9 ms·

Update from Disney: > The above legal language applies ONLY to replies to this tweet using #MayThe4th and mentioning @DisneyPlus . These replies may appear in

by 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.
    - basch 7y ago
      If Disney were embedding tweets, it would likely already fall under twitters license for redistribution of content (aka hosting.) However, if Disney plans to copy and paste the tweets into another graphic, they felt they wouldn't have the appropriate license to reuse text copywritten by others, without this odd TOS. The one thing about this that plays into Disney's favor, is the attention probably reduces someones honest ability to say "I never saw the agreement tweet."
  - eximius 7y ago
    Yes, that was their intent. But the over-lawyer-ification and impracticality of opting out of corporate terms of service is an widespread problem. This is an interesting expansion of that problem, so it deserves highlighting.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Disney being excessive in claims to IPR. Who else is shocked. /s
hedora 7y ago
@DisneyPlus: I agree you may reuse this tweet and any tweets my affiliates send to #MayThe4th, subject to our standard licensing fees. A list of the fees and affiliates is freely available, subject to a thirty day processing delay.
willis936 7y ago
Somehow, to me, it's even slimier when it's a subset of posts is a targeted hijacking of an injoke made by fans for fans that predates their ownership of the property. It's not blanket maliciousness against all users, it's targeted maliciousness to steal from them.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  What is Disney stealing in your mind? the tweets or the hashtag?
  - willis936 7y ago
    They are taking ownership of the idea of May the 4th. If this seems ridiculous, then don’t look at Disney’s business model. They dish out billions to buy the rights to ideas as flimsy as this one.
ballenf 7y ago
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 system by Disney and its lobbyists." In all seriousness, I'm sure Disney never thinks for a moment that the law would ever be applied fairly to them or that this tweet could come back to bite them.
- coffeevradar 7y ago
  Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. In any case, it is a matter of law, just like earlier, shorter copyright protections were. It's totally legitimate to favor shorter copyright, but essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. It strikes me as odd that you would be interested in applying the law fairly while also referring to the law as a perversion.
  - sarakayakomzin 7y ago
    > Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act the Mickey Mouse Protection Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication >There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You In February 2010, the royalty for a single use was US$700 It's pretty hard to tell if you're arguing in bad faith or just unaware of the reality of the situation. >essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. is it arbitrary? does someone really need to profit off something 70 years after they have died?
  - alextheparrot 7y ago
    Some would argue that the undefined duration does not match “limited times” and that the copyright is no longer “promoting useful arts”. While some of these questions have been answered in Disney’s favour in recent times, it is clear that the “matter of law” is anything but clear.
MattGrommes 7y ago
I took this as more like when you write a letter to a magazine and they say to write "Ok to print" so they can use it later. If you send them a message for use in MayThe4th celebrations, they can then use it in promotions.
- _kst_ 7y ago
  Except that tweets aren't sent to Disney. They're sent to all Twitter users.
  - lewisgodowski 7y ago
    > 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?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - vageli 7y ago
      > > 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? Is replying to a column in an opinion piece sending it to the author or the newspaper?
    - sjwright 7y ago
      Tweeting is (generally speaking) a public performance, not something which is "sent" to someone. The same applies to most open platforms, including Hacker News comments like this one.
  - _kst_ 7y ago
    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.)
baxtr 7y ago
Well, I believe, unfortunately, from a legal perspective they have to if they plan to use the reply for a marketing thing...
- jankassens 7y ago
  They could contact the authors and ask them for permission explicitly instead of saying in a random tweet somewhere that a hashtag opts you in to agree to anything.
  - baxtr 7y ago
    Fair point!
henrikschroder 7y ago
Wow. From their terms of use: "Disney DTC LLC and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively, “Disney” “we” or “us”) are pleased to provide to you certain websites, software, applications, content, products, and services (“Disney Products” and “Products”), which may be branded Disney, ABC, ESPN, Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, FX, Fox Searchlight, 20th Century Fox, National Geographic, or another brand owned or licensed by Disney." What Disney is arguing is that their Twitter account is magically a "Disney Service", and that by tweeting at them, and using a specific hashtag, you are magically using their service, which would then bind you to their terms of service. Fuck right off. That's not how this works. I understand what Disney wants, it wants to use other people's tweets in their own promotion materials. That is fine, provided they ask permission from the authors of said tweets. But since they're lazy fucks, they're trying to pre-emptively argue that if you use that hashtag, they already asked, and you already said ok, so they don't have to go through the hard, hard, work of actually asking people and documenting their consent.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  Did Twitter put them back to their place or they don't want to lose the ad revenue and let the muggles fight them off?
  - henrikschroder 7y ago
    Nothing's going to come from this, and Twitter doesn't need to care, because the conflict is about Disney using other people's tweets in their own marketing material. Twitter's rights aren't being infringed if Disney does that, because Twitter doesn't own people's tweets. The only way to challenge this is for you to tweet something to Disney that they then use in their marketing material. That allows you to send them a cease and desist, because you didn't give them permission to use your tweet in that way. At that point Disney is just going to say "ok", shitlist you, and stop using your tweet, because that's cheaper than any alternative. This is just overreaching bullshit CYA legalese that's never going to get challenged in court.
    - eric_cc 7y ago

by mholt 7y ago

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.
  - basch 7y ago
    If Disney were embedding tweets, it would likely already fall under twitters license for redistribution of content (aka hosting.) However, if Disney plans to copy and paste the tweets into another graphic, they felt they wouldn't have the appropriate license to reuse text copywritten by others, without this odd TOS. The one thing about this that plays into Disney's favor, is the attention probably reduces someones honest ability to say "I never saw the agreement tweet."
- eximius 7y ago
  Yes, that was their intent. But the over-lawyer-ification and impracticality of opting out of corporate terms of service is an widespread problem. This is an interesting expansion of that problem, so it deserves highlighting.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Disney being excessive in claims to IPR. Who else is shocked. /s

hedora 7y ago

@DisneyPlus: I agree you may reuse this tweet and any tweets my affiliates send to #MayThe4th, subject to our standard licensing fees. A list of the fees and affiliates is freely available, subject to a thirty day processing delay.

willis936 7y ago

Somehow, to me, it's even slimier when it's a subset of posts is a targeted hijacking of an injoke made by fans for fans that predates their ownership of the property. It's not blanket maliciousness against all users, it's targeted maliciousness to steal from them.

henryfjordan 7y ago
What is Disney stealing in your mind? the tweets or the hashtag?
- willis936 7y ago
  They are taking ownership of the idea of May the 4th. If this seems ridiculous, then don’t look at Disney’s business model. They dish out billions to buy the rights to ideas as flimsy as this one.

ballenf 7y ago

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 system by Disney and its lobbyists." In all seriousness, I'm sure Disney never thinks for a moment that the law would ever be applied fairly to them or that this tweet could come back to bite them.

coffeevradar 7y ago
Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. In any case, it is a matter of law, just like earlier, shorter copyright protections were. It's totally legitimate to favor shorter copyright, but essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. It strikes me as odd that you would be interested in applying the law fairly while also referring to the law as a perversion.
- sarakayakomzin 7y ago
  > Copyright is fairly applied to Disney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act the Mickey Mouse Protection Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication >There were many beneficiaries to its extension, large and small. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You In February 2010, the royalty for a single use was US$700 It's pretty hard to tell if you're arguing in bad faith or just unaware of the reality of the situation. >essentially any duration is an arbitrary one. is it arbitrary? does someone really need to profit off something 70 years after they have died?
- alextheparrot 7y ago
  Some would argue that the undefined duration does not match “limited times” and that the copyright is no longer “promoting useful arts”. While some of these questions have been answered in Disney’s favour in recent times, it is clear that the “matter of law” is anything but clear.

MattGrommes 7y ago

I took this as more like when you write a letter to a magazine and they say to write "Ok to print" so they can use it later. If you send them a message for use in MayThe4th celebrations, they can then use it in promotions.

_kst_ 7y ago
Except that tweets aren't sent to Disney. They're sent to all Twitter users.
- lewisgodowski 7y ago
  > 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?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - vageli 7y ago
    > > 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? Is replying to a column in an opinion piece sending it to the author or the newspaper?
  - sjwright 7y ago
    Tweeting is (generally speaking) a public performance, not something which is "sent" to someone. The same applies to most open platforms, including Hacker News comments like this one.
- _kst_ 7y ago
  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.)

baxtr 7y ago

Well, I believe, unfortunately, from a legal perspective they have to if they plan to use the reply for a marketing thing...

jankassens 7y ago
They could contact the authors and ask them for permission explicitly instead of saying in a random tweet somewhere that a hashtag opts you in to agree to anything.
- baxtr 7y ago
  Fair point!

henrikschroder 7y ago

Wow. From their terms of use: "Disney DTC LLC and/or its affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively, “Disney” “we” or “us”) are pleased to provide to you certain websites, software, applications, content, products, and services (“Disney Products” and “Products”), which may be branded Disney, ABC, ESPN, Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, FX, Fox Searchlight, 20th Century Fox, National Geographic, or another brand owned or licensed by Disney." What Disney is arguing is that their Twitter account is magically a "Disney Service", and that by tweeting at them, and using a specific hashtag, you are magically using their service, which would then bind you to their terms of service. Fuck right off. That's not how this works. I understand what Disney wants, it wants to use other people's tweets in their own promotion materials. That is fine, provided they ask permission from the authors of said tweets. But since they're lazy fucks, they're trying to pre-emptively argue that if you use that hashtag, they already asked, and you already said ok, so they don't have to go through the hard, hard, work of actually asking people and documenting their consent.

HenryBemis 7y ago
Did Twitter put them back to their place or they don't want to lose the ad revenue and let the muggles fight them off?
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  Nothing's going to come from this, and Twitter doesn't need to care, because the conflict is about Disney using other people's tweets in their own marketing material. Twitter's rights aren't being infringed if Disney does that, because Twitter doesn't own people's tweets. The only way to challenge this is for you to tweet something to Disney that they then use in their marketing material. That allows you to send them a cease and desist, because you didn't give them permission to use your tweet in that way. At that point Disney is just going to say "ok", shitlist you, and stop using your tweet, because that's cheaper than any alternative. This is just overreaching bullshit CYA legalese that's never going to get challenged in court.
  - eric_cc 7y ago