"Escape from Tomorrow" guerilla film shot inside WDW

[Lee]

I agree that Disney could do something, just not any individuals that happened to get caught on camera. My point was there is no breach of individuals rights.

Still unclear.
I've tried to track down a definitive answer, with no luck. Everywhere I've looked seems to say that releases or posted disclaimers are required.
That's on public property. Disney may be different.
Also, there are different rules for film and photography, commercial or private use.

We need a lawyer for this...

 

[Rivers Rowe]

Lets talk about the Marvel contract at Universal, millions of "lawyers" show up then.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Lets talk about the Marvel contract at Universal, millions of "lawyers" show up then.

****golf clap*****
Nicely played.

 

[unkadug]

Lets talk about the Marvel contract at Universal, millions of "lawyers" show up then.

Perhaps we could film it and put it on YouTube!

I bet we'd get some responses then.

 

[c-one]

2 thoughts on this. First. I would never want to be an unknowing "extra" in this film- I don't mind the type of movie it appears to be, but would in no way want my family to be in the background of this or other commercial product without permission. Second. Copycats may try to do more of this type of guerrilla filming leading to 1-upmanship etc. to the point where people are trying to do dangerous stunts, interfere with other guests, or damaging property. It's all fun until someone gets hurt-and then Disney winds up paying.

Now imagine how many family photo albums/stock footage/surveillance camera shots you've been an unknowing "extra" in!

 

[c-one]

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?

Not how it works I'm afraid. WDW is private property but as a quasi-public place, the law would likely find you have no reasonable expectation to privacy.

 

[EpcotTraveler]

Still not as cool as Mesa Verde Times
http://mesaverdetimes.blogspot.com

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Which is fine, since they aren't being released commercially.

You don't know that is the case for all such videos shot in the parks. Doubtlessly some are on YouTube making their creators some money. I know of one YouTube channel which makes $ off of Disney related material.

You might want to read the New Yorker article which interestingly claims that Disney might not have a legal leg to stand on:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...-use.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

 

[MissM]

Not sure...
Isn't there supposed to be a sign or something to warn guests of such things. Something like...

I can tell you that I've seen this kind of sign done specifically before. I was working at an event that was being filmed as part of a documentary. The event was held at a privately owned but open-to-the-public location. (By which I mean a place like a bar or restaurant.) They had LARGE signs and disclaimers stating that by entering you were forever agreeing to participate in the filming. Those of us who were interviewed or who would specifically have to speak to/for the camera also had to sign more in-depth releases. But everyone was notified via sign that filming was being done and that they were waiving any rights.

Though I am in no way an expert of any kind, it would seem like any commercial filming, whether done on public or private property, is supposed to notify people with such a sign that they may be included in the commercial film product. I think in this instance, that's probably quite secondary though to the fact they didn't have Disney's authorization to film in the first place.

All that said, I'd be interested to see the film for the curiosity factor of a movie shot illegally on property.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Whether it's "right" or "wrong," as a story element, lest we not forget about the success and critical acclaim of American Beauty.

Or Lolita...

 

[Timekeeper]

This is the way I understand it.

You are out in public...there is no expectation of privacy unless you were in a restroom, dressing area or a phone booth (or to some degree... inside your automobile.) By walking outside you give up your right of expectation of privacy.

Yup. This is exactly why the numerous girls who sued after discovering that their "party behavior" was featured in the popular GGW video series have repeatedly lost in court, with the exception of very specific issues pertaining to the elicit exploitation of minors.

Just think of filmmakers like Michael Moore or Sacha Baron Cohen who feature people who specifically DO NOT want to participate in the film. Fair game.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Still unclear.
I've tried to track down a definitive answer, with no luck. Everywhere I've looked seems to say that releases or posted disclaimers are required.
That's on public property. Disney may be different.
Also, there are different rules for film and photography, commercial or private use.

We need a lawyer for this...

Releases are often given to actors and extras (who are paid for work), and will limit how much these people will be paid under various scenarios of the film's success. These are important documents for both filmakers and actors as without them there would be a ton of lawsuits. Doubtlessly, the filmaker and actors negotiated releases/contracts for this film.

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.

Most of the time releases/contracts are meant to stop actors from getting more $ should a film do blockbuster business.

 

[M.rudolf]

Still unclear.
I've tried to track down a definitive answer, with no luck. Everywhere I've looked seems to say that releases or posted disclaimers are required.
That's on public property. Disney may be different.
Also, there are different rules for film and photography, commercial or private use.

We need a lawyer for this...

Disney is private property, not all filming requires extras to sign disclaimers. Fair use will protect the director somewhat, but it also depends on how the case is presented. There are numerous ways disney could block release and this could be a case that sets a new precedent. In disneys best interests they'll more than likely buy the film and bury it. It hasn't been purchased yet so that's still a possibility.
Remember all disney has to do is file with a reasonable complaint for the release to be blocked

 

[NX2I85]

Men shouldn't ogle underage girls anywhere... it's odd you would even think that's amusing.

That is exactly what turned me against this movie. I saw a preview/clip for it a few days ago, and the key moment was a guy in a hot tub ogling teenage girls. Not knowing the plot, I have zero interest in seeing a Lolita sequel set in Disney World.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Though I am in no way an expert of any kind, it would seem like any commercial filming, whether done on public or private property, is supposed to notify people with such a sign that they may be included in the commercial film product. I think in this instance, that's probably quite secondary though to the fact they didn't have Disney's authorization to film in the first place.

All that said, I'd be interested to see the film for the curiosity factor of a movie shot illegally on property.

Disney has deep pockets, and the reason they announce filming on property, such as for the Christmas parade filming, is that they don't want a guest to file a lawsuit (which may be quite unsuccessful), so they try to get guests think that they can't file a lawsuit. Yeah, Disney usually wins, but it is better to not to have to hire the lawyers in the first place.

Local news stations often setup cameras at public, and private places that are attracting big crowds, and film without getting the release of every little person in the background. The big news networks try to catch folks for interviews and release video of the door being slammed in their face on private property while somebody whines "this is private property you can't film here!"

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Disney is private property, not all filming requires extras to sign disclaimers. Fair use will protect the director somewhat, but it also depends on how the case is presented. There are numerous ways disney could block release and this could be a case that sets a new precedent. In disneys best interests they'll more than likely buy the film and bury it. It hasn't been purchased yet so that's still a possibility.
Remember all disney has to do is file with a reasonable complaint for the release to be blocked

They might try that route, though that might well generate just the publicity they hope to avoid. The headlines would be awful for the company, "DISNEY FILES LAWSUIT TO STOP FILM SHOT INSIDE DISNEY PARKS FROM BEING SHOWN." Sounds very much like Disney would be trying to cover something up . . . something very un-Disney happening at the theme parks.

Most folks outside of those of us on these message boards probably wouldn't care to see the film.

 

[M.rudolf]

They might try that route, though that might well generate just the publicity they hope to avoid. The headlines would be awful for the company, "DISNEY FILES LAWSUIT TO STOP FILM SHOT INSIDE DISNEY PARKS FROM BEING SHOWN." Sounds very much like Disney would be trying to cover something up . . . something very un-Disney happening at the theme parks.

Most folks outside of those of us on these message boards probably wouldn't care to see the film.

I agree whole heartedly, just a possibility. I really think they'll buy the film. Or present a case using something not used under normal circumstances.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I agree whole heartedly, just a possibility. I really think they'll buy the film. Or present a case using something not used under normal circumstances.

Disney legal is very, very aggressive. At least when it comes to guests filing lawsuits over injuries and such. They might buy the film, or put out the word that nobody should buy the film, so to speak. Disney is the number one studio in Hollywood, and probably the only film studio that can still completely finance their own films. I can't see a major player buying the film. Why p.o. the big gorilla in the room when you might want to leave Uni/WB and work for Disney one day?

Though obviously this film may give other indie film makers some ideas and they might want to set a precedent, even if it means a messy legal battle.

 

[nytimez]

put out the word that nobody should buy the film, so to speak. Disney is the number one studio in Hollywood, and probably the only film studio that can still completely finance their own films.

exactly none of the above is true

 

[M.rudolf]

Disney legal is very, very aggressive. At least when it comes to guests filing lawsuits over injuries and such. They might buy the film, or put out the word that nobody should buy the film, so to speak. Disney is the number one studios, and probably the only film studio that can completely finance their own films. I can't see a major player buying the film. Why p.o. the big gorilla in the room when you might want to leave Uni/WB and work for Disney one day?

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