Christi22222
Active Member
Absolutely agree with this. Just have fun being there!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney may be after us....
- Thread starter wdwmomof3
- Start date
Absolutely agree with this. Just have fun being there!
EpcotServo
Well-Known Member
Basically what it means is that they want to keep their legal rights for pulling that tape you get of an accident at Disney and you refuse their demands for the tapes on the spot. This ensures that you at least won't be posting them on MySpace if you do manage to get something Disney doesn't want on tape.
Let's face it, we post everything on the internet now. Names! Pictures! Personal Information! There's too much of it...Some things are better left in the dark, away from the bright light of the internet!
-Daily Routines of average People
-Actual Age of Internet Idols
-Restaurant Cleanliness Records
-George Bush Sr. Eating in Japan
-Spoilers to your favorite TV show
-MySpace pictures not taken by a different person
-The JDP trying to appeal to Otaku
-pointless facebook games
-Ayn Rand quotes
-Google Answers to obvious questions
-illegal movie downloads for Movies no one wants to see
-Koizumi on a Segway
-Awkward Stories that involve you
-profile messages you don't want stuck on your wall
-Pictures of you that you don't approve of
-Email Forwards that you don't find as funny as the sender implies
The internet is full of things that shouldn't be shared!
...
I'm in Despair!
I'm in Despair over an open internet culture!
Let's face it, we post everything on the internet now. Names! Pictures! Personal Information! There's too much of it...Some things are better left in the dark, away from the bright light of the internet!
-Daily Routines of average People
-Actual Age of Internet Idols
-Restaurant Cleanliness Records
-George Bush Sr. Eating in Japan
-Spoilers to your favorite TV show
-MySpace pictures not taken by a different person
-The JDP trying to appeal to Otaku
-pointless facebook games
-Ayn Rand quotes
-Google Answers to obvious questions
-illegal movie downloads for Movies no one wants to see
-Koizumi on a Segway
-Awkward Stories that involve you
-profile messages you don't want stuck on your wall
-Pictures of you that you don't approve of
-Email Forwards that you don't find as funny as the sender implies
The internet is full of things that shouldn't be shared!
...
I'm in Despair!
I'm in Despair over an open internet culture!
Roxas
New Member
Lemme get this straight, this is an article about a hypothetical situation in which Disney could sue someone for infringement. Yet this has never actually happened and Disney are far too concerned about their family friendly image to act in such a hostile manner towards patrons, especially as most of their business is return. This situation is also the case for other major parks such as universal. Of course disney won't make a comment about it something like that could come back to haunt them if a court case ever was warranted.Completely found-less fear mongering and one of the most shoddy pieces of Journalism I've ever seen. Disgusting use of the Disney brand in order to get a few more hits, if anyone Disney should sue the journalist for defamation.
:fork::fork::fork::fork::fork::fork::fork:
Also:
I lol'd :rofl:EpcotServo said:
Future Guy
Active Member
Don't worry. It's just the "flood of electronic babble" Jeremy Irons warned us about.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Money quote:
Nothing to see here.
Beyond that, the idea that Disney (or anybody) would sue an individual user for a Youtube upload is just stupid. The first thing they'd do is ask Youtube to remove the video, which they're always happy to do when asked. The user would never be involved.
Next week's expose: Iran could (in theory, possibly) acquire a nuclear bomb sometime in the next 10 years, prompting a pre-emptive strike from Israel which incites all the Arab states to attack, drawing the U.S. and Russia into opposite sides of a broader nuclear war, which wipes out most life on Earth.
You should be scared.
Nothing to see here.
Beyond that, the idea that Disney (or anybody) would sue an individual user for a Youtube upload is just stupid. The first thing they'd do is ask Youtube to remove the video, which they're always happy to do when asked. The user would never be involved.
Next week's expose: Iran could (in theory, possibly) acquire a nuclear bomb sometime in the next 10 years, prompting a pre-emptive strike from Israel which incites all the Arab states to attack, drawing the U.S. and Russia into opposite sides of a broader nuclear war, which wipes out most life on Earth.
You should be scared.
hrcollectibles
Active Member
I oftern wondered how people can sell dvd's of theme park attractions..
heartodisney
Active Member
I really am glad that I have not posted the video of my wife and I on fairway 17 of Magnolia, my wife was addressing the golf ball when turkeys came out, walked up to her and almost..almost took her ball..now she did not swing her club at them, but did verbally abuse them in fillipino..(trust me, no animals were physically harmed)...so I imagine PETA and their cronies would have a field day with that video....:ROFLOL:
jt04
Well-Known Member
Why is it "dumb"? Of all the words to use, that one seems odd. I've noticed people call things "dumb" that they disagree with whether it's right or wrong.
This is obviously about Disney wanting to protect it's intellectual property. I can't believe they would ever go after the average person for posting a video. But a web site that posts numerous rides, gets thousands of hits because of it and sells ads is a potential target.
People can offer opinions about any public company or individual even if it feels it's being harmed by those opinions as long as it is not a knowingly liabelous and/or malicious statement meant to damage. We still have a 1st amendment.... for the time being anyway.
I wonder if this has something with Disney's sudden concern over YouTube:
http://www.ajc.com/business/youtube-getting-into-movie-279275.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm
http://www.ajc.com/business/youtube-getting-into-movie-279275.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm
lwalker8
Member
Why is it dumb? Because it is an unnecessary article that is written by someone who is bored and has no legal knowledge whatsoever. . . Disney has not ever, and will not ever sue any fan who posts their vacation videos. So the entire article, and this entire thread is pointless. That's why it's dumb. - I guess dumb was sort of a harsh word...but honestly, if you want to be picky about word choice I could care less. Futile, useless, unreasonable, irrational...take your pick.
Also, you can offer opinions, but you cannot use a company's intellectual property in a way that is damaging to the company. You can say just about whatever you want, but when you start using photographs of the company's parks in a way that is maliciously harming the company's reputation, then you are liable to be sued for damages as a result of your actions.
Also, WDWMagic could be considered threatened by such a law suit for using Disney's intellectual property to profit. However, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the website doesn't rake in the big bucks and wouldn't advise them to worry about. Especially since Disney is not in the business to alienate its biggest fans.
ChrisFL
Premium Member
Agreed, I don't know who wrote the line but they were right on target
dhoywdw20x
Member
I wish they would remove people who took flash photos on dark rides. I was at Disneyland over New Years and a guy took about 40 flash photos in the Haunted Mansion ... it was a thoroughly unhappy experience for me seeing all of the magic ruined by some idiot.
voodoo321
Well-Known Member
And they have the right to call it a dumb article.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Here's the way i view this.
When i create a photo, I instantly own the copyright. (Thats what the law says). Everything at Disney is trademarked in one fashion or another.
It is MY OPINION that I can do whatever i want with my art, inclding using it in an editorial fashion. However, if i want to use it in a commercial/sales fashion, the law says i must get the Mouse's blessing.
And honestly, good luck with the Mouse cracking down on all this. They cant even stop movie piracy. And 99% of the ride videos are of poor/low quality with insane camera shake. Very few people have the skills to produce high quality theme park videos. (I can think of a handful, myself included)
So if Martin was making money, i think they'd have a problem. But he doesn't and no one has bought my photos. (I'm not cheap)
I'm not worried.....
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
My issue isn't with folks putting up their own videos or the like, and I don't for a second believe Disney has an issue with it either (It's not like say video of two characters having intimate physical relations in Cindy's castle ... and yes, videos like that DO exist
).I have a real issue, as a stockholder and follower of the company, with individuals making these DVDs of Disney's intellectual property and selling them for profit. We all know who they are. There's got to be a reason Disney doesn't go after them. But it is a cottage industry. And I don't believe it should be allowed.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
My issue isn't with folks putting up their own videos or the like, and I don't for a second believe Disney has an issue with it either (It's not like say video of two characters having intimate physical relations in Cindy's castle ... and yes, videos like that DO exist
I have a real issue, as a stockholder and follower of the company, with individuals making these DVDs of Disney's intellectual property and selling them for profit. We all know who they are. There's got to be a reason Disney doesn't go after them. But it is a cottage industry. And I don't believe it should be allowed.
Yes I know videos like that exist..... :lookaroun
I agree that piracy is the larger issue. We aren't the problem.
The guy on the corner selling $5 dollar DVDs next to the rolexs to tourists, he's the problem.
The guy on ebay selling them, he's the problem, not us.
mikeb1967
Member
Fans in Cuffs
Hello, If this is the case then why not ban any photo from anything disney. There are many websites that use pics of disney property, shows and characters on them, for instance this site. WDWMagic uses WDW pics on this site and this site has advertising, so WDWMagic is profiting from disneys intellectual property, technically. I'm being sarcastic, of course, but it is true. This is a slope disney does not want to go down, all the pics and videos are the largest source of free advertising and promotion of their products and parks. MikeB
Hello, If this is the case then why not ban any photo from anything disney. There are many websites that use pics of disney property, shows and characters on them, for instance this site. WDWMagic uses WDW pics on this site and this site has advertising, so WDWMagic is profiting from disneys intellectual property, technically. I'm being sarcastic, of course, but it is true. This is a slope disney does not want to go down, all the pics and videos are the largest source of free advertising and promotion of their products and parks. MikeB
Yes. If you take a photo, or a video of Finding Nemo, you own the the copyright to THAT photo and THAT video. You do not, however, own the rights to the material in the photo or the video.
Yes and no. If you take a picture of Cinderella's castle, you can pretty much sell it to anyone you want. Architecture is out in the open for everyone to see, so it is much harder to control trademarks and copyrights for images of it. However, the video of Finding Nemo CAN be controlled much more easily, so while you may technically be able to edit it as you see fit, the material contained within still is owned by Disney and theoretically any edits would violate Disney's copyright.
Again, as I stated in a previous post, if Disney isn't pro-active in protecting its copyrights, they can lose the ability to prosecute copyright infringment claims. The material will be so common in public use that they would no longer be able to control it (which is why images of the castle wouldn't be protected...too many uncontrollable pictures).
It doesn't matter if you are making money or not. It has to do with whether or not the violation infringes on Disney's rights to make money. Fan sites and the like are usually permitted to "violate" copyrights and trademarks by the owners of those rights because it's very clear that those are fan-based. Once it starts looking official, then it becomes problematic.
"It doesn't matter if you are making money or not. It has to do with whether or not the violation infringes on Disney's rights to make money. Fan sites and the like are usually permitted to "violate" copyrights and trademarks by the owners of those rights because it's very clear that those are fan-based. Once it starts looking official, then it becomes problematic."
My only question then is what would be the definition of "official?" I mean, I have an avatar that features St. George from the Germany Pavillion at EP. Does that somehow give it a form of endorsement or official status? I honestly don't know. And, is Disney really going to take the time and expense to look into something like an avatar, a family's home video on YouTube, or countless fan sites to see if money is being made? Again, I don't know. It does sound in this article that Disney is firing a bit of a warning shot to those thinking about making the bootleg videos and selling them on Ebay or the like....
My only question then is what would be the definition of "official?" I mean, I have an avatar that features St. George from the Germany Pavillion at EP. Does that somehow give it a form of endorsement or official status? I honestly don't know. And, is Disney really going to take the time and expense to look into something like an avatar, a family's home video on YouTube, or countless fan sites to see if money is being made? Again, I don't know. It does sound in this article that Disney is firing a bit of a warning shot to those thinking about making the bootleg videos and selling them on Ebay or the like....
That's when the courts come in. One of the tests used to determine copyright infringement is "Would this be confused for a Disney product." Because we're talking about videos at the theme park and not something like a novel or cartoon that is being made, it becomes trickier for Disney to claim infringement, since it allows people to film and record in their parks. However, if I created a website with copyrighted/trademarked content that web surfers believed was an official Disney site, then I would most likely be guilty of infringement. Fan sites are usually given a pass when the content is used in a positive light, but copyright holders are under no legal obligation to allow them.
But as I said, since we are mainly talking about things in the parks, Disney would have a lot harder time claiming infringement.