of legal text in the damndest of places. In one case, the legal text was larger than the form itself to say "we need your email to contact you with changes related to your account". Every time I contacted our company lawyer directly for clarification, he was always fine with the short summaries I wrote. I was the only person in the entire process that stopped to ask if any of this was really necessary. I guess that's why I was the developer handling all most of our legal compliance. Everyone else either didn't care or had given up.
  - michaelhoffman 7y ago
    In many organizations, legal boilerplate has nothing to do with what's reasonable in the law or even what a lawyer thinks is necessary.
    - Frost1x 7y ago
      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 explicit examples. It's completely unmanageable for any common citizen to process and understand what you almost have to agree to on daily basis to function in our ever more privatized world. The amount of garbage I see on a daily basis wrapped with passive aggressive legal threats around every corner is mind numbing. I even still get emails from people who add footers that they own the information and if you receive it wrongfully, you're "required" to delete it. We essentially have a bunch of children running around running society through businesses driven by greed who never fully socially developed into functioning reasonable and responsible adults.
shadowgovt 7y ago
I've seen maker-spaces where a billboard was set up that automatically displayed a rolling marquee of tweets that had been sent with #TheMakerSpacesHashtag in the shop. ... can't help but wonder if the space put themselves at risk for being sued over a copyright violation if someone didn't like their tweet on that billboard.
- lowdose 7y ago
  I would be more worried about an influx of pranks.
  - ngngngng 7y ago
    They always have someone approving them. A college near me always posts pictures tagged with #builtbyBYU and I always post the dude standing in his bathroom mirror saying "Hi welcome to Chili's" with that tag but it never makes it onto the jumbotron...
  - catalogia 7y ago
    #Agile2013 comes to mind.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  How is that a copyright violation, though? The tweets are publicly available on the internet, and presumably the maker space is just showing the Twitter website like anyone could themselves…
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Being on the internet does not make something public domain or free to use. A screenshot of a Twitter feed includes many copyrighted things: Twitter’s web layout, the tweets themselves, etc.
  - greenshackle2 7y ago
    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.
lstamour 7y ago
If I understand disneytermsofuse.com correctly and I am not a lawyer, they’re claiming #MayThe4th is a Disney Product under the terms therein? Or that the Twitter account is a Disney Product? Because the terms say: > The Disney Products may ask for or allow you to communicate, submit, upload or otherwise make available text, chats, images, audio, video, contest entries or other content (“User Generated Content”), which may be accessible and viewable by the public. Access to these features may be subject to age restrictions. Whether a Disney Product made available by us or in connection with Disney Products appears on a Disney website, service and/or platform or is integrated with a third-party website, service, application, and/or platform, you may not submit or upload User Generated Content that is defamatory, harassing, threatening, bigoted, hateful, violent, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, or otherwise offensive or that harms or can reasonably be expected to harm any person or entity, whether or not such material is protected by law. ... and they continue like that for a few paragraphs. Doesn’t look like they’ve updated the terms to account for this use. Either way, reminds me of when sites tried to block “links” or require their website terms to apply to simply linking to a site...
- sys_64738 7y ago
  I doubt very much you can enforce a term that is a date in the year.
  - WilliamEdward 7y ago
    It would have to be trademarked and there is no possible way this could get trademarked, since trademarks must be non-generic. Yes, even with the hash symbol.
  - nightcracker 7y ago
    Apple? Windows? Boss?
  - contravariant 7y ago
    It's also going to get awkward for the new Dutch branch of DisneyPlus where the date clashes with the yearly WWII memorial.
samdunham 7y ago
Everything everyone posts on Twitter can be used by anyone for any reason. It's in the Twitter TOS. Disney didn't even need to post anything, they could have just used your tweets for whatever they wanted to use them for.
- VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
  that's not true
- robin_reala 7y ago
  https://twitter.com/en/tos#intlTerms https://twitter.com/en/tos#intlTerms “You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).”
OrangeMango 7y ago
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.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  I'm not sure that would pass the "meeting of minds" test of contract law...
  - NullPrefix 7y ago
    More like "changing of the minds"
  - ballenf 7y ago
    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.
    - OrangeMango 7y ago
      Yeah, so my thought when I bought it was to offer to sell it back to Disney for $25k or something. I could most likely get a pro-bono defense while Disney would pay a lot more than that in a lawsuit which I would most likely win. Most likely. I still haven't acted on it yet.
      - lifeisstillgood 7y ago
        I could fly to Moscow and defeat the Russia Mafia in unarmed combat. Or I could blackmail Disney in a lawsuit. The Russian Mafia think my chances better beating them than Disney.
mholt 7y ago
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 https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1254849654585323525 ... as if that's really any better.
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  It would have been fine with me if they didn't include the part about agreeing to their own private terms of use on a completely different website. What a strange way to trick people. Other than that it just seems like a way to ask people to allow them to use replies in a video or something. Edit: But wait, this is actually STILL ambiguous! On twitter, a 'mention' happens automatically when you reply to a tweet, because it includes the name of the account replied to, so it's not clear whether you actually have to tag @disneyplus or not.
- slg 7y ago
  Now the interesting question is whether they were simply lazy in the language and this was their initial intent or if the 5 hours of the original tweet being ratioed motivated a change. The new clarification is absolutely better to not claim ownership over the entire hashtag, but it is questionable to claim in one tweet that any replies made to a different tweet are an agreement to a private TOS.
  - hbosch 7y ago
    I know there is a rally around this happening now, but I think it's pretty obvious that Disney was simply saying if you reply to their message with that hashtag then they want to be able to re-post your message as part of their marketing. Of course the way they said that could have been worked on.
    - WilliamEdward 7y ago
      Yes, obviously, but why would anyone need to consent to disney's own private terms of use on a different website for this? That's the shady part here. There could be anything in that TOS, and this tweet will trick a lot of people into agreeing with something they didn't read and shouldn't have to.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ilamont 7y ago
It just appended a reply to its own tweet that says: "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 https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1254849654585323525
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Good clarification, but it's still, I think, somewhat unclear whether there's any kind of enforceable contract they could claim there. Here's what that court conversation would likely look like in civil court: Disney: "As per our first tweet, when the user replied to use with #MayThe4th, they were giving consent to use their tweet in our ad campaign." Judge: "Were you aware of the first tweet?" Plaintiff: "No, your honor. I posted my tweet in reply to the Disney+ account because I saw my friends doing it. The thread was ten thousand messages long; I didn't read the whole thing." Not exactly a slam-dunk case for the plaintiff here, but I'd have to see precedent to show how a TOS that cannot practically be read is enforceable.
  - Majromax 7y ago
    > it's still, I think, somewhat unclear whether there's any kind of enforceable contract they could claim there. What would be the consideration?
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    Disney's tweets are better understood as a "heads up" to people, than creating any sort of right that Disney will actually try to defend. There is zero chance Disney will try to argue about this content. If someone complains at all, Disney will just take their tweet down and replace it with another one. There are plenty more fans out there who would be psyched to see their tweet being promoted.
tomcooks 7y ago
How do you fuck up so bad marketing to one of the biggest fanbases in the universe?
- jedberg 7y ago
  You start by making a trilogy with no coherent story across the three movies that ends by basically undoing the first two trilogies and go from there. (For the record I enjoyed the last three movies as general fantasy movies, they just didn't fit all that well into the mythology).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - komali2 7y ago
    The "cool" parts were cool. The fights were way better than the clone wars trilogy. The return to using puppets and other physical props was great. Trying for a strong woman lead - excellent. The characters - garbage. The story - trash. Spiking a star destroyer with a FTL ship - universe-ruining, but it certainly sounded dope. It didn't "ruin" star wars though. Nothing can ever change how great the first (first-made) three movies were. Well, nothing other than destroying all original copies and only making available ones with bad Xbox-graphics 3d model aliens walking around directly in front of all the best shots. Oh wait...
    - jedberg 7y ago
      > Spiking a star destroyer with a FTL ship - universe-ruining, but it certainly sounded dope. They addressed that in Episode 9, with the throwaway line: "You can't do a Holdo again, that's a 1 in a million chance!" > Well, nothing other than destroying all original copies They'll have to pry my OT Laserdisks out of my cold dead hands.
      - komali2 7y ago
        Do you seriously have the OG Laserdisks? Those are crazy rare - for the good of the people you should make their digital content uhhhhhhhhh "available" as it were ;) If a Holdo is a 1 in a million chance, it's weird that it worked again in the orbit of Endor, as we see at the end of the final movie...
fortran77 7y ago
Misleading title. Disney also claims you have to @ the account associated with the promotion. It's still odd, but not quite the same as claiming all use of the hashtag.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Yeah, some comments are clearly responding to the "wait, a company can own a hash tag?" clickbait of the title.
dec0dedab0de 7y ago
Meh, they just want to use people's tweets for a starwars thing. I think they would already be allowed to per the twitter quoting rules (which I haven't read in years). The problem is the way it's worded sounds like it's coming from a legal/marketing/executive alien. Which I guess also ties into star wars.
- usace 7y ago
  I don't get the outrage, twitter is public and they want to use fan-created public tweets for some marketing thing. Who cares?
  - dec0dedab0de 7y ago
    The outrage is that they said that by using a specific hashtag you are agreeing to something. Which taken by itself is outrageous.
- notatoad 7y ago
  As you say, per the twitter terms of use they're already allowed to use your tweets in their promo materials if they want. There's no reason they need to force-opt you into their ToS if that's all they want to do. the problem isn't just that this sounds like it was written by a legal alien, it's that they're claiming rights they don't need. The disney ToS outline all kinds of things that you aren't allowed to do, and it's obviously ridiculous to suggest that you can't include their hashtag in a tweet that violates their ToS.
ScoutOrgo 7y ago
What happens if someone replies with IP not owned by Disney and they use it?
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  In general, is a tweet long enough to be a work for copyright purposes? Anyone know of any copyright caselaw around tweets? I can imagine some poems being complete works and fitting in the character limit, perhaps.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Stanford has a good webpage about short works and copyrights[0]. I’m sure 512 byte demo scene programs are copyrighted, and with Twitter raising the character limit, I’m sure some could be copyrighted. [0]: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection_for_short/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection...
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Thanks, a useful review of US copyright here. >A similar style of nonsense “code words” prompted Judge Learned Hand to write, “Conceivably there may arise a poet [...] // A US judge really is called "Billings Learned Hand", surely a case of nominative determinism.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  One of two things: 1) No one complains, Disney uses the content and life goes on. 2) Someone complains, Disney takes that tweet down and replaces it with a different tweet and life goes on. Disney is not going to court over a tweet. They'll just take it down if someone complains. Also, under copyright law Disney will not "own" any of the IP in these tweets, the question is whether they have a license to use it.
beached_whale 7y ago
This is the twitter equivalent of the relative posting the not consenting to Facebook's use of their postings.
zucker42 7y ago
If I use the hashtag in a way Disney doesn't like, can I be prosecuted under the CFAA?
rory_h_r 7y ago
Everyone is dunking on Disney but Twitter actually owns all your Content.
- exolymph 7y ago
  No it doesn't, it just has a very broad and permissive license, because how the fuck else could the website function. Do you mean "own" metaphorically?
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    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 Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). Basically, they don’t take copyright of what you post (in contrast to what OP said), but it doesn’t matter because they can do what they want with it. [0]: https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com/content/dam/legal-twitter/asset-download-files/TheTwitterUserAgreement_1.pdf https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com/content/dam/legal-twitte...
    - benibela 7y ago
      What happens if you post a photo of GPLed code on it?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Macha 7y ago
        Not a lawyer, total speculation: I'd guess if your photo and sublicensing to twitter fell under a fair use exemption then twitter could use it, otherwise someone could send a DMCA takedown to Twitter to have it removed. If twitter itself then went on to use it claiming the license granted in the TOS, the TOS requires you abide by all applicable laws when posting content (which presumably includes copyright law) and so I imagine they'd try shift responsibility to you if faced with a particularly determined lawsuit.
pridkett 7y ago
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 #SkyMilesLife and/or #DeltaMedallionLife, user grants Delta Air Lines (and those they authorize) a royalty-free, world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to publicly display, distribute, reproduce and create derivative works of the submissions (“Submissions”), in whole or in part, in any media now existing or later developed, for any purpose, including, but not limited to, advertising and promotion on Delta websites, commercial products and any other Delta channels, including but not limited to #SkyMilesLife or #DeltaMedallionLife publications. Delta reserves the right to use or not use content tagged #Skymileslife and/or #DeltaMedallionLife and user will not be entitled to compensation if photo is used. from: https://skymileslife.delta.com/ https://skymileslife.delta.com/
- alinde 7y ago
  (from the same site) > By tagging photos using #SkyMilesLife and/or #DeltaMedallionLife, user grants Delta Air Lines (and those they authorize) a royalty-free, world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license I'd argue this is also not limited to Twitter posts? > User warrants and represents: (a) he/she is the sole and exclusive owner of the Submission, including all rights therein [...] Because no one ever posted something they didn't own. I don't know the legality of any issues that this can bring, but this seems comical. What would be the alternative though?
- mikeg8 7y ago
  Can any lawyers chime in here? How would that actually hold up in a copyright lawsuit brought against them?
  - lilSebastian 7y ago
    > an any lawyers chime in here? They're too busy, on the clock
- 7y ago
bronson 7y ago
If I delete the tweet, that revokes permission. Right Disney?
- rovr138 7y ago
  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.
_kst_ 7y ago
My reply: #MayThe4th @DisneyPlus Permission denied, Mickey.
Dowwie 7y ago
This is considered unconscionable according to contract law as it is overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party
sovietmudkipz 7y ago
If anyone could pay legal claim to a twitter hashtag, wouldn’t it be the first person who used the twitter hashtag on twitter? I would imagine it would go to that person through the default sort of copyright of artistic work (the concept). Maybe that’s technically forfeit by twitter’s usage terms of service (ToS)? If so, does twitter’s usage ToS supplant Disney’s claim (generated from twitter user @DisneyPlus)? I wonder if Disney coordinated with the originator of the hashtag before sending this tweet.
softwarejosh 7y ago
thats literally fair use, unless they are indicating they are to ignore takedown requests, which no they wont, especially after they deleted this tweet lol
doubleocherry 7y ago
https://starwarsintrocreator.kassellabs.io/#!/BM5xOee9Okv0Tv0i2Iaz https://starwarsintrocreator.kassellabs.io/#!/BM5xOee9Okv0Tv...
rkuska 7y ago
The title reads like r/Showerthoughts/ but for layers.
unethical_ban 7y ago
>Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use No, they are not. They are claiming that anyone who replies to that specific tweet and uses that hashtag agrees to certain terms. I think there is a difference - there is a level of intent associated with direct replies to a tweet vs. simply using the hashtag.
perch56 7y ago
This reminded me of “The Office” episode when Michael screams “I declare bankruptcy”. This is not how this works, Disney... https://youtu.be/C-m3RtoguAQ https://youtu.be/C-m3RtoguAQ
criteriasuppl 7y ago
I wonder if this might set a new precedent, what if you don't even need to really post anything to automatically be subscribed to some arbitrary TOS. ie I'm thinking of someone visiting a website and scrolling, and now all of a sudden all their public content on the web is no longer theirs!
the_arun 7y ago
Just a viral gimmick!
nr152522 7y ago
Is this tweet some kind of Jedi mind trick?
- jnellis 7y ago
  1. Sith Corp put out draconian statement. 2. Clone army of internet nerds raises awareness. 3. May the Force, is a marketing success.
lmilcin 7y ago
Most likely some very lost corporate drone soul. This is not enforceable the same way they don't get rights to any text that has "Mickey" in it. May the 4th is also World Naked Gardening Day since 2005, 6 years before Star Wars Day. There is a lot of potential for fun to be had...
neilwilson 7y ago
As we all know, copyright is a Mickey Mouse law...
ALittleLight 7y ago
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.
- contravariant 7y ago
  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.
  - rovr138 7y ago
    https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/agreement-and-policy 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.
blotter_paper 7y ago
In this equally public and legally enforceable format I would like to announce that if The Walt Disney Company ever again tweets an octothorpe followed by any other character(s) they hereby agree to immediately release all of their intellectual property into the public domain, with no further action on their part necessary.
chris_wot 7y ago
That’s not how it works.
neycoda 7y ago
Disney's response to the backlash was: Yah, but WE'RE DISNEY
pnw_hazor 7y ago
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 rights to use other contest-like user submissions submitted by email, official Disney forums, apps, or web forms. However, here they completely misjudged how this looks on Twitter and how the twitter laity would respond.
- nulbyte 7y ago
  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 Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, Retweet, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    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
nirajd 7y ago
Just poor communication, they're actually saying anyone who responds to their tweet with the hashtag may be featured in some May 4th Disney Special, and the ToS are implicit. Isn't this technically not necessary as tweets are public domain?
pfdietz 7y ago
It's kind of Disney to tell me about another twitter account I should block.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wilde 7y ago
I’m confused. Isn’t this already true without Disney having to antagonize anyone? Similar to the Instagram/Mashable court case? https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/14/21221078/stephanie-sinclair-mashable-instagram-embed-copyright-lawsuit-dismissed https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/14/21221078/stephanie-sincla...
PunksATawnyFill 7y ago
Anyone using douchetags is a tool anyway. Talk about regressive.
MrOxiMoron 7y ago
can they prove I saw that tweet when I use that hashtag? Don't think so.
Havoc 7y ago
My terms are that anyone replying to me owes me a thousand pounds. Because that’s totally how this works...
AlstZam 7y ago
Fun fact : Zscaler which is my company's proxy, has flagged this page for "malicious content". This is the first time a HN page is blocked by it. And currently the only one.
shawnps 7y ago
This is not what many people here seem to think it is. A real lawyer's take: https://twitter.com/openargs/status/1254873718855208960 https://twitter.com/openargs/status/1254873718855208960
baxuz 7y ago
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?
- philipov 7y ago
  Yes. Don't be a fan of Disney.
- Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
  That is what Disney hopes to achieve with this whole thing, yes.
retpirato 7y ago
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!"
- retpirato 7y ago
  What it's saying is that replies you post using that hashtag may appear elsewhere. For example they could use them in promotional materials. If you use that hashtag you're acknowledging that. They aren't the first to do that. I don't see the issue.
- slg 7y ago
  Check the timestamps. There was roughly 5 hours between the original tweet and the followup. This was posted to HN before the followup. Also as you can see from the conversations here, people still find the move questionable even after the disclaimer was posted.

888 points by slg 7y ago

I don't see this holding up - especially because it's ripe for abuse. What's to stop me from making a TOS for my own hashtag?

smnrchrds 7y ago
For it not to be held up, someone has to take Disney to court and win. Good luck with that. It's the whole single-digit millionaires don't have effective access to legal system, turned up to 11. I can only see a double-digit billionaire having the resources to fight this to the end.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  Not convinced you'd even a lawyer to fight this though. It's just so obviously wrong.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Not quite. For this to hold up, either: - everyone has to silently acquiesce to this, - Disney has to actually file a court case against everyone who violates their "terms" and win them all. I think they're trying for the first option. Suing thousands of people for stupidly unreasonable reasons is not a good look, especially for a company where image is everything.
  - smnrchrds 7y ago
    Why would Disney have to sue anyone? The violation will come from Disney, not thousands of people. Disney is saying they have the right to use any tweet containing the hashtag, including your name (and probably profile picture). If they use your tweet and you don't like it, you can sue them for copyright violation or using your name in advertising. However, there is no way in hell you can win that suit, because it is Disney and it will take years or decades and millions of dollars to fight it in the courts. So if they use your tweet in advertising without your consent, your options are (1) to give up and move on, or (2) to spend the rest of your time on earth and all the money you have and will earn to fight them in courts.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Ah, I see.
    - yummypaint 7y ago
      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?
      - gentleman11 7y ago
        What a pathetic option: we are so powerless that our only recourse is to complain
        yummypaint 7y ago
        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.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I have an anecdote about this. I worked at Disney for some time and a coworker was an avid 2nd amendment person. They left their firearm in their car as is legal for any employer with a very short list of exceptions. I think munitions development is one of the exceptions, and Disney qualifies because of their massive fireworks shows. I'm very foggy on these details as it's been many years since. Anyways, he was chatting it up with a security person and it came out in convo that he had his firearm in his car. He was immediately fired and removed from the property. He tried to fight it in court. Now this individual was remarkably stupid just as a general person, regardless of this event. I don't have any interest in debating the merits of what happened to him one way or the other. However, it was interesting that the Disney lawyer explicitly informed his lawyer that their strategy would be to just bleed him dry into bankruptcy by getting continuances and stuff forever into the future, which would force him to keep paying his lawyer to show up and do stuff, but would never move the case forward.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    If Disney explicitly told this guy's lawyer that was their plan, his lawyer would be game to let them drag it out because he'll get all his attorney's fees back at the end on Disney's dime. You have to legitimately believe you can succeed in court, you cannot just file stuff to slow the process. Now maybe they just implied that or something, but I very much doubt the story happened exactly as described.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      In order for the drag it out and get attorney's fees back plan to work, you have to be really confident you'll win. I doubt that was the case.
    - pnw_hazor 7y ago
      Hmm, maybe that was what the plaintiff lawyer said to encourage the guy to drop a case he didn't want to do anymore after learning more of the details. Often employee-side lawyers take cases based on contingency fees or shared/blended deals that mix hard money with contingency fees. If the case turns out to be a turd, some lawyers do just about anything to get out of it. On the other hand, Disney's lawyers would have unlimited budgets and would be incentivized in stringing out the case as long as possible to get that sweet Disney money. They would have no interest in encouraging an early settlement unless they thought they would lose.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  What if Alice and Bob get together and decide that one of then does the same thing like Disney, and the other takes the other to court in order to create a precedence. Same outcome, just Disney is not involved.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Disney's strategy here will obviously be to just honor any and all complaints and take that content down. They gain nothing from a fight, and there are plenty more Star Wars fans out there who would be happy to have their tweets promoted by Disney.
CaveTech 7y ago
"By creating digital advertising, you agree to pay me, in perpetuity, all profit generated." - Me There's clearly no legal standing for a 3rd party organization to make blanket agreements for platforms they don't own.
- fphhotchips 7y ago
  I've been thinking about this all morning and the platform isn't the problem. After all, plenty of software is based on using someone else's platform to form legal agreements. The problem here is the requirement of Consideration in contracts. Twitter can bind me to their TOU because they give me the ability to use their platform. Disney can't, because they can't stop me from using #MayThe4th on Twitter - there's no consideration from them to me, so there's no contract. If you could trademark dates, however...
gentleman11 7y ago
The whole patent and copyright system is ripe for abuse and it never stopped anybody
sakarisson 7y ago
You don't have millions of dollars for lawyers.

ravenstine 7y ago

Just for #MayThe4th? It would be a real stretch in the first place if they made this statement about #MayThe4thBeWithYou, but just #MayThe4th???

na85 7y ago
Makes me want to set up a twitter bot that tweets things that are purposely against Disney's bullshit TOS and tags it with #MayThe4th.
- berbec 7y ago
  #winniethepooh #taiwaneseindependence #MayThe4th
  - jrockway 7y ago
    I was going to give them that 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 key and see if it still upset them. Getting China involved does seem like a good idea, though!
  - userbinator 7y ago
    #JuneThe4th
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Well, the point of their clause is to make it harder for you if you want to sue them for including your tweet in their marketing material. Not so they can go after your tweet.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
imhoguy 7y ago
Hereby I take over #MayThe5th so beware!

itronitron 7y ago

Are there similar terms of use for any written communication that includes the names Disney or Mickey Mouse?

avian 7y ago
Yes, they are called the trademark law.

carlchenet 7y ago

Community manager trying to create buzz imho

chance_state 7y ago
ie. All press is good press? Because I don't think this is coming across as good press on its own.

ipsum2 7y ago

shadowgovt 7y ago
They're trying to CYA for future ad campaigns, but they can't actually CTA their way. No dice, Disney. The way this works is if you want to use the tweets shouted into the ether, you can, and if someone doesn't like it, they can sue you, and then the US (and probably international) law gets to figure out on your dime via the lawyers you will pay whether you misused the tweets. ... or, Disney does the not-lazy thing, gathers up the tweets, issues individual requests to use to every user who tweets into the hashtag, and only moves forward with the ones they get consent for. ... or, third option, Disney puts up their own website where users can submit tweets by URL, and submitting a tweet to that website (signed off by a user's Disney account) confirms the user is claiming they own copyright of the tweet and is authorizing Disney to use it. But yeah, more than zero effort on Disney's part required.
- munk-a 7y ago
  The hilarious thing to me is that folks love that sort of attention and go out of their way to get a highlighted tweet - just DMing a few dozen folks with tweets you like to see if they're willing to have their random brain farts re-posted elsewhere will get you a lot of positive responses.
- Izkata 7y ago
  They added a clarification tweet that it does indeed only apply to the replies to the original tweet.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    It's a good clarification of their intent, but I don't think it puts them on legal ground that's any less shaky. They'd still have to prove users had any intent at all of complying with their TOS in undertaking a public action that is only tangentially related to Disney's little slice of Twitter (hell, they'd have to prove users were aware of the TOS to even be compliant or not), and good luck with that if it ever came to court.

geoah 7y ago

The tweet says “by sharing your message with us using #MayThe4th”. I wonder if they expect both the hashtag AND a mention of @disneyplus. Still weird though.

itronitron 7y ago
Any public tweet is shared.
netsharc 7y ago
Well, what you quoted seems to suggest the use of that hashtag constitute "sharing".

hpoe 7y ago

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 parties, that is notarized and approved by a Form 23-19B.

c54 7y ago
Hey wai- ah crap
hpoe 7y ago
Follow up: Many users of hackernews have expressed their disagreement and disapproval of our TOS. After careful investigation, we realize that our original policy was ill conceived and worded in such a manner that people were aware of the vigorous bodily actions which we were performing on them. Due to this we offer our heartfelt apologies, and a guarantee that we will rewrite this policy in a manner that is so obfuscated that no person can realize they are being thoroughly hosed until our lawyers descend. As part of our apology we are offering a coupon that entitles all parties who were effected to 10% off a year subscription to our service provided they will sign a Form 24-62C releasing hpoe and affiliated parties from all damages done to them or their relatives past, present or future, in perpetuity. Thank you our customers mean so much to us.
- beckingz 7y ago
  At least it's not arbitration.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    https://www.ycombinator.com/legal#tou https://www.ycombinator.com/legal#tou
    - beckingz 7y ago

canadianwriter 7y ago

Is it possible this is just boilerplate legal stuff that was whipped up for a campaign and the social media person just copied and pasted it with a minor tweak so it makes sense for Twitter? The language reminds me of standard contest language I've read many times before...

viklove 7y ago
It's not only possible, but highly likely. Still doesn't make it OK or not worthy of ridicule though. Internal company processes have no impact on how the public (and judicial system) will react to them.

mangoman 7y ago

I think the value of hiring more experienced folks to run social media (i.e. not an intern, someone with any amount of experience) is that they can actually point out how ridiculous this will come off, and argue against this type of tweet. It really doesn't take that much corporate self awareness to see how bad it looks to try to force TOS on free speech on a public forum.

kayodelycaon 7y ago
> It really doesn't take that much corporate self awareness I think you underestimate how well anyone in management actually understands this. One job had me constantly pushing back on three or more paragraphs of legal text in the damndest of places. In one case, the legal text was larger than the form itself to say "we need your email to contact you with changes related to your account". Every time I contacted our company lawyer directly for clarification, he was always fine with the short summaries I wrote. I was the only person in the entire process that stopped to ask if any of this was really necessary. I guess that's why I was the developer handling all most of our legal compliance. Everyone else either didn't care or had given up.
- michaelhoffman 7y ago
  In many organizations, legal boilerplate has nothing to do with what's reasonable in the law or even what a lawyer thinks is necessary.
  - Frost1x 7y ago
    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 explicit examples. It's completely unmanageable for any common citizen to process and understand what you almost have to agree to on daily basis to function in our ever more privatized world. The amount of garbage I see on a daily basis wrapped with passive aggressive legal threats around every corner is mind numbing. I even still get emails from people who add footers that they own the information and if you receive it wrongfully, you're "required" to delete it. We essentially have a bunch of children running around running society through businesses driven by greed who never fully socially developed into functioning reasonable and responsible adults.

shadowgovt 7y ago

I've seen maker-spaces where a billboard was set up that automatically displayed a rolling marquee of tweets that had been sent with #TheMakerSpacesHashtag in the shop. ... can't help but wonder if the space put themselves at risk for being sued over a copyright violation if someone didn't like their tweet on that billboard.

lowdose 7y ago
I would be more worried about an influx of pranks.
- ngngngng 7y ago
  They always have someone approving them. A college near me always posts pictures tagged with #builtbyBYU and I always post the dude standing in his bathroom mirror saying "Hi welcome to Chili's" with that tag but it never makes it onto the jumbotron...
- catalogia 7y ago
  #Agile2013 comes to mind.
saagarjha 7y ago
How is that a copyright violation, though? The tweets are publicly available on the internet, and presumably the maker space is just showing the Twitter website like anyone could themselves…
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  Being on the internet does not make something public domain or free to use. A screenshot of a Twitter feed includes many copyrighted things: Twitter’s web layout, the tweets themselves, etc.
- greenshackle2 7y ago
  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.

lstamour 7y ago

If I understand disneytermsofuse.com correctly and I am not a lawyer, they’re claiming #MayThe4th is a Disney Product under the terms therein? Or that the Twitter account is a Disney Product? Because the terms say: > The Disney Products may ask for or allow you to communicate, submit, upload or otherwise make available text, chats, images, audio, video, contest entries or other content (“User Generated Content”), which may be accessible and viewable by the public. Access to these features may be subject to age restrictions. Whether a Disney Product made available by us or in connection with Disney Products appears on a Disney website, service and/or platform or is integrated with a third-party website, service, application, and/or platform, you may not submit or upload User Generated Content that is defamatory, harassing, threatening, bigoted, hateful, violent, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, or otherwise offensive or that harms or can reasonably be expected to harm any person or entity, whether or not such material is protected by law. ... and they continue like that for a few paragraphs. Doesn’t look like they’ve updated the terms to account for this use. Either way, reminds me of when sites tried to block “links” or require their website terms to apply to simply linking to a site...

sys_64738 7y ago
I doubt very much you can enforce a term that is a date in the year.
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  It would have to be trademarked and there is no possible way this could get trademarked, since trademarks must be non-generic. Yes, even with the hash symbol.
- nightcracker 7y ago
  Apple? Windows? Boss?
- contravariant 7y ago
  It's also going to get awkward for the new Dutch branch of DisneyPlus where the date clashes with the yearly WWII memorial.

samdunham 7y ago

Everything everyone posts on Twitter can be used by anyone for any reason. It's in the Twitter TOS. Disney didn't even need to post anything, they could have just used your tweets for whatever they wanted to use them for.

VWWHFSfQ 7y ago
that's not true
robin_reala 7y ago
https://twitter.com/en/tos#intlTerms https://twitter.com/en/tos#intlTerms “You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).”

OrangeMango 7y ago

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.

londons_explore 7y ago
I'm not sure that would pass the "meeting of minds" test of contract law...
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  More like "changing of the minds"
- ballenf 7y ago
  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.
  - OrangeMango 7y ago
    Yeah, so my thought when I bought it was to offer to sell it back to Disney for $25k or something. I could most likely get a pro-bono defense while Disney would pay a lot more than that in a lawsuit which I would most likely win. Most likely. I still haven't acted on it yet.
    - lifeisstillgood 7y ago
      I could fly to Moscow and defeat the Russia Mafia in unarmed combat. Or I could blackmail Disney in a lawsuit. The Russian Mafia think my chances better beating them than Disney.

mholt 7y ago

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 https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1254849654585323525 ... as if that's really any better.

WilliamEdward 7y ago
It would have been fine with me if they didn't include the part about agreeing to their own private terms of use on a completely different website. What a strange way to trick people. Other than that it just seems like a way to ask people to allow them to use replies in a video or something. Edit: But wait, this is actually STILL ambiguous! On twitter, a 'mention' happens automatically when you reply to a tweet, because it includes the name of the account replied to, so it's not clear whether you actually have to tag @disneyplus or not.
slg 7y ago
Now the interesting question is whether they were simply lazy in the language and this was their initial intent or if the 5 hours of the original tweet being ratioed motivated a change. The new clarification is absolutely better to not claim ownership over the entire hashtag, but it is questionable to claim in one tweet that any replies made to a different tweet are an agreement to a private TOS.
- hbosch 7y ago
  I know there is a rally around this happening now, but I think it's pretty obvious that Disney was simply saying if you reply to their message with that hashtag then they want to be able to re-post your message as part of their marketing. Of course the way they said that could have been worked on.
  - WilliamEdward 7y ago
    Yes, obviously, but why would anyone need to consent to disney's own private terms of use on a different website for this? That's the shady part here. There could be anything in that TOS, and this tweet will trick a lot of people into agreeing with something they didn't read and shouldn't have to.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ilamont 7y ago

It just appended a reply to its own tweet that says: "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 https://twitter.com/disneyplus/status/1254849654585323525

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 7y ago
Good clarification, but it's still, I think, somewhat unclear whether there's any kind of enforceable contract they could claim there. Here's what that court conversation would likely look like in civil court: Disney: "As per our first tweet, when the user replied to use with #MayThe4th, they were giving consent to use their tweet in our ad campaign." Judge: "Were you aware of the first tweet?" Plaintiff: "No, your honor. I posted my tweet in reply to the Disney+ account because I saw my friends doing it. The thread was ten thousand messages long; I didn't read the whole thing." Not exactly a slam-dunk case for the plaintiff here, but I'd have to see precedent to show how a TOS that cannot practically be read is enforceable.
- Majromax 7y ago
  > it's still, I think, somewhat unclear whether there's any kind of enforceable contract they could claim there. What would be the consideration?
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Disney's tweets are better understood as a "heads up" to people, than creating any sort of right that Disney will actually try to defend. There is zero chance Disney will try to argue about this content. If someone complains at all, Disney will just take their tweet down and replace it with another one. There are plenty more fans out there who would be psyched to see their tweet being promoted.

tomcooks 7y ago

How do you fuck up so bad marketing to one of the biggest fanbases in the universe?

jedberg 7y ago
You start by making a trilogy with no coherent story across the three movies that ends by basically undoing the first two trilogies and go from there. (For the record I enjoyed the last three movies as general fantasy movies, they just didn't fit all that well into the mythology).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- komali2 7y ago
  The "cool" parts were cool. The fights were way better than the clone wars trilogy. The return to using puppets and other physical props was great. Trying for a strong woman lead - excellent. The characters - garbage. The story - trash. Spiking a star destroyer with a FTL ship - universe-ruining, but it certainly sounded dope. It didn't "ruin" star wars though. Nothing can ever change how great the first (first-made) three movies were. Well, nothing other than destroying all original copies and only making available ones with bad Xbox-graphics 3d model aliens walking around directly in front of all the best shots. Oh wait...
  - jedberg 7y ago
    > Spiking a star destroyer with a FTL ship - universe-ruining, but it certainly sounded dope. They addressed that in Episode 9, with the throwaway line: "You can't do a Holdo again, that's a 1 in a million chance!" > Well, nothing other than destroying all original copies They'll have to pry my OT Laserdisks out of my cold dead hands.
    - komali2 7y ago
      Do you seriously have the OG Laserdisks? Those are crazy rare - for the good of the people you should make their digital content uhhhhhhhhh "available" as it were ;) If a Holdo is a 1 in a million chance, it's weird that it worked again in the orbit of Endor, as we see at the end of the final movie...

fortran77 7y ago

Misleading title. Disney also claims you have to @ the account associated with the promotion. It's still odd, but not quite the same as claiming all use of the hashtag.

hombre_fatal 7y ago
Yeah, some comments are clearly responding to the "wait, a company can own a hash tag?" clickbait of the title.

dec0dedab0de 7y ago

Meh, they just want to use people's tweets for a starwars thing. I think they would already be allowed to per the twitter quoting rules (which I haven't read in years). The problem is the way it's worded sounds like it's coming from a legal/marketing/executive alien. Which I guess also ties into star wars.

usace 7y ago
I don't get the outrage, twitter is public and they want to use fan-created public tweets for some marketing thing. Who cares?
- dec0dedab0de 7y ago
  The outrage is that they said that by using a specific hashtag you are agreeing to something. Which taken by itself is outrageous.
notatoad 7y ago
As you say, per the twitter terms of use they're already allowed to use your tweets in their promo materials if they want. There's no reason they need to force-opt you into their ToS if that's all they want to do. the problem isn't just that this sounds like it was written by a legal alien, it's that they're claiming rights they don't need. The disney ToS outline all kinds of things that you aren't allowed to do, and it's obviously ridiculous to suggest that you can't include their hashtag in a tweet that violates their ToS.

ScoutOrgo 7y ago

What happens if someone replies with IP not owned by Disney and they use it?

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
In general, is a tweet long enough to be a work for copyright purposes? Anyone know of any copyright caselaw around tweets? I can imagine some poems being complete works and fitting in the character limit, perhaps.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  Stanford has a good webpage about short works and copyrights[0]. I’m sure 512 byte demo scene programs are copyrighted, and with Twitter raising the character limit, I’m sure some could be copyrighted. [0]: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection_for_short/ https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection...
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Thanks, a useful review of US copyright here. >A similar style of nonsense “code words” prompted Judge Learned Hand to write, “Conceivably there may arise a poet [...] // A US judge really is called "Billings Learned Hand", surely a case of nominative determinism.
snowwrestler 7y ago
One of two things: 1) No one complains, Disney uses the content and life goes on. 2) Someone complains, Disney takes that tweet down and replaces it with a different tweet and life goes on. Disney is not going to court over a tweet. They'll just take it down if someone complains. Also, under copyright law Disney will not "own" any of the IP in these tweets, the question is whether they have a license to use it.

beached_whale 7y ago

This is the twitter equivalent of the relative posting the not consenting to Facebook's use of their postings.

zucker42 7y ago

If I use the hashtag in a way Disney doesn't like, can I be prosecuted under the CFAA?

rory_h_r 7y ago

Everyone is dunking on Disney but Twitter actually owns all your Content.

exolymph 7y ago
No it doesn't, it just has a very broad and permissive license, because how the fuck else could the website function. Do you mean "own" metaphorically?
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  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 Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). Basically, they don’t take copyright of what you post (in contrast to what OP said), but it doesn’t matter because they can do what they want with it. [0]: https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com/content/dam/legal-twitter/asset-download-files/TheTwitterUserAgreement_1.pdf https://cdn.cms-twdigitalassets.com/content/dam/legal-twitte...
  - benibela 7y ago
    What happens if you post a photo of GPLed code on it?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Macha 7y ago
      Not a lawyer, total speculation: I'd guess if your photo and sublicensing to twitter fell under a fair use exemption then twitter could use it, otherwise someone could send a DMCA takedown to Twitter to have it removed. If twitter itself then went on to use it claiming the license granted in the TOS, the TOS requires you abide by all applicable laws when posting content (which presumably includes copyright law) and so I imagine they'd try shift responsibility to you if faced with a particularly determined lawsuit.

pridkett 7y ago

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 #SkyMilesLife and/or #DeltaMedallionLife, user grants Delta Air Lines (and those they authorize) a royalty-free, world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license to publicly display, distribute, reproduce and create derivative works of the submissions (“Submissions”), in whole or in part, in any media now existing or later developed, for any purpose, including, but not limited to, advertising and promotion on Delta websites, commercial products and any other Delta channels, including but not limited to #SkyMilesLife or #DeltaMedallionLife publications. Delta reserves the right to use or not use content tagged #Skymileslife and/or #DeltaMedallionLife and user will not be entitled to compensation if photo is used. from: https://skymileslife.delta.com/ https://skymileslife.delta.com/

alinde 7y ago
(from the same site) > By tagging photos using #SkyMilesLife and/or #DeltaMedallionLife, user grants Delta Air Lines (and those they authorize) a royalty-free, world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive license I'd argue this is also not limited to Twitter posts? > User warrants and represents: (a) he/she is the sole and exclusive owner of the Submission, including all rights therein [...] Because no one ever posted something they didn't own. I don't know the legality of any issues that this can bring, but this seems comical. What would be the alternative though?
mikeg8 7y ago
Can any lawyers chime in here? How would that actually hold up in a copyright lawsuit brought against them?
- lilSebastian 7y ago
  > an any lawyers chime in here? They're too busy, on the clock
7y ago

bronson 7y ago

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

rovr138 7y ago
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.

_kst_ 7y ago

My reply: #MayThe4th @DisneyPlus Permission denied, Mickey.

Dowwie 7y ago

This is considered unconscionable according to contract law as it is overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party

sovietmudkipz 7y ago

If anyone could pay legal claim to a twitter hashtag, wouldn’t it be the first person who used the twitter hashtag on twitter? I would imagine it would go to that person through the default sort of copyright of artistic work (the concept). Maybe that’s technically forfeit by twitter’s usage terms of service (ToS)? If so, does twitter’s usage ToS supplant Disney’s claim (generated from twitter user @DisneyPlus)? I wonder if Disney coordinated with the originator of the hashtag before sending this tweet.

softwarejosh 7y ago

thats literally fair use, unless they are indicating they are to ignore takedown requests, which no they wont, especially after they deleted this tweet lol

doubleocherry 7y ago

https://starwarsintrocreator.kassellabs.io/#!/BM5xOee9Okv0Tv0i2Iaz https://starwarsintrocreator.kassellabs.io/#!/BM5xOee9Okv0Tv...

rkuska 7y ago

The title reads like r/Showerthoughts/ but for layers.

unethical_ban 7y ago

>Disney claims anyone using a Twitter hashtag is agreeing to their terms of use No, they are not. They are claiming that anyone who replies to that specific tweet and uses that hashtag agrees to certain terms. I think there is a difference - there is a level of intent associated with direct replies to a tweet vs. simply using the hashtag.

perch56 7y ago

This reminded me of “The Office” episode when Michael screams “I declare bankruptcy”. This is not how this works, Disney... https://youtu.be/C-m3RtoguAQ https://youtu.be/C-m3RtoguAQ

criteriasuppl 7y ago

I wonder if this might set a new precedent, what if you don't even need to really post anything to automatically be subscribed to some arbitrary TOS. ie I'm thinking of someone visiting a website and scrolling, and now all of a sudden all their public content on the web is no longer theirs!

the_arun 7y ago

Just a viral gimmick!

nr152522 7y ago

Is this tweet some kind of Jedi mind trick?

jnellis 7y ago
1. Sith Corp put out draconian statement. 2. Clone army of internet nerds raises awareness. 3. May the Force, is a marketing success.

lmilcin 7y ago

Most likely some very lost corporate drone soul. This is not enforceable the same way they don't get rights to any text that has "Mickey" in it. May the 4th is also World Naked Gardening Day since 2005, 6 years before Star Wars Day. There is a lot of potential for fun to be had...

neilwilson 7y ago

As we all know, copyright is a Mickey Mouse law...

ALittleLight 7y ago

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.

contravariant 7y ago
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.
- rovr138 7y ago
  https://developer.twitter.com/en/developer-terms/agreement-and-policy 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.

blotter_paper 7y ago

In this equally public and legally enforceable format I would like to announce that if The Walt Disney Company ever again tweets an octothorpe followed by any other character(s) they hereby agree to immediately release all of their intellectual property into the public domain, with no further action on their part necessary.

chris_wot 7y ago

That’s not how it works.

neycoda 7y ago

Disney's response to the backlash was: Yah, but WE'RE DISNEY

pnw_hazor 7y ago

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 rights to use other contest-like user submissions submitted by email, official Disney forums, apps, or web forms. However, here they completely misjudged how this looks on Twitter and how the twitter laity would respond.

nulbyte 7y ago
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 Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, Retweet, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  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

nirajd 7y ago

Just poor communication, they're actually saying anyone who responds to their tweet with the hashtag may be featured in some May 4th Disney Special, and the ToS are implicit. Isn't this technically not necessary as tweets are public domain?

pfdietz 7y ago

It's kind of Disney to tell me about another twitter account I should block.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wilde 7y ago

I’m confused. Isn’t this already true without Disney having to antagonize anyone? Similar to the Instagram/Mashable court case? https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/14/21221078/stephanie-sinclair-mashable-instagram-embed-copyright-lawsuit-dismissed https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/14/21221078/stephanie-sincla...

PunksATawnyFill 7y ago

Anyone using douchetags is a tool anyway. Talk about regressive.

MrOxiMoron 7y ago

can they prove I saw that tweet when I use that hashtag? Don't think so.

Havoc 7y ago

My terms are that anyone replying to me owes me a thousand pounds. Because that’s totally how this works...

AlstZam 7y ago

Fun fact : Zscaler which is my company's proxy, has flagged this page for "malicious content". This is the first time a HN page is blocked by it. And currently the only one.

shawnps 7y ago

This is not what many people here seem to think it is. A real lawyer's take: https://twitter.com/openargs/status/1254873718855208960 https://twitter.com/openargs/status/1254873718855208960

baxuz 7y ago

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?

philipov 7y ago
Yes. Don't be a fan of Disney.
Jon_Lowtek 7y ago
That is what Disney hopes to achieve with this whole thing, yes.

retpirato 7y ago

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!"

retpirato 7y ago
What it's saying is that replies you post using that hashtag may appear elsewhere. For example they could use them in promotional materials. If you use that hashtag you're acknowledging that. They aren't the first to do that. I don't see the issue.
slg 7y ago
Check the timestamps. There was roughly 5 hours between the original tweet and the followup. This was posted to HN before the followup. Also as you can see from the conversations here, people still find the move questionable even after the disclaimer was posted.