Disney could stop them from taking photos and bar them from the property... but Disney could not 'shut down' their use of their photos and video as long as they are used under purposes protected by fair use.
This is how Disney can stop a news crew from setting up in their park - but can't stop a news crew from showing footage obtained from within the park.
The other thing fansites could get a black eye from Disney is the use of IP in their names or graphics - because there they are typically using them outside the scope of fair use, and instead are using it for their own identities or promotion.
There are very important, distinct, differences in what a comment from Rob Alvery says, and how you are applying it here.
This thread sort of reminds me of the one regarding the urban explorer getting banned from WDW...I'll ask the same question here as I did there.
How is this different from people on fansites (like this one) posting pictures of construction sites? Are the people allowed to be taking over-the-wall photographs? Nope. Are they benefitting from them by posting them online? In a way, yes. Not to mention that this guy will probably not even receive a wide release for this film so we're all getting our panties in a wad for nothing.
Regarding using 'extras' without paying them, there are ways to blur them out...in post production the guy probably just focuses the action on his actors. But let's be serious, people are videotaping at Disneyland everyday, and they'll catch other guests in the action on accident, but no one freaks out by the thought of these videos being shown to the video-tapers' family or YouTube. There's really nothing wrong with that unless some of you are criminals who don't want to be caught on camera.
Look at it from a filmmaker's perspective. Film makers are poor, they often don't have the means to start off anywhere. This guy had an idea and only one way of making it happen. If his film tarnishes the Disney brand in any way (which I'm sure he knows it does), then it's not going to get released. The guy's probably fine with that. But he wanted to start somewhere. For those of you who have seen District 9, that started as a nine minute short by the same director...didn't get much of anywhere until Peter Jackson saw it, hired him to remake it with a bigger budget, and he did it right. The little home movie was a platform for the guy to get a legitimate career as a Hollywood filmmaker. If this film is any good, the guy will get picked up and get to make a legitimate movie and everyone can calmmm dowwnnnnn.
I say this to everyone else:
I am truely concerned with MCers being hypocritical. As a community, it looks bad on us. And it bothers me when so many MCers do it at once.
No matter what a coaster guru may or may not have said, and no matter who may or may not have heard the conversation w/ said guru even tho I know he wasn't there, :P and no matter the laws, and no matter who breaks big rules or little rules, us MCers rely on talents of ppl who go into the park to get us the best shots. And then they turn around to make money from us (ads and offers). My shots don't make money, your shots don't make money either. The newscasters on channel five don't make money on their shots b/c they haven't made any pics within the berm as a rule-of-thumb. Sorry everyone, making money off of a BTMRR construction pic that was never intended to be seen by the public is NOT fair-use.
No matter what buzz-words someone throws around ("fair use"), MC is not following this rule/law, nor are any of the other fansites. The sheer number of pics per week breaks the fair-use issue. We cannot condemn one style of guerilla art and praise another style of guerilla art on the basis of IP.
If someone doesn't like the idea of this guys creepy movie, don't see it. And certainly one shouldn't give him a leg-up in the film industry by posting several times on the topic by arguing the same points over and over again. I am not saying who so as to avoid an argument.
Ultimately, I refer readers to my first post on page four of this thread and I say, you just got sucked in! You may not want to see Moore's film, and you probably wont, but you may have just caused someone else to go see it. Is that everyone's intention here and maybe I just missed the memo???
Regarding the "why would you care about being on the film unless you're a criminal" argument - do you really think that's true? I have a friend who literally had to leave her state and change her name because she was in a domestic violence situation. If she were caught on film it could be dangerous for her for all sorts of reasons. Should she never be allowed to go in public because she might be filmed? She can avoid situations where filming is taking place if she KNOWS about them. Maybe some people don't want their children on tape in a film like this. Maybe some people don't want their images on film because they object to the film's content. They have the right to decide if they are going to be in a fictional film.
Could this aforementioned friend still get caught on camera in someone's personal YouTube video of the park? Sure, but it's probably far less likely to be seen than a film.
Being a poor starving artist is not an excuse for ethical breaches. LA is full of poor filmmakers who are working with one camera, volunteer crews, no filming permits, etc....who still manage to hire or recruit extras, give people the courtesy of letting them know they're being filmed for a movie, and compensate them in some way. The sad part about this is that if he'd put out a call for unpaid volunteer extras on craigslist he probably could have come up with a bunch of people who would have been happy to be in his film. But instead he decided to s***w over everyone who was in the park that day.Quote:
Look at it from a filmmaker's perspective. Film makers are poor, they often don't have the means to start off anywhere. This guy had an idea and only one way of making it happen. If his film tarnishes the Disney brand in any way (which I'm sure he knows it does), then it's not going to get released. The guy's probably fine with that. But he wanted to start somewhere.
This guy is trying to make his name off someone else's brand (Disney) and a lot of people who didn't consent to be a part of his work.
As to the whole issue of making money off photos of the park - a couple of points there.
1. Disney allows people to take photo/video for personal use, and doesn't have any ban or restriction on uploading it.
2. A photo of a construction wall/etc. is depicting something as it is - ie, news reporting or documentation. It's not showing a fictional construct.
3. Technically, Disney would be within their legal rights to shut down the videos on YouTube that show the rides, the ride music, etc. They don't, which shows they that have some tolerance. Again, though, a ride video is depicting the ride as it is - it's not adding something fictional or distorting the ride.
4. As such, those videos do provide the sort of free advertising Disney actually likes.
If someone were to, say, start selling a DVD of their ride videos I'm sure Disney would swoop right down on it.
There's nothing inconsistent about that - Disney seems to be fine with things that don't distort their brand, and personal account of experiences in the park. They don't seem to be fine with things that violate their rules, exploit their guests and distort the brand. That's pretty much in line with every company.
So, to recap:
Some new construction at Disneyland (this is fine)
In the background of this image from my upcoming film you'll see some of the treacherous villains! (this is morally repugnant)
Really, I hope that guy in the blue shirt is okay with his image being used here... Fishbulb may have put him in serious danger by putting this image on the internet!