Getting sued for posting on YouTube

[BeentoallDParks]

In this article, Disney execs refuse to say you won't get sued if you put your vacation videos online. It owns the intellectual rights, not you:

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

 

[seelyt2]

Well how about that! I'll never forget the You Tube posting of the girls whipping pennies at the dolls in It's a Small World...now what will I do to amuse myself?!!!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

They would have to prove damages to sue. Not sure what they would claim those damages to be if you are not profiting from the videos...

 

[PIRATEGIRL007]

Interesting, but odds it would happen would be less than some band suing you for downloading thier music for free.

Too bad it still won't stop the flashbulbs or camera lights on dark rides. But a couple high profile lots of press lawsuits might help decrease those annoying activities.

 

[Robo]

They would have to prove damages to sue. Not sure what they would claim those damages to be if you are not profiting from the videos...

That's not how copyright works.

The "damage" is, in itself, the unauthorized use.
The "user" does not have to be making a profit.

 

[BeentoallDParks]

They don't have to prove damages. They only have to prove they own the images and music in the video for you to be infringing on their copyright.

 

[Brian Noble]

This is pretty common for amusement parks---the park owns all the "intellectual property" including ride design, etc., and technically also has the exclusive right to reproduce that "IP" in video/picture/audio form for distribution. Will you get popped for a 30 second clip of your daughter on dumbo? Probably not. Will your multi-angle full-show with-source-audio HD ride-through of Pirates be taken down? It very well might.

But, you'll *never* get a company lawyer or spokesperson to go on record defining what is and isn't okay---that only limits their options later, and lawyers hate to limit their options.

 

[TLinden16]

Since videos typically appear on the theme parks community board, I'm going to move this there now.

 

[disneylovin24]

There's so many disney videos on youtube I don't see every single person getting sued.

I'm really dissapointed though that as rich as disney is, they need to start suing people for posting vacation videos

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Disney will have to be really desperate or the particular video must be pretty damning in order for them to care enough to sue.

 

[bicker]

By entering the parks, you agree to comply with the terms and conditions. If you don't like the terms and conditions, don't go.

Disney is simply protecting the best interests of its owners, by not providing blanket permission to use videos taken at WDW, as they're supposed to.

 

[Muppet_Girl]

I agree that you are agreeing to the terms and conditions. I'd like to think that if Disney were to sue, it would be for a bad video-such as something inappropriate in the parks. I feel that the videos that are just nice family videos serve as good publicity for Disney.

 

[bicker]

The likely reasons why Disney would sue is if someone is making money or gaining notoriety off of a clearly recognizable Disney creation (like the castle), or if something that is recognizable as Disney was presented in a negative light or associated with something salacious or otherwise contrary to Disney's owners' best interests.

One other likely reason is if someone outside of Disney brings a trademark violation to Disney's attention (for any image that includes something that Disney has trademarked). In that case, regardless of the circumstances, Disney has no choice but must take action to protect their trademark. They can use their discretion if they discover the issue internally (as long as they don't keep discoverable records), but if someone external knows that Disney knows that their trademark is being used without permission, Disney has to do something or risk losing their rights.

 

[KellyNY]

Damages? Disney profit from all those videos, it is a FREE advertizement and this is why they will never sue even if they have rights to do so, although I question those rights to begin with. When we enter parks we donot swear to keep anything we see/experience to be a secret. And good luck to sue, what they can get, a pair of dirty socks? If however someone will place Mickey on his ads or logo, then yes, copyrights violated.

 

[bicker]

The rights referred to are those associated with the intellectual property that Disney owns, including the image of its recognizable characters and buildings. The rights to exclusive use of and protection of intellectual property is granted by the law, not by us guests "swearing" anything.

Disney has and will sue, in case of infractions, especially if they're forced to in the manner referred to earlier. Generally when they sue, for things like this, they sue for the legal remedy known as "specific performance" (i.e., in this case, that the offending video be taken down), not for damages. And in the case of YouTube, they won't even go to the person who posted the video, but rather directly to Google. In that situation, it is Google that is committing the transgression that Disney cares about.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Damages? Disney profit from all those videos, it is a FREE advertizement and this is why they will never sue even if they have rights to do so, although I question those rights to begin with. When we enter parks we donot swear to keep anything we see/experience to be a secret. And good luck to sue, what they can get, a pair of dirty socks? If however someone will place Mickey on his ads or logo, then yes, copyrights violated.

Exactly - if they sued an individual, even if they won, they would lose. There are no damages. They would not be awarded a cent. They would be out their attorney fees and their reputation would be trashed.

So, they might be able to file a suit and have it heard, but it would cost them dearly. They are not that stupid - I hope...

 

[bicker]

Here's a similar situation where Disney has sued to protect its intellectual property (and, of course, won): http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.asp
(Note especially the foundation of this lawsuit: That trademark infringments must be fought to keep trademarks intact.)

 

[KellyNY]

The rights referred to are those associated with the intellectual property that Disney owns, including the image of its recognizable characters and buildings. The rights to exclusive use of and protection of intellectual property is granted by the law, not by us guests "swearing" anything.


Actually you have to swear(at least what I heard) when you do a backstage tours and you are not allowed to take pictures at every area, but you can take picture/videos of everything else on a regular admition, and you can place those on any fan site/ facebook and so on and every of those sites run some sort of ad on every page, does not mean they get popular because of Disney pictures.

Disney has and will sue, in case of infractions, especially if they're forced to in the manner referred to earlier. Generally when they sue, for things like this, they sue for the legal remedy known as "specific performance" (i.e., in this case, that the offending video be taken down), not for damages. And in the case of YouTube, they won't even go to the person who posted the video, but rather directly to Google. In that situation, it is Google that is committing the transgression that Disney cares about.

Google has tons of videos on youtube, Tyra shows, funny commercials, product details and so on, unless video suggest any sort of advertizement or is porno, Google will let it be. With all kinds of videos played, youtube does not get popularity because of any particular clip, no matter Disney, Tyra or someone sharing turkey recepie. Disney may try to sue Google and good luck with that as well, sure Google got great lawers to face anything.

 

[bicker]

Google and Disney are friends. If Disney says take a video down, Google will do so, perhaps even no questions asked.

Google/YouTube actually is pretty good about responding to complaints regarding violations or even perceived violations. Google doesn't want to get in between feuding parties. They're rather just use their discretion, provided for in their terms of service, and take a disputed item down.

 

[KellyNY]

Here's a similar situation where Disney has sued to protect its intellectual property (and, of course, won): http://www.snopes.com/disney/wdco/daycare.asp
(Note especially the foundation of this lawsuit: That trademark infringments must be fought to keep trademarks intact.)

Not even close to be similar. As I pointed before using copyright characters/likeness as a logo, ad is a clear violation, daycare is a business and they did profit from those pictures. However, if you place it on a wall of your house and even if it will cause cars to slow down and take a look, you did not violate anything, you did not profit, you decorated.