• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Disney revoking AP's if you resell merch

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
They've done more than that, they've revoked their access but didn't refund. In a lot of cases that's perfectly fine. This one though, I'm not so sure.
Why is there an expectation of a refund in your mind? They are on a monthly payment plan which is a financial agreement to pay the full price of the AP over the course of a year instead of the full amount upfront. So just because they revoked access the user is still financially obligated to complete the payments because they still used the AP. The payment plan doesn't say if you only go once you only have to pay the price of a one day ticket, you still pay the entire cost of the AP no matter how many times you use it. So there should be no expectation of a refund.
 

RustySpork

Oscar Mayer Memer
Advertisement
Why is there an expectation of a refund in your mind? They are on a monthly payment plan which is a financial agreement to pay the full price of the AP over the course of a year instead of the full amount upfront. So just because they revoked access the user is still financially obligated to complete the payments because they still used the AP. The payment plan doesn't say if you only go once you only have to pay the price of a one day ticket, you still pay the entire cost of the AP no matter how many times you use it. So there should be no expectation of a refund.
In 99% of cases I'd agree, in this case the person has technically and legally done nothing wrong.
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
In 99% of cases I'd agree, in this case the person has technically and legally done nothing wrong.
This is where I disagree.

Its clearly documented that using an AP benefit (an AP exclusive item for example) or discount for the purpose of obtaining items for resale is against the terms and conditions. So again the way I read this is they aren't saying you can't do it, they are just saying you can't use your AP benefits or discount to do it. If you want to do that buy a regular daily ticket like everyone else.

I'm just guessing here, but by the fact you are so opposed to what Disney did that you resell park items on occasion.
 

RustySpork

Oscar Mayer Memer
This is where I disagree.

Its clearly documented that using an AP benefit (an AP exclusive item for example) or discount for the purpose of obtaining items for resale is against the terms and conditions. So again the way I read this is they aren't saying you can't do it, they are just saying you can't use your AP benefits or discount to do it. If you want to do that buy a regular daily ticket like everyone else.

I'm just guessing here, but by the fact you are so opposed to what Disney did that you resell park items on occasion.
I don't actually. I have no desire for that nonsense, but I believe that it would be my right if I chose to do so and Disney can get over it. :joyfull:
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
I don't actually. I have no desire for that nonsense, but I believe that it would be my right if I chose to do so and Disney can get over it. :joyfull:
Well more power to you, but obviously Disney doesn’t see it the same way. And based on the way it’s written I’m of the opinion if brought up in court they would side with Disney.
 

RustySpork

Oscar Mayer Memer
Well more power to you, but obviously Disney doesn’t see it the same way. And based on the way it’s written I’m of the opinion if brought up in court they would side with Disney.
That's the point. It doesn't matter how Disney sees it, Disney doesn't have the ability to restrict anyone's rights and they can't always deny service because someone is doing something that they don't like. They can make any claims they want, but that doesn't make those claims legitimate. I could tell you that by reading this comment and not clicking like you would owe me $1 but that wouldn't mean that you do. Same principal applies. That's one of the reasons EULAs, arbitration agreements, etc usually don't hold up in court.

This won't last long, wait and see.
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
That's the point. It doesn't matter how Disney sees it, Disney doesn't have the ability to restrict anyone's rights and they can't always deny service because someone is doing something that they don't like. They can make any claims they want, but that doesn't make those claims legitimate. I could tell you that by reading this comment and not clicking like you would owe me $1 but that wouldn't mean that you do. Same principal applies. That's one of the reasons EULAs, arbitration agreements, etc usually don't hold up in court.

This won't last long, wait and see.
The example of a $1 for reading your post doesn't even equate to the same principal as there is no cost to begin with. Your example would only apply if WDWMagic were charging me to access this site, and then you charge additional to access your post. Which by the way I wouldn't pay. :p:cool:

Your view is that by revoking the AP (BTW its only been revoked for a year not permanently) they are restricting access, from your point-of-view I can see that point even though I don't agree with it. However that is not the way it'll be argued in court, if it ever gets there. Disney will just say, we've outlined what is acceptable behavior for AP Holders in the AP agreement, they violated that agreement and we revoked the AP. They are still free to buy a day ticket just like everyone else and still access the parks and buy the same merchandise just like everyone else so we aren't restricting anything.

I would only agree with you if Disney was completely banning them from the parks, but they aren't. That would be the only way I could see this as a valid legal argument, of course this is only my opinion not a legal standing.

However I will say this, its my opinion if a suit is ever filed (which I don't think it will) it'll likely be settled anyways, like most of these things are. Not because Disney is in the wrong, but because most cases are settled out of court anyways. And just like the case where the Club 33 member sued Disney for revoking his membership for selling access to Club 33, they settled but still didn't get their Club 33 access back. These AP will still not get their AP back for a year, but maybe Disney will forgive their monthly payments. But again I don't even think a suit will be filed.
 

SukaVayne33

Member
The example of a $1 for reading your post doesn't even equate to the same principal as there is no cost to begin with. Your example would only apply if WDWMagic were charging me to access this site, and then you charge additional to access your post. Which by the way I wouldn't pay. :p:cool:

Your view is that by revoking the AP (BTW its only been revoked for a year not permanently) they are restricting access, from your point-of-view I can see that point even though I don't agree with it. However that is not the way it'll be argued in court, if it ever gets there. Disney will just say, we've outlined what is acceptable behavior for AP Holders in the AP agreement, they violated that agreement and we revoked the AP. They are still free to buy a day ticket just like everyone else and still access the parks and buy the same merchandise just like everyone else so we aren't restricting anything.

I would only agree with you if Disney was completely banning them from the parks, but they aren't. That would be the only way I could see this as a valid legal argument, of course this is only my opinion not a legal standing.

However I will say this, its my opinion if a suit is ever filed (which I don't think it will) it'll likely be settled anyways, like most of these things are. Not because Disney is in the wrong, but because most cases are settled out of court anyways. And just like the case where the Club 33 member sued Disney for revoking his membership for selling access to Club 33, they settled but still didn't get their Club 33 access back. These AP will still not get their AP back for a year, but maybe Disney will forgive their monthly payments. But again I don't even think a suit will be filed.
Doesn't say with your Disney AP, somewhere, even in the small print that Disney has the right to not let you in and may cancel your pass at anytime or whenever due to certain circumstances and so on, etc.
 

RustySpork

Oscar Mayer Memer
Doesn't say with your Disney AP, somewhere, even in the small print that Disney has the right to not let you in and may cancel your pass at anytime or whenever due to certain circumstances and so on, etc.
There are certainly restrictions that they place on behavior in the parks, and they enforce them all the time. Technically for any reason at all. That doesn't mean there can't be a consequence for that action.
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
They're linked under important information before you check out. That said though, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons..
Right now this is all academic. There is no actual suit (again I really don't think one will ever be filed), but if there is one filed one day we'll see how it turns out. However I don't think this applies as Disney is not suing the retail scalpers for copyright infringement or to take down items for sale. Again Disney has not actually said no one shall resell a legally purchased product, just that you can't use the AP program benefits and discounts to do it. Basically no one shall be provided extra benefits than the rest of the public in order to make a profit.
 

RustySpork

Oscar Mayer Memer
Right now this is all academic. There is no actual suit (again I really don't think one will ever be filed), but if there is one filed one day we'll see how it turns out. However I don't think this applies as Disney is not suing the retail scalpers for copyright infringement or to take down items for sale. Again Disney has not actually said no one shall resell a legally purchased product, just that you can't use the AP program benefits and discounts to do it. Basically no one shall be provided extra benefits than the rest of the public in order to make a profit.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, I've even provided case law but your mind isn't going to change. The only unsettled aspect is whether Disney can legally revoke someone's access (pass) because they have executed their right to resell.

See also Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., Dr. Miles Medical Company v. John D. Park & Sons, Co., might even be something in U.S. v. Colgate & Co...

What's next, Disney revokes someone's access because someone wrote a bad review? What if Disney decided that they didn't like persons who voted a certain way, can they ban them too? Would you be OK with that? It's a slippery slope.

Your argument that no-one shall be provided extra benefits is nonsense, and grossly anti-capitalist.
 
Last edited:

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
As much as I hate the fact that flippers are the reason I have to show up to the park super early when I want something at DL, I don’t think Disney has the right to tell them what do with merchandise after it has been bought. These people have APs. Monitor how many are being bought, limit the quantity allowed per person (10 is way too much), buy/ make more merchandise and actually offer the collectible/ limited quantity stuff on your shop parks app. Seems like an easy fix.
 
Last edited:

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
I have received multiple gifts through employment, and it is stipulated that I can be terminated if I attempt to sell, or even gift the item. Technically the wording is that the item remains the property of the employer, and I am given rights to wear the jacket, use the electronics, etc. Same with my Uncle's Emmy, he can't do much with it, it can't be sold, and only given to a family member when he passes.

Same with Circle D items, the CM can be terminated if the item is sold to someone else.
 

Thebolt

Active Member
Disney are just making a point that commercial operators should be dealing with the company on commercial arrangements. Getting a discount potentially allows ebay traders to undercut Disney and their partners: and it harms the image of Disney. How long would Disney let somebody stand by a quick service and offer a 10% discount to day guests, by using their AP benefits?

As long as the terms and conditions are clear the discount is for personal use, then breaching that condition null and voids the pass. It is likely most people in that situation misrepresented their intention when buying the AP, and I would expect that to be a core argument in a legal case.
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
We're going to have to agree to disagree, I've even provided case law but your mind isn't going to change. The only unsettled aspect is whether Disney can legally revoke someone's access (pass) because they have executed their right to resell.

See also Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., Dr. Miles Medical Company v. John D. Park & Sons, Co., might even be something in U.S. v. Colgate & Co...

What's next, Disney revokes someone's access because someone wrote a bad review? What if Disney decided that they didn't like persons who voted a certain way, can they ban them too? Would you be OK with that? It's a slippery slope.

Your argument that no-one shall be provided extra benefits is nonsense, and grossly anti-capitalist.
Yes we have to agree to disagree. And if a lawsuit comes about then we'll see how it turns out. But in my opinion the case law you keep citing is not related to this issue as again Disney is not telling the resellers they have to stop selling the products they purchased.

Just because a consumer may resell a good purchased at a Disney Park doesn't mean that Disney is required to facilitate that activity through the use of the AP benefits and discount program.

Also your slippery slope argument is ridiculous. This is not a 1st amendment issue and I would hope its clear that I wouldn't be ok with that if it happened.

But lets just end this here while its still friendly. :)
 

Old Mouseketeer

Premium Member
I have received multiple gifts through employment, and it is stipulated that I can be terminated if I attempt to sell, or even gift the item. Technically the wording is that the item remains the property of the employer, and I am given rights to wear the jacket, use the electronics, etc. Same with my Uncle's Emmy, he can't do much with it, it can't be sold, and only given to a family member when he passes.

Same with Circle D items, the CM can be terminated if the item is sold to someone else.
Not sure what you mean by Circle D items. Are you talking about freebies give to employees, discounted merchandise from the company store, or surplus items sold off from the property controls store?
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
I used to work for MiceAge, Mouse Planet, Jim Hill Media and similar websites providing photos and written articles.

I also was a news stringer, and had articles and photos used by AP among others.

I had articles written for Airline Magazines.

I was one of the first persons to do inside photos, which covered construction and other things going on in the parks. Started in the 1990's

I had a Press Credential that allowed me access to multiple Theme Parks and similar attractions.

I was an invited Media guest by The Disneyland Resort.

I had some of my photos used by Six Flags.

I sold photos, made money in paychecks from sites, or got a share of the ad revenue, or paid per article.

I worked with Tim O'Day to help change the media policy at the DLR, from not even recognizing Social "media" to slowly accepting selected members of Social Media by showing a profitable business (true reporter) to the amount of views you got. Policies such as having a limited amount of credentials per site, to setting up different levels based on how serious a site was run.

So yes, I understood what you meant, and I can tell you the rules of the use of photos when taken "casually" in the park to share with friends, as compared to photos you can sell professionally, the rules of needing a media escort, and when you can't use photos from being on property and needing to taking them from viewpoint off property.

And I can tell you right now, IF Disney (and other parks) wanted to, they could ban persons from taking photos on private property if they made any profit on them.

Here it is from the Park Rules page.

https://disneyland.disney.go.com/park-rules/

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES



>>f. Photography, videotaping, or recording of any kind for commercial purposes.<<



So guests can share their photos and videos with their friends, so long as their is no sort of revenue made from them.

Once money is made from a photo/video, you are commercial, and Disney can sue for Damages and require you to take them image off the internet.

When you get a press credential you agree to how the photos can be used, usually limited to promoting the event featured, and in a positive light, and an ending date.

Heck, in some of my articles, I couldn't use my own photos, but had to use photos supplied by the park. (Ones they feel show the park in the best way).

Sometimes I used photos of non-Disney things to get around those rules.

I had my Disney credential taken away for a couple of months due to the fact Disney "felt" I did not present an event in the best light. And I can tell you of others, including a OC Register photographer, multiple LA Times writers, and multiple social media photographers.

The OC Register reporter actually started a club for Banned Disney Media, basically a casual bar night every few months, where we blew of steam from how Disney frustrated us.

So Disney clearly can do it, and why I asked the question early in this thread.

And my Smugmug account became my non-commercial photo site to get around the rules, allowing me to post photos I couldn't use elsewhere.
 
Top Bottom