-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
"Escape from Tomorrow" guerilla film shot inside WDW
- Thread starter c-one
- Start date
Pixiedustmaker
Well-Known Member
As per the article in the New Yorker,
"As commentary on the social ideals of Disney World, it seems to clearly fall within a well-recognized category of fair use, and therefore probably will not be stopped by a court using copyright or trademark laws"
nytimez
Well-Known Member
Wow. You actually made another reasonable point. Congrats again.
It's absolutely true criticism is protected. But as @PhotoDave219 points out, this will ultimately be for lawyers and possibly courts to sort out. There is simply no way anyone in this thread can say for sure how this will turn out. The commercial element is the wild card.
So, it's a little silly to argue this from any definitive POV.
jl3283
Active Member
Wait. I've seen grown men ogle over underage girls almost everytime I've gone to the parks and I'm there every other weekend with friends. I've seen men ogle over other men everytime I've gone to the parks. There's that site that admires them. The point is, this is everyday life that happens without you knowing. So, as long as you don't know about it, it won't bother you. Everyone minds their own business & goes about their day. These are actors in this movie, they are acting. It's no different than Kevin Spacey hooking up with Mena Suvari in American beauty, which was fine art & a great film. I'm not for the underage thing, but it's just a movie & part of the storyline. Controversy sells & this man is a genius for how he was able to film the movie.
magicallactose
Well-Known Member
Well, yes. That would be lumped into the 'descent-into-madness' bit I was referring to. I've always enjoyed movies in which a character discovers that his surroundings are not at all what they seem, that the trappings of normalcy he usually finds comfort in have become distorted and unwelcoming. (Which is why I like the layered madness of Lynch movies so much). As a kid I loved 'portal' tales, like Narnia and Alice in Wonderland, in which characters slip into alternate dimensions. I think my fascination with 'descent-into-madness' movies is really an extension of that. Except, in movies like Fear and Loathing In Los Vegas, Mulholland Drive, and (perhaps) Escaping Tomorrow, the portal is something as simple as the line between sanity and insanity.
And if you were asking if I am sexually interested in the idea of Disney Princesses as hookers. No. I am a gay male, and that doesn't turn my crank. But I'm hoping we also find out Aladdin is a gigolo. He is the Hottest Disney Cartoon EVER!
WDWFigment
Well-Known Member
You've hit upon an interesting wrinkle of this that I think will ultimately become a significant issue: whether the theme parks within Walt Disney World are "public places." To my knowledge, there are no on-point cases concerning this, but as you point out, there are similar cases.
Before anyone contends that they're not public places because they're private property, there is a legal distinction between public property and a public place.
tahqa
Well-Known Member
It seems that this is (in some reviewers opinions) a mediocre movie that only gets notice because of the guerrilla film-making and from taking on Disney. It'll probably not get a wide-release and will probably be forgotten in a couple of months. 
http://social.entertainment.msn.com...spx?post=5ece3014-a667-45b5-9511-b43c42af7015
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/sundance-2013-review-escape-from-tomorrow-alori.php
http://social.entertainment.msn.com...spx?post=5ece3014-a667-45b5-9511-b43c42af7015
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/reviews/sundance-2013-review-escape-from-tomorrow-alori.php
wdw71fan
Well-Known Member
This is similar (albeit different) to the Adam the Woo issue...
Private property... You aren't allowed to photograph or video anything with the intent to distribute or profit from those materials without the express permission of the Walt Disney company.
for that matter, it's a slippery slope.. Fan sites all over the web would be in deep doo-doo if Disney ever started cracking down on it.
Private property... You aren't allowed to photograph or video anything with the intent to distribute or profit from those materials without the express permission of the Walt Disney company.
for that matter, it's a slippery slope.. Fan sites all over the web would be in deep doo-doo if Disney ever started cracking down on it.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Releases are used to avoid any conflicts and to ensure people have 'agreed' to their zero compensation. So no one comes back afterwards and challenges the assumed rights. To avoid 'I didn't know.. blah blah blah' - people are just cautious. They may also grant use of someone's likeness (more on likeness in a minute..). From there, if you are out in public, you are fair game to be photographed or videotaped.
What you do control regardless of where the video/photos were captured is the use of your LIKENESS. Known as 'right of publicity'. Basically, you own and control your likeness aka.. makes up your identity and makes you noticable.
An example: you may be able to take a photo of Tom Cruise while he walks through the airport.. you own that photo, its copyright, and you may legitimately sell it, publish it, or whatever without Tom Cruise's permission. But what you can't do, is take that photo, and use the image of Tom Cruise to infer some sort of endorsement, promotion, or otherwise infer Tom Cruise's support or participation.
The 'identity' of Tom Cruise.. is his own intellectual property. While you may capture it freely, you may not 'apply' it freely without his permission. Likeness also applies to other identifiable traits such as a distinguishable voice.
So in a situation like this.. when someone is just moving around in the background.. and would not be seen enough to stand out and infer some sort of explicit participation or support.. they'd argue they were not using your likeness at all and you were just captured while out in a public place.
The other dimension here is that this is private property - and Disney has the right to control filming there. Nevermind if there are any county/st ordinances on commercial film making in terms of permits required.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Someone invested nearly a million dollars in the film... they probably want to at least recoup some of that.
flynnibus
Premium Member
This isn't just a blue/white/silver blog moving through the background.. but if they actually film her to the point she is recognizable and an intentional part of the shot.. then they'd have basis.
Even from the get go.. the use of WDW as the setting for the film.. without Disney's permission.. is an immediate problem. They are using WDW and it's image, it's likeness, to promote and infer endorsement/participation. That alone is infringing on the company's intellectual property.
'Fair Use' as well defined applications - and making an independent, entertainment film, is alone not protected under fair use. They aren't using parody here so your other examples are bunkus.
flynnibus
Premium Member
If he is dressed to be associated as Ronald.. and people would confuse him Ronald.. it doesn't matter if you dressed up a hobo instead of a McDonalds employee.. you are trying to represent and use the McDonald's created and owned intellectual property.
wdw71fan
Well-Known Member
flynnibus
Premium Member
I don't think so.. there is a world of difference between what this guy did and what every family, blogger, or individual does in the park. There really isn't any new presedence to set here IMO.
What is most at risk is.. Disney asking themselves 'how did we let this happen?' - and how they treat people with cameras in the park. That is where we stand to lose the most... Disney trying to enforce existing limits with more stingy oversight.
Exactly. And Disney World is a place of public accomodation: private property that anyone can be on under conditions determined by the owner in compliance with laws regulating such places. So while Disney World is private property and can determine its own rules and procedures, it is no less a public place. As such, there is no expectation of privacy. There is also no law that prohibits the filming of people (in a public place) without their permission. The signs for filiming are set-up in public spaces to warn people that they will not be compensated if they are caught on film. It's nothing more than a deterrent for people who would purposefully try to get in a film and then later make a claim for compensation. The only real claim Disney may have revolves around trademark. And that might not even be a claim (since I haven't seen the movie I have no idea what is shown). Of course, Disney can ban those who were on property and violated their policies, but they don't have any other type of legal recourse.
It might make Disney more weary of people who are filming with video cameras, but I doubt they will issue a complete ban.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Tim Wu (Columbia Law) who wrote that NYTimes piece claims the whole thing is under fair use because the story itself is a "commentary on the social ideals of Disney World"
I think that's crap IMO - but he is a law professor and pretty famous one at that. But he's also pretty dang liberal in his interpretation of things in general.
Disney could easily bury them in legal tie-ups.. but I bet they will just weather this storm.. wait for it to go away.. and if the group makes any moves to sell the distribution, then Disney will approach them.
The biggest fallout could be how Disney handles cameras in the parks
Photogs already complain about harassment at times.. imagine how bad this could get if Disney got overzealous.
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
This is the most accurate statement thus far...
hsisthebest
Well-Known Member
I know we have been in other peoples' photos- we even acknowledge it when walking next to people having their picture taken- this is different though, people will be making money off this project (one way or another) and we would not be compensated while at the same time being associated, even implicitly, with the production by being in the final product.Now imagine how many family photo albums/stock footage/surveillance camera shots you've been an unknowing "extra" in!