• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

Sentinel: Disney policy requiring character confidentiality comes under fire

216bruce

Well-Known Member
Sounds like typical Disney front line management.
My former employer "strongly suggested" all employees take down pictures of themselves wearing the team logo and we weren't allowed to state that we worked for the team (a MLB franchise) on Facebook. So, I had to take down pics of myself wearing a ballcap while holding my newborn daughter from 25 years ago. Yeah, a little heavy handed. When asked about it and trying to reason with them..."It's policy." Some deep thinking and compassionate folks there.
 

YodaMan

Well-Known Member
Apparently this now covers dancers in the parade as well. Apparently some of them are not too happy about it and "whining loudly" about it according to one friend....


Ahhh. Now that, I imagine, is the real complaint. There are a lot of performers in parades that aren't any specific Disney character. They are just a Swan Court dancer or an Ice Man, etc. And in those cases, a lot of performers or their friends will directly refer to themselves not as characters, but performers in said parade. And that could be the real sticky spot.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Ahhh. Now that, I imagine, is the real complaint. There are a lot of performers in parades that aren't any specific Disney character. They are just a Swan Court dancer or an Ice Man, etc. And in those cases, a lot of performers or their friends will directly refer to themselves not as characters, but performers in said parade. And that could be the real sticky spot.

No one is bigger than the show. No one.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Sounds like typical Disney front line management.
If that's true, and I honestly do not know, then I would think that they would be smart enough to not make it so easy for management to find a reason. If you openly challenge the rules, then who do you have to blame when the axe comes down. Under those circumstances it seem a little foolish to test the waters. Don't do it and there is no reason to get terminated. If they are doing things otherwise OK, then they would still have a job. If they are doing things that prompt a manager to fire them... they could use whatever that reason is and wouldn't need any other.
 
Last edited:

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
If that's true, and I honestly do now know, then I would think that they would be smart enough to not make it so easy for management to find a reason. If you openly challenge the rules, then who do you have to blame when the axe comes down. Under those circumstances it seem a little foolish to test the waters. Don't do it and there is no reason to get terminated. If they are doing things otherwise OK, then they would still have a job. If they are doing things that prompt a manager to fire them... they could use whatever that reason is and wouldn't need any other.

Oh I'm with you.... But there's a percentage of the kids and CPs in entertainment that believe they are above that.

It does suck for the people who follow the rules that a few simply don't care.
 

asianway

Well-Known Member
Ahhh. Now that, I imagine, is the real complaint. There are a lot of performers in parades that aren't any specific Disney character. They are just a Swan Court dancer or an Ice Man, etc. And in those cases, a lot of performers or their friends will directly refer to themselves not as characters, but performers in said parade. And that could be the real sticky spot.
Also, never friend your boss on fb kids
 

friendofafriend

Active Member
The people I've talked to privately point to this being a problem that as a result of A handful of people.

Most entertainment people are sick and tired of the crap and keep their social media private.

Nobody is bigger than "the show" and it looks like a few people just don't get that. Shame that it has to come to this and some negative publicity for some cast members to completely get that.

Always reminds me of this video


I wish I could like this post over and over! Thank you! So many of us take immense pride in what we do and believe the show is of utmost importance.
I look at this situation as a way to protect those of us who work hard and care about what we do and hopefully weed out those that don't! I think its important to have the policy written out officially instead of just word of mouth interpreted differently by one manager to the next. I think we just want to know exactly where we stand- that seems fair and reasonable to me. I was hired in the dark ages before social media was a big thing so I don't know if its different now, but there was no training on what was or wasn't ok in social media at all. I have common sense and like my privacy so it hasn't been an issue for me but the same can't be said for everyone.
I was so angry and disappointed with the modern family episode that's been mentioned here, to the point of being sick to my stomach. We work so hard and truly believe in what we're doing and then the company goes and does something like that. How many young children saw that episode I wonder. Yet Peter Pan's cousin tags him in a photo on Facebook and he gets fired or reprimanded. I know life isn't fair but COME ON!

That video is hilarious, i've seen it so many times before and its funny because its true! SO SO true!
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
My former employer "strongly suggested" all employees take down pictures of themselves wearing the team logo and we weren't allowed to state that we worked for the team (a MLB franchise) on Facebook. So, I had to take down pics of myself wearing a ballcap while holding my newborn daughter from 25 years ago. Yeah, a little heavy handed. When asked about it and trying to reason with them..."It's policy." Some deep thinking and compassionate folks there.

Now that's a bit different than Disney not wanting folks to reveal characters. I agree, it sounds stupid - especially since MLB can only benefit from that type of advertising. That's why it feels like an unreasonable thing in this case, because the folks who portray these characters should WANT to preserve the integrity of it in the first place.
 

friendofafriend

Active Member
Oh I'm with you.... But there's a percentage of the kids and CPs in entertainment that believe they are above that.

It does suck for the people who follow the rules that a few simply don't care.
I think a lot of it boils down to lack of life experience too. So many of them are young and excitable. They've never been away from home before and are doing something so unique that most of their friends and family think is so cool that they kind of lose their heads about it. And then there are the diva wanna be celebrities but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.
 

216bruce

Well-Known Member
Now that's a bit different than Disney not wanting folks to reveal characters. I agree, it sounds stupid - especially since MLB can only benefit from that type of advertising. That's why it feels like an unreasonable thing in this case, because the folks who portray these characters should WANT to preserve the integrity of it in the first place.
I agree. If you work for Disney you should "get" the magic, kids, tradition etc. But most social media policies are more than a little paranoid and heavy-handed.
 

friendofafriend

Active Member
Exactly. Disney put forth more rules on the subject and the Union wants those rules spelled out specifically in te contract.

I'm not sure why/how this got complicated.
Seems pretty simple doesn't it, not sure how its gotten so clouded. I really don't think that its at all unreasonable. You're not going to find a single performer at WDW that is worth their salt that is going to argue about the importance of character integrity and the show. Those that don't take that seriously as a matter of PRIDE and not just to avoid getting in trouble are in the minority in my experience.
 

John

Well-Known Member
No, its about making sure the contract says what you can and cannot do. Cant have arbitrary rules.


I lve ya brother but really? What you are saying is that it needs to be spelled out....I am sure somebody has mentioned this in another post but we sometimes are just way to lazy to sit and read every single post. I have other things to do then to read every post in every thread.

I am absolutely sure that in their employment contract it speaks about IP and its uses. What you are saying is that it needs to be spelled out for a moron that hasn't a clue that it might not be wise to put out on social media that that person plays a character. You know what happens next....the idiot CM then puts on social media....." I play the princess that has scales and no legs and loses her voice" Not coming out with the exact name. pffffffftttttt idiots. I am with Disney on this one. I am not spelling out squat. He is the deal....the IP belongs to Disney. You use the IP with out permission you are fired. Noting vague.....no way to spell out every single possible instance how the IP can be used.
 

friendofafriend

Active Member
I lve ya brother but really? What you are saying is that it needs to be spelled out....I am sure somebody has mentioned this in another post but we sometimes are just way to lazy to sit and read every single post. I have other things to do then to read every post in every thread.

I am absolutely sure that in their employment contract it speaks about IP and its uses. What you are saying is that it needs to be spelled out for a moron that hasn't a clue that it might not be wise to put out on social media that that person plays a character. You know what happens next....the idiot CM then puts on social media....." I play the princess that has scales and no legs and loses her voice" Not coming out with the exact name. pffffffftttttt idiots. I am with Disney on this one. I am not spelling out squat. He is the deal....the IP belongs to Disney. You use the IP with out permission you are fired. Noting vague.....no way to spell out every single possible instance how the IP can be used.

It needs to be spelled out so that it is enforced equally from one manager to the next as well. There is so much back and forth and misinformation from the people who are intended to be leaders that I think most people would be surprised. You can ask the same question about a policy to 6 different managers and get a different (yet confident) answer from each one- there needs to be consistency. If they are going to make a big push about enforcing a previously unwritten policy than I think its only fair they spell it out a bit more so that we all know where we stand.
 

John

Well-Known Member
It needs to be spelled out so that it is enforced equally from one manager to the next as well. There is so much back and forth and misinformation from the people who are intended to be leaders that I think most people would be surprised. You can ask the same question about a policy to 6 different managers and get a different (yet confident) answer from each one- there needs to be consistency. If they are going to make a big push about enforcing a previously unwritten policy than I think its only fair they spell it out a bit more so that we all know where we stand.

But that's my point......there is language that speaks about IP usage in their employment contract. I get what your saying. And I am sure once they "spell it out" the example you have so eloquently wrote wont end. Even after the policy is rewritten for the dense you will still have many mangers give different explanations. To me its rather simple.....You can not discuss use or speak of any Disney owned IP outside the parks. Pretty simple you ask me....and again no mater how it is written in the employment agreement there will be someone who will want to subterfuge the actual meaning of what is written....Its silly. The employment agreement will now end up looking like the IRS tax code and will have to be reviewed by your attorney. Its silly. To me its just common sense. I know.....for these few snowflakes we have to spell everything out for them....
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I lve ya brother but really? What you are saying is that it needs to be spelled out....I am sure somebody has mentioned this in another post but we sometimes are just way to lazy to sit and read every single post. I have other things to do then to read every post in every thread.

I am absolutely sure that in their employment contract it speaks about IP and its uses. What you are saying is that it needs to be spelled out for a moron that hasn't a clue that it might not be wise to put out on social media that that person plays a character. You know what happens next....the idiot CM then puts on social media....." I play the princess that has scales and no legs and loses her voice" Not coming out with the exact name. pffffffftttttt idiots. I am with Disney on this one. I am not spelling out squat. He is the deal....the IP belongs to Disney. You use the IP with out permission you are fired. Noting vague.....no way to spell out every single possible instance how the IP can be used.


That is exactly what I'm saying.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom