"Escape from Tomorrow" guerilla film shot inside WDW

[M.rudolf]

exactly none of the above is true

I agree paramount,20th century,wb and universal are still very strong.

 

[nytimez]

Only group I could see buying it are the Weinstein's they love to get under the mouses skin. After the miramax debacle I could see them buying it out of spite

Bear in mind that the filmmaker's goal from the beginning may not have been to get the film purchased or even distributed. If his goal was to get a lot of press and get what is apparently a buzz-worthy and technically well-made film seen by the right people, mission already accomplished.

 

[M.rudolf]

Bear in mind that the filmmaker's goal from the beginning may not have been to get the film purchased or even distributed. If his goal was to get a lot of press and get what is apparently a buzz-worthy and technically well-made film seen by the right people, mission already accomplished.

Wouldn't be the first time

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

exactly none of the above is true

Most major films have a variety of sources of financing, Disney is probably the only studio that can (or wants to) completely finance big blockbuster films on its own.

Though you might not know this, the big players at the major studios do talk to each other. I'm sure Uni would be happy to pass given that Potterland could have a film made there about the dark side of Harry's magic.

 

[nytimez]

Most major films have a variety of sources of financing

both obvious and true

Disney is probably the only studio that can (or wants to) completely finance big blockbuster films on its own.

not true

the big players at the major studios do talk to each other.

true (and obvious)

I'm sure Uni would be happy to pass given that Potterland could have a film made there about the dark side of Harry's magic.

not true - uni will pass, but not because they're worried about a Potterland film

you're batting .500 (in that post anyway) -- Hall of Fame numbers. Congrats.

 

[Lee]

The film maker did not hire somebody to dress up as Cinderella and be in his film, the castmember who did this was paid by Disney and I would say has no expectation of privacy given that she is videotaped dozens of times a day. If she didn't want to be filmed, then she should have told the filmaker, or perhaps everybody, not to film her.

If the film makes $100 million, and the Cinderella face character is a good chunk of this film, then she could file a lawsuit for compensation, I would guess, though the judge might say that she was just doing the job that Disney hired her to do and that the filmaker was allowed to "use" her free of charge for a brief scene, given that he did pay for an annual pass. In this case, I would guess that the hired actors/extras if there were any, would get the lion's share of profits, if any, as they are the meat of the film.

But here's the thing...
They couldn't use a face Cinderella as a main character in the film, that's obvious.
If they put a Cinderella face character in the film, that is instant copyright infringement. Disney owns that version of Cinderella. Same if they tried to use a Jack Sparrow character.
Also, as I posted before, the attractions themselves are copyrighted. One shot inside Small World....foul.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

But here's the thing...
They couldn't use a face Cinderella as a main character in the film, that's obvious.
If they put a Cinderella face character in the film, that is instant copyright infringement. Disney owns that version of Cinderella. Same if they tried to use a Jack Sparrow character.
Also, as I posted before, the attractions themselves are copyrighted. One shot inside Small World....foul.

Not true with regards to "instant copyright infringement", IMHO, as under "fair use", if Cindy isn't a major character in the film, but just incidental, then it is not copyright infringement, from what I can tell. If you shoot a documentary and you happen to eat at a McDonalds, and maybe Ronald pops up for a second, it isn't copyright infringement.

Secondly, you didn't address the issue of the First Amendment and the privileges enjoyed by parodies and criticism of major corporations.

Jack Sparrow was parodied in Epic Movie.

That pretty much invalidates your little hypothesis.

Check out the Epic Movie trailer (which came out 6 years ago) they even sing "We are the Pirates of the Caribbean!", and they got a Davy Jones.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Also, as I posted before, the attractions themselves are copyrighted. One shot inside Small World....foul.

I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.

The law isn't always simple black and white a lay person could understand, there are nuisances, and one of those nuisances regards how the attraction is used in the film. Is it a parody? Is it just backdrop? Or is the film relying solely on the attraction to sell it?

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

both obvious and true

not true

true (and obvious)

not true - uni will pass, but not because they're worried about a Potterland film

you're batting .500 (in that post anyway) -- Hall of Fame numbers. Congrats.

No where among these brief replies do I see the important information, such as the fact that Disney is the only major studio in the big 6 that finances all of their own movies. Other players often spread the risk for the big blockbusters, and even smaller sized projects to various entities.

You're opinion is that Uni will pass and that they won't consider a Potterland film in making this decision. Really!?! I would guess that Uni will consider their rules and regs regarding this issue that Disney has, it would only be prudent to do so. Potterland is a major draw, and they wouldn't want to lose the shine of this new land.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Where's @WDWFigment?

 

[Timekeeper]

I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.

The law isn't always simple black and white a lay person could understand, there are nuisances, and one of those nuisances regards how the attraction is used in the film. Is it a parody? Is it just backdrop? Or is the film relying solely on the attraction to sell it?

Exactly. At the end of the day, the issue becomes a balancing test of numerous variables. There's no black and white, right and wrong, bright line. Some people understand "fair use" to be much broader than it really is, and others think intellectual property ownership is much more restrictive than it really is. It's a case by case analysis, and to best of my knowledge, no one on this board has actually SEEN the film at issue.

On a side note, I would highly recommend the movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated."

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Exactly. At the end of the day, the issue becomes a balancing test of numerous variables. There's no black and white, right and wrong, bright line. Some people understand "fair use" to be much broader than it really is, and others think intellectual property ownership is much more restrictive than it really is. It's a case by case analysis, and to best of my knowledge, no one on this board has actually SEEN the film at issue.

On a side note, I would highly recommend the movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated."

Agree.

The fact that the film is critical of Disney is probably helpful to the legal case.

Case 1:

If I filmed a face character, or many face characters, at Disney Parks and made my own "Meet the Disney Princesses!" movie, that would be more along the lines of stealing intellectual property.

Case 2:

If I made a film of all the Disney princesses talking about how they are mistreated, behind the scenes, with onstage footage and interviews in their homes, that would be along the lines of protected under the First Amendment as I am not trying to make money off of intellectual property, but I am criticizing what Disney is doing.

 

[WDWFigment]

Where's @WDWFigment?

If I were Disney I'd be very cautious about pursuing this case through to conclusion because the result may set precedent in a way that's unfavorable to Disney. This is to say that Disney will probably file suit knowing that it has deeper pockets, and hoping to bury the project with the suit on file alone (and the prospect of the exorbitant legal fees it would cost for Moore and co. to defend).

Assuming the suit happens and for some reason is seen through to conclusion...

It's tough to say without having seen the movie, but I suspect the movie is safe from attack on the grounds of copyright.

I suspect the same from the perspective of Trademark, although it's a closer call there. There's no likelihood of confusion, so a court would turn to tarnishment/dilution. Recent cases suggest that satire and parody get you past tarnishment, but Disney might still be able to pitch a winning argument there.

 

[ebof1023]

how long is this movie showing for at the festival?very intrigued by it and once it stops its showings it could be leaked to the public somehow...http://www.escape-from-tomorrow.com/ as the link shows its coming soon, wether that was made before or after the showing i dont know but it could be a sign of things to come

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

If I were Disney I'd be very cautious about pursuing this case through to conclusion because the result may set precedent in a way that's unfavorable to Disney. This is to say that Disney will probably file suit knowing that it has deeper pockets, and hoping to bury the project with the suit on file alone (and the prospect of the exorbitant legal fees it would cost for Moore and co. to defend).

Assuming the suit happens and for some reason is seen through to conclusion...

It's tough to say without having seen the movie, but I suspect the movie is safe from attack on the grounds of copyright.

I suspect the same from the perspective of Trademark, although it's a closer call there. There's no likelihood of confusion, so a court would turn to tarnishment/dilution. Recent cases suggest that satire and parody get you past tarnishment, but Disney might still be able to pitch a winning argument there.

Disney princesses' specific images are probably trademarked, given they sure do appear on a lot of products. Not sure if Cindy is on the movie poster, or is used to sell the movie . . . and is a face character the same as the animated version stamped on consumer products like shampoo? What about the monorail? They are iconic of WDW, and on the movie poster I believe, . . . but they also zip around Las Vegas.

I think that Disney will also be concerned about First Amendment issues here, assuming there are some.

A judge's order might not apply to countries outside of the U.S., where the film could be distributed, and might attract the sort of attention a film needs to be successful.

 

[Lee]

Not true with regards to "instant copyright infringement", IMHO, as under "fair use", if Cindy isn't a major character in the film, but just incidental, then it is not copyright infringement, from what I can tell. If you shoot a documentary and you happen to eat at a McDonalds, and maybe Ronald pops up for a second, it isn't copyright infringement.

Secondly, you didn't address the issue of the First Amendment and the privileges enjoyed by parodies and and criticism of major corporations.

This film isn't a parody. Totally different issue if you're dealing with parody or documentary. That's where fair use comes in, I believe.

As for your McDonalds example, yes...if you're shooting a doc and Ronald walks through, that's fine.
But if you make a dramatic film set in McDonalds and use Ronald as a character...that's gonna be a problem.
As I understand it, some princesses figure prominently in the film. I don't see how that would be ok....

 

[PhotoDave219]

I'm sure you didn't get close enough to ask questions--I wouldn't have--but was there any sort of hint of an explanation how they got in? Other than clueless new security hires?

Oh I totally did stop and ask them what their deal was. They said "We just like the characters."

As for how the hell they got in? No idea. Why they weren't thrown out is beyond me as well.

 

[Lee]

I'm guessing you're not a lawyer.

The law isn't always simple black and white a lay person could understand, there are nuisances, and one of those nuisances regards how the attraction is used in the film. Is it a parody? Is it just backdrop? Or is the film relying solely on the attraction to sell it?

As I said above, parody is a different animal.
Wonder if the credits for Epic Movie make mention of Sparrow and others being "Used with permission" or such...

 

[PhotoDave219]

Nowhere on Disney ticket media does it state an independent filmmaker has the right to film me or my family on Disney property. Especially in a film with such disturbing subject matter. Who is to say the people in the film just on vacation don't get a lawyer and sue?

This gets in to the question of being in public & reasonable expectation of privacy while on private property as a few other things in media law.

As it currently stands, per the SCOTUS there is no reasonable expectation of privacy while in public on public property. (ie, public street, park, etc)

How that would pertain to the WDW resort is for the lawyers to sort out. IMO, you're at a theme park that averages 47k guest per day; that does not meet my standard for a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

This film isn't a parody. Totally different issue if you're dealing with parody or documentary. That's where fair use comes in, I believe.

As for your McDonalds example, yes...if you're shooting a doc and Ronald walks through, that's fine.
But if you make a dramatic film set in McDonalds and use Ronald as a character...that's gonna be a problem.
As I understand it, some princesses figure prominently in the film. I don't see how that would be ok....

I think the issue of fair use is separate from parody. And then there is the issue of satire and First Amendment. It seems that the film may have a satire/criticism angle to it, and hence isn't making money off of movie goers believing that the Cindy in the film is the character, instead of just an employee playing this character.

You're talking about making a film of Ronald where he is himself in the film and you put words in his mouth such that you are passing off a film as canon-McDonalds characters. Obvious IP theft.

You could make a dramatic film about a man who dresses up as Ronald for McDonalds, without getting into legal troubles, IMHO.