Could Disney sue you for posting your video online?

[wdwpins]

Very interesting article about sharing your vacation videos taken at Disney.

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/...could-go-after-you-for-posting-vacation-vide/

Any thoughts?

 

[tjkraz]

Meh.

A decade ago Disney was much more protective of its intellectual property. Today they realize that they get millions (billions?) of dollars worth of free advertising from websites which support their theme parks.

Certainly there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed. But posting vacation videos and photos, and even posting Disney-created (copyrighted) artwork in a respectful (??) manner is permitted. Just look at the thousands of pieces of custom artwork in people's signature lines here on the DIS. Most contain copyrighted characters, theme park icons, etc.

When it comes to videos, the one thing Disney may object to is video taken from attractions which specifically prohibit video taping. Also, any video of behind-the-scenes areas, performers who are not stage-ready, or anything else which could be deemed harmful to the parks' image. If such videos are posted to YouTube, Disney will contact the host and have it removed. Unless there is some pattern of abuse by the poster, they aren't going to drag anyone's rear into court.

And they certainly aren't going to demand the removal of someone's run-of-the-mill vacation footage from any of the theme parks.

 

[skier_pete]

While Disney *could* go after you....what would there be for them to gain? The most you would realistically have happen would for them to get a court order to take your video down if it was something particularly heinous. You think Disney is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees because you posted your vacation footage on-line? Unlikely.

 

[doconeill]

I posted over in the podcast forum in this...the problem is that at least some of these things (say, videotaping an entire attraction or performance more than just showing your family at WDW) could fall under "use it or lose it" clauses in the intellectual property laws. If Disney doesn't take SOME action, then they can lose the rights to take ANY action down the road.

Besides, YouTube will fall over itself to take down a video if Disney says to, and let the poster fight over why they should be allowed to. I used to post promotional videos for some Universal TV properties via my YouTube Channel, and had to keep arguing with them because they kept getting flagged by Universal - even though THEY (via a promoter) provided the videos to ME. Then apparently someone else at Universal got POd and got YouTube to threaten my account. I had to get the promoter involved and get it straightened out (they were POd as well), and apparently this other dude decided that Universal wanted to do it for themselves and no one else was allowed...but didn't tell anyone.

 

[Minnie321]

You never know who will decide to sue over what they think is there's! Who would have ever thought that the NFL would say they own the phrase "WHO DAT!" I am sure Disney will follow right along!!!

 

[Erik_in_TN]

The way I see it. Videos of attractions, full ride-thru's, and stage shows (at least to me) seem like good promotion for the parks. People watch the videos and either a). It makes them want to go if they've never been before. Or b). For us die-hards, it makes us want to be back all the sooner. There are some great ride videos from the parks via YouTube. While it is Disney's "property"...how does it hurt? I'd look at it as free marketing.

 

[Erik_in_TN]

Okay after re-reading, don't they mean the removal of behind the scenes videos? I can understand why Disney would not want people to just go on YouTube and see behind the scenes/CM's outta uniform, etc that they would not want guests to see while on park grounds.

But surely the on-ride videos are not deemed as a copyright breach. Like for instance, a full ride-thru video of Splash Mountain (which are all over the place on YouTube). Wouldn't those types be considered good *free marketing for the parks? Even though people get to witness the entire ride through their computer, I can only see that drawing interest rather than repelling folks (?) I watch those all the time and it only makes me want to book my next Disney trip that much quicker.

 

[doconeill]

It is unfortunately for the lawyers to decided, and if the lawyers can get money from Disney to send takedown notices whether its "good advertising" or not, they will.

 

[puntagordabob]

I think if was something Disney wanted to do, they'd have been doing it years ago.... just a thought..its not like the posters of the videos are on some underground sites lol... and Yes, Disney wins free advertising etc.... and of course consider this: we Obsessed Disney Lovers are worth more than most commercial advertisements lol.. after all how much do we PAY for the honor of advertising Disney lol....and we all do it happily! I imagine most other companies can only Dream o such devotional fanbase.

 

[FireDancer]

If you post a video online which Disney would like you to take down the first course of action is a take down notice, not a lawsuit. Most hosting sites like YouTube will take the video down no questions asked based on the notification of the copyright owner. It is then up to the poster to challenge the copyright.

There are about 5 steps between post and sue so even if Disney wanted a video you posted down it would be unlikely it would make it to a court of law. The DMCA, while terribly flawed, does have non litigation paths to get content removed and most companies are going to write the relatively cheap letter (which at this point is boiler plate) instead of gather the suits to sue Joe Smith because his vacation video is 10 second longer then they would like for a posted clip.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I wouldn't put it past them to do so. These days the place seems run by a bunch of sharks, nothing like the old days at all. Once the mouse bought The Happy B-day song and demanded everyone PAY them to use the song, forcing every business on the plant to stop using the "American Tradition" standard I lost all respect for the corporation. Funny how one badly placed step can un-do all the good faith some people, meaning me for example, have in a company. No matter how much advertising they do that one strong arm move forever changed them to me. Just an opinion.

 

[tjkraz]

Once the mouse bought The Happy B-day song and demanded everyone PAY them to use the song, forcing every business on the plant to stop using the "American Tradition" standard I lost all respect for the corporation. Funny how one badly placed step can un-do all the good faith some people, meaning me for example, have in a company.

Umm...Disney doesn't own the Happy Birthday song.

 

[doconeill]

I wouldn't put it past them to do so. These days the place seems run by a bunch of sharks, nothing like the old days at all. Once the mouse bought The Happy B-day song and demanded everyone PAY them to use the song, forcing every business on the plant to stop using the "American Tradition" standard I lost all respect for the corporation. Funny how one badly placed step can un-do all the good faith some people, meaning me for example, have in a company. No matter how much advertising they do that one strong arm move forever changed them to me. Just an opinion.

I think you've been reading the wrong urban legends boards...

Disney does not own the Happy Birthday song. Never has. In fact, it reportedly PAID for the rights to use the song at one point.

The current rights holder is a division of Warner Bros. So go yell all the rabbit.

There is some dispute that the copyright is still valid, however.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I remember it on the front pages of the newspapers in NYC back in the 1990's when it happened. Are you 100% sure they never ever owned it? Not even for a little while? If the whole thing was fake how did it get into the papers, the REAL papers?

 

[doconeill]

I remember it on the front pages of the newspapers in NYC back in the 1990's when it happened. Are you 100% sure they never ever owned it?

That would be when Warner Chappell, the music arm of WB, bought it.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

 

[LuvOrlando]

That would be when Warner Chappell, the music arm of WB, bought it.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

But doesn't Disney have very, very close ties to Warner Chappell, Warner Communications or AOL TIme Warner?

I remember the newspapers very clearly, and it was the papers, not word of mouth. There was definitely a connection as in one was a part of the other somehow, or I don't see how the NYC papers could have gotten away with such bad press. If it was 100% false then there would probably have been a lawsuit, and I don't remember that either, or a retraction. Urban legend is flat out made up and I am 100% sure I read it in the news. I need to research Disney's corporate ties. The thing is these big companies get so big with so many little co's underfoot with both hands in another 3rd party company here and there that it's hard to sort them out.

 

[doconeill]

But doesn't Disney have very, very close ties to Warner Chappell, Warner Communications or AOL TIme Warner?

I remember the newspapers very clearly, and it was the papers, not word of mouth. There was definitely a connection as in one was a part of the other somehow, or I don't see how the NYC papers could have gotten away with such bad press. If it was 100% false then there would probably have been a lawsuit, and I don't remember that either, or a retraction. Urban legend is flat out made up and I am 100% sure I read it in the news.

I don't know about the papers. I have no recollection of anything like it, and no google searches I have tried tie Disney into the rights at all.

Disney did do a song called, "Happy Happy Birthday To You", which other than containing the same words, has nothing to do with the original song.

 

[FireDancer]

But doesn't Disney have very, very close ties to Warner Chappell, Warner Communications or AOL TIme Warner?

I remember the newspapers very clearly, and it was the papers, not word of mouth. There was definitely a connection as in one was a part of the other somehow, or I don't see how the NYC papers could have gotten away with such bad press. If it was 100% false then there would probably have been a lawsuit, and I don't remember that either, or a retraction. Urban legend is flat out made up and I am 100% sure I read it in the news. I need to research Disney's corporate ties. The thing is these big companies get so big with so many little co's underfoot with both hands in another 3rd party company here and there that it's hard to sort them out.

Most of the news is barely a step above Urban Legend, even when it is written in the newspaper. If printing something incorrect about a company or even a public figure got papers sued or shut down they would all be gone by now.

The only tie I could even think of would be that the extended copyright law that allows the song to stay out of the public domain was championed by Disney and is often refereed to as the "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act". Of course to blame the law on Disney would be like blaming a DUI on MADD.

I'm quite sure a financial tie between what were, at the time, two of the largest media conglomerates in the world would have been hard to hide. The SEC or FTC may have even asked a question or two.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Disney definitely has no ties to Warner, Warner Chappell etc... beyond the normal business relationship any two companies involved in music licensing and films and TV would have.

And no.. a lawsuit wouldn't have resulted in a false claim like being reported here.. a page 2 or page 3 small print retraction is all that would have resulted if the story was published as noted.