4 ms·
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 ra
by 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 agoI 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 agoYes, 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 agoIf 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 agoYes, 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 agoDisney being excessive in claims to IPR. Who else is shocked. /s