Jim Hill got kicked out of Disney Land

[GaryAdams]

The avatars and the tattoos aren't being used for commercial purposes.

Didnt the tattoo artist who put the tattoo on charge money to do it?

Oh wait doesnt the DIS take in money from people to keep the website going?
Seems to me the DIS is a commercial enterprise run by pete.

Oh wait again didnt the daycares just have mickey painted on the wall?

Look at it how ever you want, but in my view the daycare paintings and jim hill fall into the same catagory, Disney got lots of bad press and were made to look like the big bad company.
Over 2 little things that have no outcome on the over-all bottom line.

Who knows maybe the 25 people who just got laid-off were the lawyers who send out the cease and desist letters?

I think we just dont know the whole story,im betting jim hill was using a refillable mug he bought last year and thats what really got him kicked out.

 

[WDSearcher]

I think the Jim Hill thing and the daycare thing are two different things. Jim Hill enjoys tormenting Disney; the daycare probably doesn't.

The daycare center was turned in by some anal retentive do-gooder on a copyright quest. It's not like the daycare center was out to make money off of Disney. If the daycare had used Disney-made decals or patterns or bought a Disney-branded wall mural, they'd have been fine. They just decided to do it themselves, and some over zealous fan turned them in. (And, actually ... a group of VoluntEARS from Disney went there and did an actual Disney mural for them several months after the fact. No one ever reports that part.)

In Jim Hill's case, he was making money (or charging money, at least ... whether it was profitable or not, who knows) doing a "behind the scenes" style tour on Disney property. His aim was to make money off of Disney.

Honestly? If Jim had invited all the tour folks over to his house, showed slides, and told all of his stories there, no one would have blinked. If he'd have kept quietly giving his tours at WDW, no one would have said anything. It's when Guests complained because they didn't get what they paid Disney for that it all went wrong. If he'd have simply checked his roster to be sure that the people on his tour were the people who were supposed to be there, he'd still be free and clear.

 

[rwodonnell]

If he'd have simply checked his roster to be sure that the people on his tour were the people who were supposed to be there, he'd still be free and clear.

This is really the crime, and it is a somewhat serious one. I mean it was clearly pretty unprofessional to just keep yapping when these women walked up. And he set himself up for it by starting the tour so near the other tour's start. All that said, though, I don't like the idea of them shutting his tours down, and I hope they don't shut down the other tours either.

 

[ShadowWind]

I doubt what Jim Hill did was illegal. They wanted to arrest him, because Disney has every right to eject someone from their private property at any time they feel like it. As he left, there was no further charges. Disney is perfectly aware that people give tours there all the time for money. It's a symbiotic relationship that they have with the tour group companies, in cross promotion.

The problem is that he represented himself, though maybe not intentionally, as a Disney sanctioned tour guide, and then proceeded to tell these people stories that were derogatory to Disney's brand. Starting in the same place as Disney only led to the confusion. I don't blame these women. If I paid for a $xx dollar tour, I sure the heck would be rather pissed off if I was led around by someone else while missing the tour I was supposed to be on. Just this confusion was enough for Disney to escort him off the property and not allow him further tours. Add to this, his rather off brand content and Disney had every reason to take him out of commission. I doubt I'd last long in a restaurant if I started telling patrons that rats were in the food and in the kitchen and to be careful of the lasagna. In fact, we got ripped off by the Comfort Inn on US-192 and when we complained loudly in front of other guests, they called the police on us. We didn't get arrested, but we had to leave.

BTW, it's not copyright that you have to defend or lose it, that's trademark. Copyright is never lost, whether you decide to go after someone or not.

I have spent a lot of time at WDW and I don't see what is so bad about the Brazilian tour groups. Every one that I've encountered have been quite nice and polite, much more than some American groups.

 

[Geoff_M]

I've read all five pages of this thread, and ShadowWind comes the closest to nailing it. There's nothing "illegal" about what Jim Hill was doing. The problem is that people here are confusing legalities with rights. DLR, being a private property, has the right to ask anyone to leave the property for any reason they see fit. Period. It's no different than your home turf or mine. Whether or not it's "smart" for them to exercise their option in this case is another question. The flip side of the coin is that Hill has no "right" to run the tour on DLR's property. "Free speech" doesn't matter on private property. Hill can say what he wants about Disney, but he can be made to say it off-site.

As for the international tour guide analogy, there are several key differences. Even though the guides may offer info about DLR as they walk their charges from attraction to attraction, their primary function isn't to dispense knowledge about DLR... it's to help the tourists experience the attractions. If Disney were to start doing this, my guess is the folks with the pennants would start to get grief from Disney too.

Other key differences that I read and spotted:
1) Hill started his tour in the same general area as the official tours.
2) Per the photos (*) it appears that Jim Hill did the tours wearing a GOH badge. I know from wearing those that a LOT of people mistake you for a CM.
3) Disney also offers a tour that's about the history of DLR.

Given the above three points, it easy to see the confusion that many guests (particularly inexperienced ones) would have in differentiating between Hill's tour and DLR's. You and I know the difference between the GOH and CM badges, but to a first time visitor that often isn't so. In the world of marketing, you don't want other people confusing your product with some one else's... and DLR, particularly due to the complaint filed by the three ladies, decided that enough confusion existed to try and do something about it. True, the ladies may have been numbskulls, but that doesn't make the situation any less of the headache for Disney with they complained about it.

As for his CD idea, I think it'll fly and Disney can't touch him on the matter. He can position it as a audio "publication" and as such be allowed to use Disney's trademarks under the "editorial" section of "fair use" law.

*

 

[crusader]

The legalities are questionable.

Three women enter into a contract with Disney for a tour. They show up and somebody else conducts it without verifying if these women were actually under contract with him to do so. No monies exchange hands between these two parties because the women are operating under a false assumption that they had purchased this tour from the party now giving it. Do they have a claim?

Maybe -

It could depend on whether an implied contract was then formed with Jim Hill. If that can be established then the simple rules of contract law 101 come into play with these examples:

http://www.scu.edu/law/FacWebPage/N...acts/main/commentary/MistakeMisrepDuress.html

And what about Disney?

The fact is: Jim Hill executed a contract on behalf of Disney without their consent. Whether he did by mistake or not is only relevant to damages.

 

[lillasmom]

Maybe next trip to OKW I'll set up a keg at one of the quiet pools and sell $2.00 pints.