"Escape from Tomorrow" guerilla film shot inside WDW

[WDWFigment]

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.

I agree with you that WDW is pretty clearly a public place based upon past precedent (sports stadiums, which also charge admission, are public places) as far as expectation of privacy goes. I'm more interested in how a court would treat it in regard to 17 USC § 120. Trademark law in this area has been very unpredictable, but I'll bet most courts would find WDW is a public place as contemplated there, too. That would at least get the filmmakers past any hurdles concerning the architecture seen in the film...but not characters, etc.

Of course, a court doesn't even need to arrive at that issue if it finds that this film is exempted from the FTDA as satire. Satire and parody are clearly protected under a line of cases interpreting the FTDA, so the question is whether this film is satire of Walt Disney World/Disneyland, or if it's simply set at WDW/DLR?

Not having seen the movie, I can't answer that. Fun food for thought, though!

 

[celluloid]

I am not even terribly interested but oddly enough it has seemed to be the most interesting thing to come out of WDW property in the last decade or so.

And as far as the guy ogling at teenage girls making one feel uncomfortable(they are likely meant to represent eighteen but who knows) if you are feeling uncomfortable you should be. It is likely what the filmmakers intended. Not all art is supposed to constantly make you feel great about humanity. The lines of movie making have been bluring thinner and thinner between indie and pro. I am almost shocked it took this long.

 

[WDWFigment]

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.

Your post also points out something that is important for lay people to understand when discussing the law: just because a company has a certain practice, doesn't make that practice legally necessary.

There are a variety of names lawyers have for this, but it's basically a prophylactic measure to decrease the likelihood of being dragged into litigation.

It's often manifested in innocuous ways like those signs. Other times, it's manifested in legal departments taking overly conservative approaches that draw the ire of the public because they are stifling and/or create needless "red tape."

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Here is Jimmy's take on the subject.

* Many articles comment on how this film was shot illegaly on Disney property. Even the Director has made this statement. I doubt this film will see the light of day outside Sundance.

* The film is a comedy from the reviews I have read with a disturbing final act. That kinda blows the whole dark storytelling angle people are trying to portray out the water. It's also a B movie, right up there with Attack of the Killer Tomatos, The Toxic Avenger and Snakes on a Plane. But it really don't matter, outside of Sundance, this thing won't play at any theatre.

* When, not if, Disney decides to kill this film, it does nothing to Disney's reputation. Disney does not look bad, Disney does not look like the huge media giant stopping the little guy from trying to make art. The are just sensible business men/women protecting their intrests.

* Did I mention outside of Sundance this film won't see the light of day?

* Calling the filmmaker a genuis is really a absurd statement. Putting some guy who filmed a movie that will never see the light of day outside of Sundance beside people like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, George Washington Carver among others, is rather laughable. Ask yourself this question before calling someone a genuis. "Did someone create something more important than the modern toilet?". If the answer is no, then chances are calling them a genuis deserves to be flushed down that toilet.

* The only way this movie will be seen, if it can be seen outside of Sundance, is if the filmmaker decides to put it online for free. Disney will block it when/if it happens, so keep your Youtube fingers at the ready.

* I believe the whole thing was designed to draw attention to the filmmaker, who in my opinion knew this film would never see the light of day outside of Sundance.


And that, as they say in Hollywood, is a rap.

Jimmy Thick- /End

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

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.

Agree.

Yes, MK is private property, but if they didn't want anybody to film there then they could put up a big "Private Property Do Not Enter" sign up at the entrance. But obviously the parks are opened up as public spaces 365 days a year, (as somebody noted, different from public property), so while they make $$ off of it being a public place, such as a movie theatre, there are certain rules and general rights that the public has.

One thing Disney could do it make guests sign paperwork (or perhaps fine print on the ticket) which says that they will not photograph/videotape anything in the park for commercial profits. Though this might raise Frist Amendment and criticism/commentary issues, I think they could legally do this, and then try to use this to block a future film (if there is one). Would they do this? Risk angrying guests who don't intend to do the company harm but don't like that Disney is breathing down their necks? No way! They'd risk losing millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars due to bad publicity, to say nothing of actually approaching guests and asking them what they're doing with a camera!

Absent such agreement between guests and Disney, the general law applied and there doesn't seem to be an expectation of privacy. In the Cindy's case, she is a face character who photographed thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands? of times during her employment at Disney. She knows that she will be in countless family albums and home movies. I think the most she could do would be to file a lawsuit for some of the $, if any, that the film makes, but she isn't really acting, just doing her job. If I shoot a film where a guy drives a bus through a scene, and he's just doing his job as a bus driver for the city, is he also entitled to compensation just for briefly being in the film? Obviously her "role" might be bigger, but she still isn't a main character, IMHO, based on what I've seen.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Your post also points out something that is important for lay people to understand when discussing the law: just because a company has a certain practice, doesn't make that practice legally necessary.

There are a variety of names lawyers have for this, but it's basically a prophylactic measure to decrease the likelihood of being dragged into litigation.

It's often manifested in innocuous ways like those signs. Other times, it's manifested in legal departments taking overly conservative approaches that draw the ire of the public because they are stifling and/or create needless "red tape."

No doubt Disney has a Risk Management Department that looks at potential legal issues involving guests and employees and takes preventive measures.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Here is Jimmy's take on the subject.
* The film is a comedy from the reviews I have read with a disturbing final act. That kinda blows the whole dark storytelling angle people are trying to portray out the water. It's also a B movie, right up there with Attack of the Killer Tomatos, The Toxic Avenger and Snakes on a Plane. But it really don't matter, outside of Sundance, this thing won't play at any theatre.

* Did I mention outside of Sundance this film won't see the light of day?

* Calling the filmmaker a genuis is really a absurd statement. Putting some guy who filmed a movie that will never see the light of day outside of Sundance beside people like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, George Washington Carver among others, is rather laughable. Ask yourself this question before calling someone a genuis. "Did someone create something more important than the modern toilet?". If the answer is no, then chances are calling them a genuis deserves to be flushed down that toilet.

Comedy? Not sure I would agree, sounds closer to a tragedy, if you ask me, or check the definition - a dramatic composition, often in verse, dealing with a serious or somber theme, typically that of a great person destined through a flaw of character or conflict with some overpowering force, as fate or society, to downfall or destruction.

I think most of us agree, it won't see the light of day, if Disney's lawyers have anything to do with it.

Genius? No, certainly not in comparison to the others. Genius Filmmaker? Maybe. Perhaps Inventive, Creative, Innovative might be more appropriate. The techniques and coversion they used to film this were certainly creative enough that it warrants some accolades, given the conditions under which it was filmed.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Here is Jimmy's take on the subject.

* Many articles comment on how this film was shot illegaly on Disney property. Even the Director has made this statement. I doubt this film will see the light of day outside Sundance.

One article, the New Yorker, says Disney doesn't have legal ground, and many of the articles saying that Disney lawyers will have a field day are not written by those in the legal profession. Secondly, the director no doubt might want to say the film was produced "illegally", whatever that means in regards to whatever law, he may even think this is the case (instead of it being a marketing ploy), but a judge will decide what is and isn't legal, and the director may very well be wrong.

* Did I mention outside of Sundance this film won't see the light of day?

That's a little vague. There's the internet, foreign markets, perhaps editing out things that Disney can legally object to, as well as a long legal process. If Disney erects legal barriers to do such films in the future, the allure of this film goes up, as it would with any legal action.

* When, not if, Disney decides to kill this film, it does nothing to Disney's reputation. Disney does not look bad, Disney does not look like the huge media giant stopping the little guy from trying to make art. The are just sensible business men/women protecting their intrests.

I think that legal action could hurt Disney given that it could drive interest in the film, and it could attract unwanted comparisons to the film they are making in the park.

 

[flynnibus]

One thing Disney could do it make guests sign paperwork (or perhaps fine print on the ticket) which says that they will not photograph/videotape anything in the park for commercial profits

They don't need to - so this is superfluous.

Absent such agreement between guests and Disney, the general law applied and there doesn't seem to be an expectation of privacy. In the Cindy's case, she is a face character who photographed thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?

Cinderella example is not about the actor - but the intellectual property of Disney's character.

The actresses' likeness is not in play here.. it's the character she is portraying. The actress has already signed away her performance rights to Disney as part of her employment.

If I shoot a film where a guy drives a bus through a scene, and he's just doing his job as a bus driver for the city, is he also entitled to compensation just for briefly being in the film? Obviously her "role" might be bigger, but she still isn't a main character, IMHO, based on what I've seen.

It's not about their role - but about if their LIKENESS. Is the bus driver just visible as an unidentifiable person who happens to be driving a bus.. something that is common and does not identify or associate to that individual? Or is it a bus like no one else has.. and it's presence would immediately draw an association to a specific company or individual?

If you put a guitar playing, cowboy hat and boot wearing, half naked built guy in your shot walking around.. even if you never saw his face.. you'd be getting a call because you are infringing on the unquie, identifiable likeness established by the Naked Cowboy and he'd claim you are trying to use his likeness w/o permission.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Regardless of what WDWMagic members think of the film, this guy just made a name for himself... And that was his goal from the beginning... So, let's say Disney buys the film and buries it... Think he cares? He'll have his copy that can, oops, find its way onto the internet one way or another... He'll walk away with a check from Disney, so he gets paid for a movie all the critics here are bashing (mind you, none of you seen the movie yet LOL)... And he has now gained the attention of other movie studios... There is no such thing as negative press...

 

[muteki]

Surprised I heard a bit about this movie on NPR yesterday...apparently distributors are chomping at the bit to get this on more screens, but are leery of the legal situation of course.

* The only way this movie will be seen, if it can be seen outside of Sundance, is if the filmmaker decides to put it online for free. Disney will block it when/if it happens, so keep your Youtube fingers at the ready.

If/when this movie ever shows up online, there is nothing Disney can do to stop it. Once it has passed from one user to the next it will propagate indefinitely until everyone who wants to see it, has seen it.

 

[WondersOfLife]

Seems like something I wouldn't mind watching actually..

 

[Thurp]

One article, the New Yorker, says Disney doesn't have legal ground, and many of the articles saying that Disney lawyers will have a field day are not written by those in the legal profession. Secondly, the director no doubt might want to say the film was produced "illegally", whatever that means in regards to whatever law, he may even think this is the case (instead of it being a marketing ploy), but a judge will decide what is and isn't legal, and the director may very well be wrong.

They could unfortunately keep the director entangled with legal matters long enough to make him sign some kind of agreement or risk going broke.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Comedy? Not sure I would agree, sounds closer to a tragedy, if you ask me, or check the definition - a dramatic composition, often in verse, dealing with a serious or somber theme, typically that of a great person destined through a flaw of character or conflict with some overpowering force, as fate or society, to downfall or destruction.

A review from someone who has actually see the movie:

I absolutely loved the satirical humor in the first 2/3 of the movie. There were so many well-written scenes that really feel authentic to what a "not-so-magical" day at the "Happiest Place on Earth" is like. The film's final act is what will polarize audiences. You'll either love or hate the bizarre turn this takes. Even though this "line between fantasy and reality" is set up throughout the movie, it turns into something I personally found hard to enjoy. Not only could I not make heads or tails of the ending, it just stopped being funny and resorted to gross-out humor.

http://geektyrant.com/news/2013/1/2...scape-from-tomorrow-unauthorized-film-sh.html

Hardly sounds like a serious film, more like a B movie that has no direction.

Genius? No, certainly not in comparison to the others. Genius Filmmaker? Maybe. Perhaps Inventive, Creative, Innovative might be more appropriate. The techniques and coversion they used to film this were certainly creative enough that it warrants some accolades, given the conditions under which it was filmed.

Ouch, now you're putting this guy along the side of true filmmaking genuis like Welles, Spielburg, Griffith among others?

Come on, thats ridiculous.


Jimmy Thick- A month from now, no one will care about this movie, 100 years from now, they will still talk about Citizen Kane...

 

[Timekeeper]

For everyone suggesting that this film "won't see the light of day outside of Sundance," last I checked, state and federal laws do not contain a carvout for a "Sundance exception." The "potentially illegal" nature of the product sounds much more like a brilliant marketing ploy than a genuine legal concern. After all, it obviously worked in engaging our discussions. Publishing a film, albeit to the limited audiences at a film festival, is still publishing a film. There is simply no magic Sundance cloak of legal immunity. That would be like suggesting that a file sharing service like Napster (circa 1999) is illegal, except for members of the Mickey Mouse Club, who are magically free to use it. No dice.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Surprised I heard a bit about this movie on NPR yesterday...apparently distributors are chomping at the bit to get this on more screens, but are leery of the legal situation of course.



If/when this movie ever shows up online, there is nothing Disney can do to stop it. Once it has passed from one user to the next it will propagate indefinitely until everyone who wants to see it, has seen it.

No distributor will touch this film. I doubt even Trauma films will touch this. Thats as low as it gets.

If Disney files a injuction to surpress the film being shown, it won't be on Youtube. Youtube very good at taking stuff down on request.

Jimmy Thick- I'll click the report button myself.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

For everyone suggesting that this film "won't see the light of day outside of Sundance," last I checked, state and federal laws do not contain a carvout for a "Sundance exception." The "potentially illegal" nature of the product sounds much more like a brilliant marketing ploy than a genuine legal concern. After all, it obviously worked in engaging our discussions. Publishing a film, albeit to the limited audiences at a film festival, is still publishing a film. There is simply no magic Sundance cloak of legal immunity. That would be like suggesting that a file sharing service like Napster (circa 1999) is illegal, except for members of the Mickey Mouse Club, who are magically free to use it. No dice.

Where is Napster now?


Jimmy Thick- Bad analogy.

 

[flynnibus]

There is simply no magic Sundance cloak of legal immunity.

It's not that Sundance is immune - it's more about
1 - not repeating
2 - not being distributed

Disney didn't know about it previously - so it couldn't stop it before it happened. Additionally, nothing is going to stop the film explicitly until Disney takes court action. There is no criminal crime involved here, so it takes civil court action to file an injunction to stop it.

The comments are more about.. the film is unlikely to be picked up for distribution due to the legal cloud that hangs over it. Can the director go around and show it at festivals/showings himself? Sure.. until Disney files suit.

The damage is already done at Sundance.. there is no point in trying to force your nose in there. But if the director starts trying to show it elsewhere, Disney may try to intervene before it happens.

 

[Timekeeper]

If Disney is the cinematic giant that fanboys suggest it is (and to an extent I agree that Disney is at least one of the giants), then it's simply foolish to believe that Disney had no idea about the subject film until after it was published at a festival as famous as Sundance.

 

[fosse76]

Your post also points out something that is important for lay people to understand when discussing the law: just because a company has a certain practice, doesn't make that practice legally necessary.

There are a variety of names lawyers have for this, but it's basically a prophylactic measure to decrease the likelihood of being dragged into litigation.

It's often manifested in innocuous ways like those signs. Other times, it's manifested in legal departments taking overly conservative approaches that draw the ire of the public because they are stifling and/or create needless "red tape."

Exactly. Look at Weird Al Yankovich...he gets the rights to the songs he parodies long before he parodies them. There's an off-Broadway show called Forbidden Broadway that parodies the most popular shows on Broadway using music from Broadway shows or music associated with a particular performer. That show obtains the rights to the music first as well. It's not legally necessary, but it avoids expensive litigation that would prove it isn't legally necessary!