Trespassing third parties

[asianway]

A Vblogger is compensated via YouTube ad revenue. Is he using his AP for commercial purposes?

Len, and his colleagues use their APs for research used for touring plans.site. Is that commercial use?

Tons of websites have articles reviewing restaurants, park events, attractions etc. Their websites produce ad revenue. Is that commercial use?

The private guides thought they were OK since they weren't collecting money on Disney property. Although that's commercial use I understand the guides "giving themselves" the benefit of the doubt.

Yes to all of the above

 

[lewisc]

Here is a life hint: if you suddenly find yourself making hundreds of thousands of dollars on a "business" that wholly depends on another business or authority , it's might not end well

FYP
It doesn't matter if Ramon had a CM handshake agreement, implied agreement or written agreement. Disney decided to end private tours guides. Ramon might have gotten a few weeks notice if he had a written agreement. His position wouldn't have been significantly better.

Scooter companies were officially allowed to use bell services. Disney canceled all but one company.

 

[asianway]

Yup, that's the couple. It all started being cryptic the day they were supposed to do a livestream on It's a Small World for charity. On the day, it never went live and their communications stopped until the YT memberships were cancelled and they had a post saying that it was intentional and apologized that it was sudden. I am curious if they were given a warning officially or a "heads up" on the sly from a CM. I saw that VIP Tour company the husband worked for is out of business. I am curious if A--He was banned or B--They stopped any and all rule violations to avoid the ban. *IF* they were banned, what will happen to the funds that were raised/items bought for the Christmas CM treat bags? What will happen to their group cruise on the Fantasy next month?

A trespass from the Sheriff only extends to Orange County - see Chris Martin

 

[DisneyCane]

It’s not against the rules to accept money to help plan a Disney trip correct? They can still provide the same planning services and charge for it off property.

Nobody's going to pay $300 an hour for that. For that much you can hire a lawyer to sue Disney into giving you free LL.

 

[Drdcm]

These guys are going to pivot to providing customers with earpieces and feeding them real-time step by step audio instructions.

 

[lewisc]

These guys are going to pivot to providing customers with earpieces and feeding them real-time step by step audio instructions.

Good idea. They could use find my device to know exactly where the client is. May even be able to handle more then one group at a time.

 

[flynnibus]

it kind of depends ultimately on if permission is granted.

It entirely depends on that… which is the whole point. Control is in the hands of the business- they decide what is allowed … not the person who wants to offer services.

Which is the same recurring pattern with every TrainsofDisney comparison… an apparently obviousness to the way things actually operate.

 

[flynnibus]

Passholders break rules all the time with the reselling of items and abusing their discounts. Thats profit for Disney so they dont care.

Except they do and have been trying to curtail that flipper market out at dlr. they keep modifying the methods of distribution etc.

No its not a shutdown, but go pitch that disney is only concerned about their profit is untrue. They are facing all the customer complaints about lines and lack of availability due to ghe scalping

 

[flynnibus]

? Sure. But is this common knowledge? Again, in my area I would say not necessarily. And it’s the common knowledge factor that I’m talking about here.

You’re trying to argue your ignorance of this is the norm… yet i think you should just accept what it is… your lack of familiarity with the topic. You keep acting like because people have different outcomes the idea somehow varies by area. It doesn’t. It’s always within the right of the business to limit this as we are discussing. It’s just CHOSE to be less restrictive than others.

I’m sure if you actually looked, you’d find the policy at your community pool, etc.

The premise here doesn’t vary. Businesses control what kinds of activities are allowed on their premises.

I can absolutely see how these people doing tours at Disney could (possibly) in good faith not have realized they were doing anything wrong.

Anyone who spends that much time around the disney system to know the level of detail they have to make themselves proficient at this job would be familiar with disney’s approach to such things.

Same way they don’t allow unauthorized professional photographers, weddings, etc.

Regardless… if they truly were that obtuse to their surroundings… that’s a reflection on them. It’s no justification.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Same way they don’t allow unauthorized professional photographers, weddings, etc.

The 2 have not been treated equally in the past.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The 2 have not been treated equally in the past.

Yes they have. They have banned tour guides in the past. There are photographers who have had unauthorized shoots at Disney. But how they have been treated (which assumes a lot about who knows what) doesn’t matter. You have to have permission.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Yes they have.

I disagree

We both just have opinions and anecdotal info about this.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I disagree

We both just have opinions and anecdotal info about this.

You are again disagreeing with facts. You’re denying reality and insisting that your substitute is just as valid. You very clearly didn’t understand how a lot of businesses operate and instead of accepting that you continue to insist matters of fact are just opinion. It would have been fine to just recognize that your assumptions were incorrect instead of throwing out more and examples that are incorrect. How Uber and DoorDash operate are not a matter of opinion. How travel agents work isn’t a matter of opinion. That Disney has banned a variety of people for a variety of activities is not a matter of opinion. That people have engaged in a variety of activity without consequence is not a matter of opinion.

If you want to argue that the concept of private property is flawed or problematic, and this evidence of why we should live more communally, then that would be a different opinion. But it would still require you to recognize how things actually operate which you have incorrectly stated multiple times.

 

[lazyboy97o]

At this point I am laughing about how serious you are taking this. Can I buy you a dole whip? Oh wait…. I don’t understand how the dole whip business runs. Oops!

Yes, it’s so weird how I think we should respect other people’s things. You don’t need to buy me a Dole Whip, it’s obviously cool if I just take yours.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Yes, it’s so weird how I think we should respect other people’s things. You don’t need to buy me a Dole Whip, it’s obviously cool if I just take yours.

I mean, if you bought yourself a dole whip, and regularly brought more people to buy dole whips. I wouldn’t get mad if I found out those people were paying you to lead them to the dole whip stand and I’d even sneak in an extra cherry now and then! (The cherries have been budget cut out, but in my fantasy dole whip stand they still exist).

 

[DisneyHead123]

You’re trying to argue your ignorance of this is the norm… yet i think you should just accept what it is… your lack of familiarity with the topic. You keep acting like because people have different outcomes the idea somehow varies by area. It doesn’t. It’s always within the right of the business to limit this as we are discussing. It’s just CHOSE to be less restrictive than others.

I’m sure if you actually looked, you’d find the policy at your community pool, etc.

The premise here doesn’t vary. Businesses control what kinds of activities are allowed on their premises.

Wow, can I just say that I am legit surprised at how passionately people feel about this topic.

Anyways. This is a point of confusion that has come up a few times in this thread, so I’ll reiterate. There are legal norms, and there are social norms. I’m talking about social norms, not legal norms. I’m happy to leave the parsing of legal norms to legal experts. Social norms, on the other hand, do vary a fair bit by area. In my area, if I know that plenty of people who have had a party at the local bounce house have brought in a local party planner to decorate, and the owners know about it… it is socially quite acceptable for me to just bring in that party planner without getting written permission from the bounce house. I realize that this statement is anathema to some here, who I assume feel that a good old fashioned smiting is in order should proper bureaucratic procedure not be followed. But from my den of sin over here, I’ll admit - I would just let Susy Q Party Planner go ahead and decorate. Yeah. That’s right. I said it. I wouldn’t even have an official form signed.

If you look back at my posts, I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about the legality of this situation, other than to assume Disney was well within their rights. What I’ve said is that maybe - maybe - the way that they handled it was… mean. I didn’t realize that calling Disney a (possible) meanie would be such a huge point of contention. I’m a Disney fan, I just dropped an obscene amount of money on a vacation there. But I reserve the right to call their actions (possibly) mean. That’s my opinion based partially on the social norms to which I am accustomed.

Anyone who spends that much time around the disney system to know the level of detail they have to make themselves proficient at this job would be familiar with disney’s approach to such things.

Same way they don’t allow unauthorized professional photographers, weddings, etc.

Regardless… if they truly were that obtuse to their surroundings… that’s a reflection on them. It’s no justification.

This I might agree with, although I can’t verify it. I’m not from Orlando or the Disney culture bubble so I don’t claim to know the social norms of that world. As I said from the start of this thread, I’d need more context.

 

[flynnibus]

Wow, can I just say that I am legit surprised at how passionately people feel about this topic.

Anyways. This is a point of confusion that has come up a few times in this thread, so I’ll reiterate. There are legal norms, and there are social norms. I’m talking about social norms, not legal norms.

Ok here is a social norm i hope exists in your universe. You ask permission for something when you are in someone else’s place… you don’t just assume.

Or are you the one who gets invited to a party and you bring 10 other people with you?

You don’t just assume it’s ok to run your business in somebody else space. This is common sense from anyone who actually acts professional.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, it’s so weird how I think we should respect other people’s things. You don’t need to buy me a Dole Whip, it’s obviously cool if I just take yours.

Why don’t we’re just goto his apartment and start running adult education classes from his living room?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Anyways. This is a point of confusion that has come up a few times in this thread, so I’ll reiterate. There are legal norms, and there are social norms. I’m talking about social norms, not legal norms. I’m happy to leave the parsing of legal norms to legal experts. Social norms, on the other hand, do vary a fair bit by area. In my area, if I know that plenty of people who have had a party at the local bounce house have brought in a local party planner to decorate, and the owners know about it… it is socially quite acceptable for me to just bring in that party planner without getting written permission from the bounce house. I realize that this statement is anathema to some here, who I assume feel that a good old fashioned smiting is in order should proper bureaucratic procedure not be followed. But from my den of sin over here, I’ll admit - I would just let Susy Q Party Planner go ahead and decorate. Yeah. That’s right. I said it. I wouldn’t even have an official form signed.

You keep trying to parse this out in different ways and trying to add details as some sort of twist. The owner of a facility can provide permission in non-written ways. Nobody else has claimed that written permission is the only type of permission. You’re the only one making that point and it’s a straw man you’re using to push a false equivalency. Having non-written permission is not the same as having no permission.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Ok here is a social norm i hope exists in your universe. You ask permission for something when you are in someone else’s place… you don’t just assume.

Or are you the one who gets invited to a party and you bring 10 other people with you?

You don’t just assume it’s ok to run your business in somebody else space. This is common sense from anyone who actually acts professional.

I stand by what I said in the party planner example. In that case, I would just assume.

What is the 10 extra people supposed to be an analogy for? If it’s for illegally using LL, I said in an earlier post that I don’t think that’s ok, if it was indeed going on. As I also said earlier, I’d just need clarification on a lot of things before drawing conclusions about this situation.