Disney may be heading for some interesting litigation....

[dinolounger]

I still haven't figured out my take on the rather interesting story below:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20150605/NEWS/150609451

One part of me feels this is a classic first amendment issue, while the other says employment at will can sometimes mean having to accept restrictions on what would appear to be personal liberties. What makes this knotty -- and what could likely drag it into court -- is the ambiguity of the length and breath of non-disclosure Disney appears to want to mandate and how that could clash with the right to freedom of speech.

 

[kevinday85]

It's the same as signing a non disclosure agreement. In exchange for a monetary payout you agree to not talk about something. If you don't like the rule don't work for Disney. Pretty simple in my eyes. Disney doesn't want the magic spoiled for children who might still believe the characters are real.

 

[Josh Hendy]

The question of "character integrity" is one issue. I suspect that the company is more worried about the integrity of copyrights and trademarks than it is worried about little kids' vacation illusions being spoiled. I mean really, how young and how dumb would a kid have to be to seriously think that he shook the hand of THE real-life Stitch ... who is obviously (to anyone over 2) a hand-drawn cartoon and not a living organism.

But that aside, in any contract whether collectively or individual bargained, a company is going to get a rough time when it tries to unilaterally impose new rules which were not part of the original agreement. Workplace rules are one thing, but imposing restrictions on workers' behavior offsite without having previously made them part of the agreed-upon contract and without offering any compensation for the new restrictions is asking for trouble. Right-to-work (fire) state or not ... that kind of thing is going to get up people's noses. Some of the people, some of the time, at least.

 

[dinolounger]

It's the same as signing a non disclosure agreement.

Having negotiated many NDAs during my career, I don't agree. A true NDA puts very specific (and usually extensive) parameters about exactly what can and can't shared, with who and when, where and how. And it usually requires each party to ask the other for permission before any using any permitted form of disclosure. The contract Disney has with the union apparently doesn't contain any of those conditions. Which means Disney is coming back after the fact saying "oh, by the way, even though it's not specified in the contract, we've decided you can't do X and Y either." That is essentially the basis of the complaint the Union made to the NLRB.

 

[cmash95]

this isn't new and I know lots of people in entertainment and they have no problem with the rule. The policy goes all the way back to the beginnings of disneyland. Walt didn't want the illusion broken and rules were alot tougher back then. The person complaining doesn't even work in entertainment and like i said the eployees I have spoken to have no problem with not telling or having not being tagged in pictures on social media. They talk about it after they leave the company. BTW universal has the same rules for their character performers.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Disney doesn't want the magic spoiled for children who might still believe the characters are real.

That's the takeaway, huh?

 

[dinolounger]

this isn't new

Yes it is. Quoting the article directly, the new rule about disclosure in "media is just two weeks old: "The two-week-old written policy prevents actors from publicly revealing in social media or traditional media which characters they play, according to the union."

and I know lots of people in entertainment and they have no problem with the rule.

Yes, certainly. And I know Elvis, I ran into him and the guy from the grassy knoll at a party last year at Area 51.

The policy goes all the way back to the beginnings of disneyland.

No, the new policy the union just filed a federal complaint about is two weeks old.

Walt didn't want the illusion broken and rules were alot tougher back then.

Really? How so? Were violators drawn and quartered?

The person complaining doesn't even work in entertainment

Read the article please. The union is has filed a complaint about the new policy on behalf of all members, not an individual employee much less one who isn't a costumed character.

like i said the eployees I have spoken to have no problem with not telling or having not being tagged in pictures on social media.

Sure, the union went to trouble to file a complaint with the NLRB just for the heck of it, it had absolutely nothing to do with concerns expressed by their members

BTW universal has the same rules for their character performers.

If this true, you can of course provide a link to proof. In the absence of that, we will have to assume what you said is just speculation.

 

[rteetz]

Yes it is. Quoting the article directly, the new rule about disclosure in "media is just two weeks old: "The two-week-old written policy prevents actors from publicly revealing in social media or traditional media which characters they play, according to the union."



Yes, certainly. And I know Elvis, I ran into him and the guy from the grassy knoll at a party last year at Area 51.



No, the new policy the union just filed a federal complaint about is two weeks old.



Really? How so? Were violators drawn and quartered?



Read the article please. The union is has filed a complaint about the new policy on behalf of all members, not an individual employee much less one who isn't a costumed character.



Sure, the union went to trouble to file a complaint with the NLRB just for the heck of it, it had absolutely nothing to do with concerns expressed by their members



If this true, you can of course provide a link to proof. In the absence of that, we will have to assume what you said is just speculation.

They probably expanded the rule to include social media because that of course hasn't been around forever. But yes the rule of keeping your character private and etc has been around for decades.

 

[Josh Hendy]

I can see Disney not wanting pictures of people half in/out of their costume, or posting their everyday-life picture next to the Disney character and saying, "that's me". But maybe these can be treated as violations of copyright or misuse of trademarks. You play Donald Duck, you don't own his likeness.

But by trying to prevent *any* disclosure of activities that take place on the job ... I suppose that Disney is thinking that this would be a kind of trade secret. Non-disclosure agreements are usually voluntary, bilateral, and signed before a person is hired or let in on the secret. Essentially, to tell a secret is to tell the truth, and how can you legally prevent someone from telling the truth? By contracting with them not to do so.

So there's the issue of whether a "non disclosure rule" can be imposed when it is normally the subject of an agreement. Complicated by the fact that the rule supposedly existed as a verbal "understanding".

Then there's the issue of whether "I play Goofy in the 2 o'clock parade" is even a trade secret. Maintain the illusions of 2-year-olds? Sounds pretty thin to me. Can you prove that your business is harmed by disclosing to a child that a person is actually inside that 7-foot tall cartoon dog? Can you get a 3-year-old to testify that they thought it was a real dog, until their mother showed them somebody's linkedin? You know that someone is on thin ice when they invoke "magic" to defend a policy. Try getting a judge or arbitrator to buy that.

Disney would have avoided all this grief if they had tried to clearly define fair and unfair types of disclosure beforehand, then asked the cast members first of all as a favor to respect their guidelines, then worked together with their reps to define a written policy and/or obtain NDAs.

Another interesting angle is that Disney calls every employee in the theme parks a "cast member". All the world's a stage. Is there a difference in what the guy or gal in the Goofy costume can disclose, versus the attendant in Haunted Mansion, versus a popcorn vendor? What's the difference ... "magic" ??? Honestly ... we thought he was a real, authentic jungle cruise skipper in Africa ... until I saw on facebook that it was just "Aaron P. Didely" who went to Grover Cleveland HS and lives in Ocala FL ...

 

[dinolounger]

They probably expanded the rule to include social media because that of course hasn't been around forever.

Yes, the impact of technology is likely related to the new rule. But that is irrelevant to the legal issue of whether their expansion of restrictions is or isn't constitutional. And it does appear that they may have possibility violated the contract process with the union by imposing new rules without getting them into the contract (from the article: "The confidentiality policy had been a subject of negotiations during past contract talks, but it never made it into a contract.")

But yes the rule of keeping your character private and etc has been around for decades.

Yes, in a general fashion, but not one that has been updated or tailored to changes in the means of personal social interaction.

Again, as I stated when I started this thread, this is a knotty situation, not as simple as the "Disney can do no wrong" constituency seems to think it is.

 

[Lewisc]

The confidentiality policy had been a subject of negotiations during past contract talks, but it never made it into a contract, union officials said.

Sounds like Disney doesn't have much of a case.

 

[JenSop]

Honestly, I think this is interesting uncharted territory. I have friends who have played characters - even former voice students. If you're a face character, it's pretty easy for people to identify you with or without social media. And as to the comments about looking for work in the future - of COURSE you're going to put on your resume who you played! To think otherwise is crazy!

 

[JJZMgailey]

Honestly, I think this is interesting uncharted territory. I have friends who have played characters - even former voice students. If you're a face character, it's pretty easy for people to identify you with or without social media. And as to the comments about looking for work in the future - of COURSE you're going to put on your resume who you played! To think otherwise is crazy!

I think a resume should simply state "I played a Disney Character as a Cast Member working at Walt Disney World." Which Character you played specifically can be discussed in-person during an interview. You never know who might see that resume and once it's in print form, as we know, it can't be taken back. Just my $.02

 

[brooke789]

I have someone (presumably a college student) who is followed on my work Instagram account. I don't know her personally but see all of her personal posts through my business page. She clearly advertised which character she'd be portraying each day. She'd post something like 'anyone up for a visit yo Tinkerbell today' and post a pic of herself as Tinkerbell. I know she also did Minnie and did the same type of thing. I always assumed she was just skirting the rules or maybe they just weren't all that strict.

 

[dinolounger]

You never know who might see that resume

True to an extent, but quite unlikely to be a four of five year old!

 

[dinolounger]

I have someone (presumably a college student) who is followed on my work Instagram account. I don't know her personally but see all of her personal posts through my business page. She clearly advertised which character she'd be portraying each day. She'd post something like 'anyone up for a visit yo Tinkerbell today' and post a pic of herself as Tinkerbell. I know she also did Minnie and did the same type of thing. I always assumed she was just skirting the rules or maybe they just weren't all that strict.

Interesting but good heavens! Disney must immediately call in the future world hunter killer robots from Tomorrowland and have this horrific, dangerous scofflaw vaporized!

 

[JJZMgailey]

True to an extent, but quite unlikely to be a four of five year old!

Pretty unlikely, yes. But, you never know. I used to bring work home with me and look through the resumes of potential interviewees in my home office. I'm just saying that those kinds of details can be saved for a face to face interview - that specific detail isn't going to land you the job you're going for.

I am ALL about preserving the magic - in every way, shape and form and I feel like those who portray Disney Characters to make a living should be as well...just my $.02 again.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I really don't understand why anyone needs to tell the public what character they play?........if Disney or any other company says not to.....that should be enough.....

AKK

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

I really don't understand why anyone needs to tell the public what character they play?........if Disney or any other company says not to.....that should be enough.....

AKK

I have someone (presumably a college student) who is followed on my work Instagram account. I don't know her personally but see all of her personal posts through my business page. She clearly advertised which character she'd be portraying each day. She'd post something like 'anyone up for a visit yo Tinkerbell today' and post a pic of herself as Tinkerbell. I know she also did Minnie and did the same type of thing. I always assumed she was just skirting the rules or maybe they just weren't all that strict.

Maybe going forward sure.

And there's the rub IMO.

From the article:

"The performers are very concerned because you can't un-tell somebody something," Dalton said. "They have family and friends that already know this and have pictures of themselves in their performing roles. It's out there."


This stuff lives forever on the internet, how will they "grandfather in" older uploads. Seems like anybody that has previously posted entries/pics etc are now "exposed" and at risk under the "new" rule-that wasn't in place when the entries were made.

Or if somebody else "reposts" old photos/blogs/entries/videos in the future without the consent/knowledge of the actor.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Maybe going forward sure.

And there's the rub IMO.

From the article:

"The performers are very concerned because you can't un-tell somebody something," Dalton said. "They have family and friends that already know this and have pictures of themselves in their performing roles. It's out there."


This stuff lives forever on the internet, how will they "grandfather in" older uploads. Seems like anybody that has previously posted entries/pics etc are now "exposed" and at risk under the "new" rule-that wasn't in place when the entries were made.

Or if somebody else "reposts" old photos/blogs/entries/videos in the future without the consent/knowledge of the actor.

Yet what the issue is new stuff, not old stuff...Even if it wasn't friends and family if they knew it would be a issue, would not be ratting the CM's out.....The tone of the CM's was that this was a 1st amendment issue which it surely is not.

WHAT I am also reading from the article...........if the article is all true........is that this maybe more Union making a issue then the CM's themselves.

AKK