WDW Cracking Down on Third-Party Businesses

[JMcMahonEsq]

I agree they have no obligation, but I also see no need to defend a billion dollar corporation for greed and taking a 2x4 to small businesses.

Protecting your business, your trademarks and copyrights is “greed” and not simply good business now? Risk mitigation from lawsuits and liability from third parties you don’t control and have no relations with is “taking a 2x4 to a small business”. What world are you living in. Disney gets sued because workers they don’t employ at a restaurant they don’t own, run by a major corporation that isn’t Disney allegedly did something. Why would they not crack down on potential exposure from even less vetted/regulated companies?

 

[dmc493]

I mean this with no ill will or malice towards whoever might have used this service before, but the door decorating service is one of those modern day businesses that I learned about and my immediate reaction was “how in the hell have we found ourselves here as a society?”

That might sound dumb coming from me since I’m only like 28 but it’s also how I feel about services like DoorDash. You’re paying over double for bad fast food to arrive on your door instead of getting in the car? You’re paying someone to show up and stick .25c decorations on your hotel door?

If people enjoyed it and could afford it, so be it and sorry to stir the pot, it’s just one of those frugality things where I just can’t understand the value prop

 

[SamusAranX]

Protecting your business, your trademarks and copyrights is “greed” and not simply good business now? Risk mitigation from lawsuits and liability from third parties you don’t control and have no relations with is “taking a 2x4 to a small business”. What world are you living in. Disney gets sued because workers they don’t employ at a restaurant they don’t own, run by a major corporation that isn’t Disney allegedly did something. Why would they not crack down on potential exposure from even less vetted/regulated companies?

This will be my last comment because it’s getting grossly misrepresented:

- Disney has every legal right to do what it did
- Some of those business were absolutely a liability and could harm the safety of guests or were blatantly committing copyright violations
- Some however (and I’m mainly referring to photographers doing shoots at resort grounds for graduation pics, engagements, etc) were not and thus it either indicates Disney plans to offer these soon, or their flexing their muscles.
- one can acknowledge that Disney has legal rights to do what it did, but at the same time recognize that a billion dollar corporation needs no sympathy and may in fact have been genuinely hurting someone’s stream of income; and this doesn’t need me crying “oh poor Disney, won’t someone please think of the shareholders”.
- They allowed it for a long time and even resort management encouraged it, so yes, to see businesses who were not harming Disney in any way suddenly get the rug pulled, is going to get my sympathy before a billion dollar corporation. Just because you have a right to do something, doesn’t require my agreement or necessarily discount a human impact

 

[SamusAranX]

If you’re “providing a service not offered” and don’t it within their property boundaries…they view it as profiting of the infrastructure they pay for with no financial compensation to them”…doesn’t matter what it is…the fact there is a “market” at all is because they paid to create the physical environment

As is their right.

something tells they have enough lawyers to sort this out and they’ll be just fine

 

[marni1971]

I certainly don’t know everyone’s experiences but streamers have never annoyed me at all.

Just a few times. (Trying to) live stream with commentary and bright LCD screen on dark rides.

I never stayed at a hotel in the US where I couldn’t have food delivery.

Not the US, but same company - HKDL doesn’t allow delivery to its hotels, despite being in an isolated location.

I had talked to many managers ahead of time. I had a positive rapport with just about everyone.

As you probably know, this goes further than Orlando. Burbank has multiple levels of… people… and eventually a response drip feeds back to the point of origin. Multiple levels of management across the country acts like a sieve. But decisions - especially with legal ramifications- can be taken by people totally isolated from the issue at hand.

Some might think it’s taken long enough for a clampdown to happen. Some might think it’s too strict. But at the end of the day it’s private property. I might think Disney don’t do a tour of Epcot that covers the parks history thoroughly enough. But I wouldn’t dream of taking money to do one myself. It’s not my property.

 

[larryz]

But I’m not going to sit here and pretend that it’s all peachy that they’re attacking small businesses providing a service not offered by Disney with low liability concerns.

Stand by while I open up my news kiosk/lemonade stand on your front lawn...

 

[peter11435]

Again I am not saying that legally, Disney is doing something “wrong”. I even agree some of the business models were a lawsuit in waiting. But I’m not going to sit here and pretend that it’s all peachy that they’re attacking small businesses providing a service not offered by Disney with low liability concerns.

Reminds me of back in the day when Disney went after daycares for paintings of Mickey and friends. Sure legally they had the right, but really just made Disney look like a bully

They are not attacking small businesses. They are protecting their brand and property rights.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Stand by while I open up my news kiosk/lemonade stand on your front lawn...

…we talking…”spiked”?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This will be my last comment because it’s getting grossly misrepresented:

- Disney has every legal right to do what it did
- Some of those business were absolutely a liability and could harm the safety of guests or were blatantly committing copyright violations
- Some however (and I’m mainly referring to photographers doing shoots at resort grounds for graduation pics, engagements, etc) were not and thus it either indicates Disney plans to offer these soon, or their flexing their muscles.
- one can acknowledge that Disney has legal rights to do what it did, but at the same time recognize that a billion dollar corporation needs no sympathy and may in fact have been genuinely hurting someone’s stream of income; and this doesn’t need me crying “oh poor Disney, won’t someone please think of the shareholders”.
- They allowed it for a long time and even resort management encouraged it, so yes, to see businesses who were not harming Disney in any way suddenly get the rug pulled, is going to get my sympathy before a billion dollar corporation. Just because you have a right to do something, doesn’t require my agreement or necessarily discount a human impact

Generally I agree

It’s bad PR in many ways and they should be concentrated on many other problems that they have been ineffective in finding solutions to…but the “affecting someone’s income” is where I switch tracks.

Nobody’s “income” is ever impacted on Disney property for Side gigs. They have complete license to shut all of it down. It really just is common sense. They sell product. That’s it. They built it and run it…so there’s no “grey area” in how they want to operate it.

This is the Same as the vlogger debate. Because they allow some things…does NOT mean anyone had rights to do it. Not the same thing.

Anyone that proclaims that anything they do on grounds of any kind without a legal contract with TWDC to do so is not a job/profession. In the end it’s a hustle.

 

[larryz]

…we talking…”spiked”?

 

[SamusAranX]

Stand by while I open up my news kiosk/lemonade stand on your front lawn...

Way to once again completely miss the point.

 

[SamusAranX]

Generally I agree

It’s bad PR in many ways and they should be concentrated on many other problems that they have been ineffective in finding solutions to…but the “affective someone’s income” is where I switch tracks.

Nobody’s “income” is ever impacted on Disney property for Side gigs. They have complete license to shut all of it down. It really just is common sense. They sell product. That’s it. They built it and run it…so there’s no “grey area” in how they want to operate it.

This is the Same as the vlogger debate. Because they allow some things…does NOT mean anyone had rights to do it. Not the same thing.

Anyone that proclaims that anything they do on grounds of any kind without a legal contract with TWDC to do so is not a job/profession. In the end it’s a hustle.

It doesn’t shock me at all. Again, even the more “benevolent” Disney of the 90s had PR disasters over some petty copyright issues.

And for those claiming otherwise strongly implying they had a business contract with Disney. Well. Yeah that was a ticking time bomb. Not smart.

 

[Tha Realest]

Could - but they won't. They want the amplication of 'hey, we're having fun in the parks!' message.. same reason they want their stuff trending in general on social media.

But that's not the same as people who come up with product offers or sell services linked to or in the parks.

This is nothing new and has been the status quo for a decade plus. It's just a matter of how much enforcement ebbs and flows.

You also can't be soliciting using Disney's TMs

Oh I get why Disney doesn’t crack down aggressively on bloggers. And they’re entitled to pick and choose which industries they go after. I’m particularly sympathetic to those former CMs (many laid off after Disney discontinued certain services, and who’ve have since filled that gap) who are now once again out of work.

As far as the private chef issue, I think there’s a very big liability issue if you have private kitchens roving around in the DVCs (health and safety issues, fire hazards, etc). The photography thing makes me thing they’re about to start aggressively monetizing those opportunities.

And to be clear - I am not wholly negative on vloggers. I follow a handful of them. I am just trying to reconcile the sorts of decision making that aggressively cuts off a photographer or makeup artist providing an actual service that Disney doesn’t (currently) provide from operating within property, while permitting others to continue to solicit digital money for streaming in the parks (and selling TM-infringing clothing on their socials as well). It just all feels icky and fickle.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

This will be my last comment because it’s getting grossly misrepresented:

- Disney has every legal right to do what it did
- Some of those business were absolutely a liability and could harm the safety of guests or were blatantly committing copyright violations
- Some however (and I’m mainly referring to photographers doing shoots at resort grounds for graduation pics, engagements, etc) were not and thus it either indicates Disney plans to offer these soon, or their flexing their muscles.
- one can acknowledge that Disney has legal rights to do what it did, but at the same time recognize that a billion dollar corporation needs no sympathy and may in fact have been genuinely hurting someone’s stream of income; and this doesn’t need me crying “oh poor Disney, won’t someone please think of the shareholders”.
- They allowed it for a long time and even resort management encouraged it, so yes, to see businesses who were not harming Disney in any way suddenly get the rug pulled, is going to get my sympathy before a billion dollar corporation. Just because you have a right to do something, doesn’t require my agreement or necessarily discount a human impact

You can not selectively choose to enforce your trademarks/copyrights. You either do so, or run the risk of losing the trademark, through acquiescence/failure to police. You can make strategic decisions to let things go, but to minimize risk you enforce the trademark’s rights uniformly, not based on the user

As to harm, the risk is always there. Once the harm happens it’s too late. It takes a person eating something harmful, or a photographer doing something inappropriate to either the person they are taking pictures of, or the pictures themselves to create major issues. A single photographer manipulating a young kids pictures and using of for something horrible, that’s a stain that doesn’t wash out easily even if Disney argues they weren’t our photographers.

No one really cares about your agreement or not personally liking the law. The law is what it is. But it’s absurd to say a business shouldn’t act in its legal best interests, big business or otherwise.

 

[CAV]

5 pages to say, "Disney's property = Disney's rules."

 

[Andrew C]

5 pages to say, "Disney's property = Disney's rules."

Everyone knows this. But that’s not the discussion.

 

[marni1971]

Everyone knows this. But that’s not the discussion.

It absolutely is. That’s why unauthorised dealings have been stopped.

 

[Andrew C]

It absolutely is. That’s why unauthorised dealings have been stopped.

We know Disney is within their right to do this. The discussion has been mostly about whether this is a good business decision or not. People have debated from both sides. And in the middle. It’s a bit of fun discussion on a forum where people are sharing opinions. It would be boring to just say “well it’s Disneys property so they can do what they want” and end it there. Because 99% of us are in agreement there.

 

[peter11435]

The discussion has been mostly about whether this is a good business decision or not.

It’s not really a good or bad business decision. It’s the only business decision that can be made. Allowing unapproved third party businesses to operate on your property would be just giving up. It jeopardizes your brand, your revenue, your property rights, and your relationship with every legitimate third party business you have agreements with.

 

[Andrew C]

It’s the only business decision that can be made.

I would disagree and say they likely have a choice, particularly given how long they let it continue. But, without having any insider knowledge, they probably made the right choice, IMO. It makes sense to me for the exact reasons you mentioned.