Ok, I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend with the criminal comment and I'm sorry about your friend. But like the post above me points out, how is this different than a picture from Fishbulb that has guests in it? I don't see any, especially when this is a video meant to display a person's talents as a storyteller and cinematographer, not as a way to aggressively take down Disney or make anyone upset.It's been discussed over and over again what the differences are. There's a distinct difference between being part of a nonfiction/news/documentation video and being part of someone's fictional, artistic creation. People have a right to decide if they want to be part of the latter.
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.
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.