Disney serving trespass notices to third-party guides

bigboy:

Didn't Jim Hill get in some hot water at Disneyland

Probably. The one I remember for sure was Lou Mongello. I don't think he was trespassed, but he was told he had to stop doing walking tours in the parks. (Edited to add: If I remember correctly, the problem was he was meeting his customers at the front of the park at about the same time as the official tours were forming up, and that confusion was causing problems.)

Now pre-recorded versions are published on most of the standard audio platforms, and you can listen to them at your leisure.

https://music.apple.com/us/.../318706979

bigboy:

Didn't Jim Hill get in some hot water at Disneyland years ago

Yes. I was actually considering joining the one just before he was busted. In retrospect, I can see Disney's point in doing that, but I was bummed at the time. I'd wanted a non-company tour. And the argument about it being allowed in the past doesn't hold water.

By the way, there are some sites that live stream from these parks. I wonder if they'll crack down on that too?

That stuff (live streaming) drives me nuts...but my 17 year old daughter can't get enough of it. She even recognizes those folks when we are in the park. I saw several people interact with them accompanied by an enthusiastic, "I follow you".

When I actively made video pieces, the intention was to document something, with experts and people who did the things. No one does that anymore. They just make themselves the focus or rip off the work of others to talk about things they're really not interested in understanding deeply.

Ignoring for a moment the sleazy stuff like faking disabilities:

Scenario A: I have a cousin who lives in Orlando. Lucky me! He frequently goes to Disney World and knows everything about the parks. We call him up and he agrees to make arrangements for us - makes restaurant reservations, plans an itinerary, etc. We meet him at his dental office across the street from the entrance to Disney property. He lets us park there - yay! He drives us in his minivan into the parking lot, we all catch the monorail together, and spend six hours at the park. He shows us how to get on rides with a minimum of waiting, gets us to the restaurants when they aren't busy, buys us Dole Whip when we're on the Jungle Cruise. As we walk around, he tells us fascinating stories about Roy Disney and shows us hidden Mickeys galore. After 6 hours, we all stay in the park the rest of the day, and then catch an Uber back to his office where our car is waiting. To thank him, we buy him a case of wine worth $500.

Scenario B: I have no cousins. I'm sad about that. But I look up a man named Slim Phil who lives in Orlando and knows everything about the Disney Parks. We call him up and he agrees to make arrangements for us - reservations, etc. We park at his office which is, etc., etc., minivans, monorail, rides, Dole Whip, stories galore, 6 hours, Uber. To thank him, we give him $500 in $100 bills.

Disney's argument here is, Scenario A is wonderful, and Scenario B is a crime against humanity?

Does your cousin advertise those services to anyone who wants to seek out his help? Does your cousin offer those services to anyone who asks him?

That would seem to be the difference between A and B.

What difference does that make?

I would consider the wine scenario a gift. I’m assuming you didn’t agree upon it in advance. Disney is going after people running businesses.

Hanging out with Slim Phil > Rip Ride Rockit

A is not running a tour business. B is running a tour business. That seems to be the obvious difference.

I don't see how that affects anything. I really don't. It's like saying you shouldn't be able to enter the park if you stayed at the Holiday Inn. Or didn't arrive on Air Disney.

(I mean, I guess they could say that if they wanted to.)

I don't see what business it is of Disney's if I make an arrangement to have someone show me around, as long as everything we're doing on the property is permissible and essentially the same as what many other people are doing.

It’s absolutely Disney’s concern if someone is operating a business that requires the use of their product.

To use the cousin scenario, that cousin is literally only helping you, and that cousin is not requiring any sort of payment to do so. That the scenario A you would leave wine is a lovely touch, sure, but it’s not a condition of any sort of transaction. In scenario B, Slim Phil is absolutely running things transactionally, requiring payment for said service. Also, one must consider the fact that in scenario A, the cousin is not there on a regular basis guiding people around and garnering attention. These tour guides likely become recognizable after a while, and if they’re hoping to sell their services to someone, they’re likely easily located online.

Along those lines, assuming you believe scenarios A and B to be identical from a transactional perspective (they aren’t for the reasons above, but I’ll play along), there’s the inevitable difference that scenario B is far more easily identifiable due to the aforementioned volume of offenses by one individual and the ease of identifying that individual.

hambone:

What difference does that make?

One is a commercial activity - an individual executing a private business transaction on another private business' property.

The other scenario is a family member spending time with another family member.

hambone:

I don't see what business it is of Disney's if I make an arrangement to have someone show me around, as long as everything we're doing on the property is permissible

A company or individual 1) advertising their Disney tour guide and planning services and then 2) providing Disney tour guide services on Disney property and then 3) charging for those services performed on Disney property is not permissible and the exact opposite of "as long as everything we're doing on the property is permissible"

I think we sometimes forget that Disney is private property. Would you be ok with a stranger selling oil changes out of your driveway? I suspect not.

I’m still waiting for an answer that doesn’t boil down to “Because.”

And look, I get it, “Because” is the basis of a lot of law. I’m not really arguing whether Disney has the right to ban people from the park - IANAL etc. I’m sure somewhere on page 137 of the annual pass T’s & C’s it says something about this.

I’m just a bit baffled by the idea that what Slim Phil would be doing is a problem. Again, I’m excluding faking disabilities; that’s terrible and disgusting.

Sure he’s recognizable. I would argue that Jeff, who lives next door and frequently goes to the parks is recognizable too. So that’s not really the issue. And Jeff runs a business that (to some degree) depends on - or at least is improved by - his use of the product. Should they ban Jeff, too?

(Jeff, apologies for dragging you into this, and you certainly you don’t need to weigh in if you don’t want to.)

What is the actual, tangible, not made up in law or in your assumptions about intentions and contracts, difference between my two scenarios? Besides “Because they can”?

“Because they can” is a crummy justification for using the power of the state.

It's not the power of the state. It's the power of a private property owner, the origins of which date back to 17th century Europe. Private property owners have rights...and not permitting someone else from using said property for a commercial purpose is a biggie.

Without getting into the weeds too much I'm sure there are insurance implications here. If Disney is knowingly allowing a third party operator to conduct a commercial activity on their property, which inherently creates potential liability, I suspect their insurance carrier frowns on that.

wahoo skipper:

It's not the power of the state

Literally the first two words of the news item are “Florida police.”

The power is derived from the rights bestowed on private property owners. It is the basis for the Stand our Ground Laws that are becoming so popular in red state.

The police may be called upon to enforce private property rights...but in this case the police aren't inserting themselves into this "just because".

Now, if the state is going to take your private property without your consent, that is a different matter.

hambone:

I’m still waiting for an answer that doesn’t boil down to “Because.”

You've been given a lot of answer, none of which are "because," you just don't accept them, or hear them or something. Police enforce property rights, the laws, so that's why they were called.

I would argue that Jeff, who lives next door and frequently goes to the parks is recognizable too. So that’s not really the issue. And Jeff runs a business that (to some degree) depends on - or at least is improved by - his use of the product. Should they ban Jeff, too?

What am I selling in the park? The answer is nothing, because it's not about "using the product," it's about selling your own product on private property. Mostly I'm there buying too much sangria, not selling something to other guests.