"Escape from Tomorrow" guerilla film shot inside WDW

[flynnibus]

even if he was the judge's order would most likely be to *not exhibit* the film, not to stop work on the film as the film is private property and he can edit it all he likes.

Less you forget.. copyright law prevents the duplication of material as well. He violated copyright law as soon as he copied the art because it is painfully obvious that the copying was not done with the intent of a use protected under fair use. He would never win an argument of 'oh, well I intended it to be used for personal use... and later figured out I wanted to make a movie' because of his actions clearly showed otherwise.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Sorry, I was trying to keep it simple. You're right, it would not legally be called "stealing", I believe it would be "copyright infringement" - As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. - U.S. Copyright Office.

Essentially, though it's stealing, or taking/using something that doesn't belong to you. Call it what you want, but it's still a matter that can be pursued by the owner.

Based on the definition above, I would think it's pretty clear, IF he used images, characters, music or anything else in the film that he didn't have Disney's permission to use.

And it would certainly be within their rights to do so, whether or not he was violating posted rules, they could at any time have asked him and the rest to leave.

Probably because they didn't find out about it, until it made news, afterwhich they couldn't do a whole lot. I'm guessing they're evaluating options right now and watching to see what happens next, and then they will determine how/if they should proceed.

I did not mean to attack your verbiage as a personal issue, but practically there is a difference between stealing, and trademark dilution as one is clear cut and the other is more nebulous. If you read the whole thread, you will see that a legal expert believes that he may be in the clear if he is commenting/criticizing Disney, and there is a satire angle as well . . . using copyrighted/trademark images in a film is not always illegal.

In fact, in most cases I would wager it is legal given that most such appearances are incidental and not the heart of the film.

So, no, it is not at all clear that what he did was illegal. I would look at the whole thread, but there is a legal difference between me going into MK, filming the Disney princesses and calling my movie "The Princesses!", and versus somebody doing a parody/satirical film on Disney property, even even "commenting" on how Disney warps reality. The film Epic Movie used a Jack Sparrow and Davy Jones character . . . all legal and all done without Disney's permission.

I believe that the issue is with regards to trademarked characters, not copyright issues, as a lawyer on the thread alluded to.

 

[flynnibus]

A little histrionic Flynn, but no, I don't think that such a precondition would be superfluous as I, and the legal expert in the New Yorker, believe that the film maker had the right to do what he did in the park under fair use, and yes, I am postulating that a precondition/contract supersedes fair use.

You completely misinterpret Tim Wu's article. Tim Wu's opinion does not grant the Director the protected right to do what he did. Disney could have still stopped him and made him leave REGARDLESS of the intent of the Director when filming. Tim Wu's opinion is that the created work (the copied images and artistic creation from them) do not violate copyright under fair use claims. That does not mean the director is above other laws in his his mission to create his protected work. The director can not break into the park.. the director can not tresspass.. or any thing like that and be protected because he was trying to create something protected under fair use.

And in the same grain, the director is NOT above the property owners right to ask the director to leave simply because he was filming for a fair use project.

So again.. any such suggested language is superfluous - unnecessary

Contracts often have a way of taking away "rights" as you don't have to work for a certain person/company, or enter a theme park.

What you continue to miss is.. the guest doesn't have to agree to give up any rights here.. Disney can force them to leave WITHOUT any such volunteering of rights.

Disney can approach you and ask you to leave - without requiring you to agree to not film for commercial purposes OR fair use purposes. That's the bottom line. So making you agree to it.. is.. unnecessary.

 

[puntagordabob]

Dont care about the legalities here.....

My review of the trailer of this movie is:

TRASH

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I am not a lawyer but its obvious I know a lot more about this than a lot of people here.

Only this subject?

 

[NormC]

Copyright infringement and trademark dilution are two different things. Disney has every right to make us all leave our cameras outside of the park. They choose not to do so. They also have every right to protect their IP if they chose to do so. Fair use only applies to the recording itself not the actual filming. If Disney had a policy against filming in their parks for commercial use then fair use does not enter into the discussion. There is a difference between home movies to remember your vacation and filming the park to use as a setting in a movie.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Copyright infringement and trademark dilution are two different things. Disney has every right to make us all leave our cameras outside of the park. They choose not to do so. They also have every right to protect their IP if they chose to do so. Fair use only applies to the recording itself not the actual filming. If Disney had a policy against filming in their parks for commercial use then fair use does not enter into the discussion. There is a difference between home movies to remember your vacation and filming the park to use as a setting in a movie.

Agree ^

I would say there has been a de facto ban of filming in the parks in years past when what was required was a filming crew to setup shop. Tom Hanks/Helen Mirren were in Disneyland, and they had to shutdown parts of the park. Obviously, castmembers, leads, security, custodians would see somebody blocking off a land and setting up cameras and lights.

Now with handheld digital recorders, we all can produce relatively high quality films in the parks. Setting up scenes is tricky, and it is interesting here about how the guy used iPhones for looking at the script, but it could easily be done again.

Disney might not want to get into the "fair use" discussion, and the legal battle, it is sort of a grey area. But, if in black and white every guest had to sign a receipt for tickets which included some pre-conditions of admission, such as no filming for commercial purposes, then when they try to distribute this stuff Disney could stop it . . . or more likely, it might discourage somebody else from doing the same thing.

Most of these films are going to be pretty amateurish stuff, IMHO. And Disney might decide to ignore all of it, realizing they would lose tons of customers if they banned filming, and perhaps irk some people if you had to sign a receipt with conditions to get inside the park.

They could add the contract for annual passholders, and thus make those trying to shot a film pay for park hoppers!

I'm kinda surprised an annual passholder hasn't done something like this before.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Disney has every right to make us all leave our cameras outside of the park. They choose not to do so.

I went on a general tour of Walt's Apartment and the castmember told us that we couldn't take photos, and that we had to put our cellphones away because they didn't have cellphones during the turn of the century! (Wink,wink, as obviously cell phones are cameras these days.) Anyway, saw a girl take a picture of herself in Walt's bathroom when the CM wasn't looking.

I also corrected the castmember about what she got wrong.

And we all probably know that they prohibit videotaping of Country Bears (at least they used to in Disneyland).

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Hmm, kinda funny in the only available clips shown and all stills there is no images of people who are just vacationing unaware they are being filmed for a movie.

Coincidence?

Also, I wonder what the wiretap laws are for Florida? I doubt they would ever be pursued because of home films, but its another argument Disney could throw out there if applicable. See, there are a bunch of angles yet to be shown.


I give this film a couple more weeks before forgotten. Or until Disney or Universal announces something...

Jimmy Thick- Already missing the Disney vs Universal fight...

 

[NormC]

But, if in black and white every guest had to sign a receipt for tickets which included some pre-conditions of admission, such as no filming for commercial purposes, then when they try to distribute this stuff Disney could stop it . . . or more likely, it might discourage somebody else from doing the same thing.

They do not need your signature. There are implied contracts when you purchase tickets to WDW, sporting events, concerts etc.

 

[slappy magoo]

WDW is considered private property. There are clearly parts of "The World" you don't have to pay to enter - Downtown Disney, resort lobbies etc - but Disney can and have ejected people for behavioral offenses.

IMHO, if the filmmakers try to release the film in any commercial way, Disney has no choice but to sue and try to stop it, if nor no other reason that they have to protect their rep amongst low-info consumers that will assume any movie shot in WDW is a: sanctioned by WDW and b: family-friendly, and will thus attack Disney for releasing filth. Disney will want to be able to say "hey, we had nothing to do with it and we're actively trying to stop it." They will also want to use such a lawsuit as a warning against other filmmakers from trying something similar.

But it's moot. While I'm sure the filmmakers want their work to be seen, this was more than likely a "calling card" to prove they can make a movie with no budget and under extreme circumstances, versus a moneymaking venture. They'll sell it via mail-order or digital download for a few weeks until they get a cease-and-desist from Disney's lawyers, and at that point, fanboys will weave their magic and it'll be all over the internet and on sale in the darker corners at nerdfest conventions within days. Everyone who wants to see it will be able to, soon, either for free online, or a paid-for cloned DVD. It'll be impossible to stop, just not impossible to stop the original filmmakers from directly profiting from it.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

They do not need your signature. There are implied contracts when you purchase tickets to WDW, sporting events, concerts etc.

Yeah, I was wondering if printing something on the back of a ticket, or published elsewhere and reference to on the ticket would be enough.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[unkadug]

Yeah, I was wondering if printing something on the back of a ticket, or published elsewhere and reference to on the ticket would be enough.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer.

Since tickets ( per se )are soon to be a thing of the past, it wouldn't make any difference.

And whose going to read the back of their armband?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Since tickets ( per se )are soon to be a thing of the past, it wouldn't make any difference.

And whose going to read the back of their armband?

Or is it wristband?

It would be pretty . . . 1980's to see guests with their swank Magic Armbands!

 

[unkadug]

Or is it wristband?

It would be pretty . . . 1980's to see guests with their swank Magic Armbands!

D'oh...you know what I meant. Your wrist IS part of your arm.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

D'oh...you know what I meant. Your wrist IS part of your arm.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but I love the thought of guests walking around with armbands.

Anatomically, your wrist is part of your forearm, which is distinct from your arm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forearm

 

[unkadug]

Yeah, I know what you mean, but I love the thought of guests walking around with armbands.

Anatomically, your wrist is part of your forearm, which is distinct from your arm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forearm

A like the armband image as well.


anyway...
"...distinguish it from the arm, a word which is most often used to describe the entire appendage of the upper limb"

 

[jl3283]

I really wanna see the ending sequence where they blow spaceship earth up or a pic of what it looks like Anyone have a bootleg?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

A like the armband image as well.


anyway...
"...distinguish it from the arm, a word which is most often used to describe the entire appendage of the upper limb"

The full quote:

The forearm is the structure and distal region of the upper limb, between the elbow and the wrist.[1] The term forearm is used in anatomy to distinguish it from the arm, a word which is most often used to describe the entire appendage of the upper limb, but in anatomy, technically, it means only the region of the upper arm, whereas the lower "arm" is called the forearm. It is homologous to the leg that lies between the knee and the ankle joints.

 

[unkadug]

The full quote:

The forearm is the structure and distal region of the upper limb, between the elbow and the wrist.[1] The term forearm is used in anatomy to distinguish it from the arm, a word which is most often used to describe the entire appendage of the upper limb, but in anatomy, technically, it means only the region of the upper arm, whereas the lower "arm" is called the forearm. It is homologous to the leg that lies between the knee and the ankle joints.

You are still taking it out of context...the arm is only considered the upper arm if you are breaking it down into regions. The wrist is no more the forearm than your nose is your face.