"Escape from Tomorrow" movie filmed in Disneyland secretly

[Malina]

No, it doesn't. Artists have been pushing the boundaries of law since the beginning of structured society as we know it.

And when they've hurt other people in the process, they've rightfully been held accountable for their actions. Being an artist doesn't put you above the law - nor does it put you above the obligation to behave ethically. And the vast majority of creative types including those doing wonderful out of the box things have no issue with that.

Maybe it's something greater than law: being decent to other human beings on the planet with you and treating them fairly and ethically.

Frankly, if your fame hinges on how much you can get away with using people and doing things undercover - instead of the actual content of your work - you're not much of an artist. You're just someone who knows how to exploit others instead of doing the work yourself.

If this guy were truly creative he would have figured out how to portray Disneyland and use a consenting film crew without exploiting anyone else. Like hopping on a plane to Nara Dreamland or renting another park, and getting some eager acting school students - who would have happily CONSENTED to work for free - as extras. With a million dollar budget he could have done that. This guy is getting recognition because of how he made the film; not what's in it.

[DownwiththeTide]

If this guy were truly creative he would have figured out how to portray Disneyland and use a consenting film crew without exploiting anyone else.

Creativity, like Art, is subjective. Maybe the film makers greatest talent is the ability to use consenting film crew under the guise of exploiting regular Disney patrons and employees.

This whole thread is rabid with speculation of individuals who haven't seen the film.

Much ado about nothing...

[Malina]

Creativity, like Art, is subjective. Maybe the film makers greatest talent is the ability to use consenting film crew under the guise of exploiting regular Disney patrons and employees.

This whole thread is rabid with speculation of individuals who haven't seen the film.

Much ado about nothing...

If it turns out that every single person in the film, down to the background, is a paid employee who was signed to an NDA to keep the ruse up, I'll be happy to rescind what I said.

In the meantime, while art is subjective there's no way to justify what this guy did...and truly creative people DO find ways to get what they need without hurting others. That is, if your ethics and decency trump your desire to go the cheap, easy way.

[DownwiththeTide]

In the meantime, while art is subjective there's no way to justify what this guy did...and truly creative people DO find ways to get what they need without hurting others. That is, if your ethics and decency trump your desire to go the cheap, easy way.

"What this guy did"....What did this guy do? Have you seen the film? Do you have any facts of where extras, paid or unpaid were used? Or are you just contributing to the collective speculation?

There are a great many things to be upset about in this life, but the inconsequential use of actors that may, or may not be paid, in a movie that that was barely recognized, in a sea of hundreds of films, in one of many world film festivals....Not a big deal.

I am guessing that in a short time, the biggest discussion of "Escape from Tomorrow" will be this thread right here...

[Erik Olson]

"What this guy did"....What did this guy do? Have you seen the film? Do you have any facts of where extras, paid or unpaid were used? Or are you just contributing to the collective speculation?

There are a great many things to be upset about in this life, but the inconsequential use of actors that may, or may not be paid, in a movie that that was barely recognized, in a sea of hundreds of films, in one of many world film festivals....Not a big deal.

I am guessing that in a short time, the biggest discussion of "Escape from Tomorrow" will be this thread right here...

What the filmmakers did is clear from their own statements. They take pride in the fact that they stole their movie and have made a point of pushing that fact front and center in their marketing play.

Everyone has the right to express an opinion, but that doesn't mean they're informed about the legalities of what happened in this case.

Those who profess that there is no difference between Disney's guest agreement, which grants the company certain rights to use your image in association with the parks, and a commercial interest, conducted on the sly by a third party, who had no consent or license from the Disney company to do so, are simply wrong in their assumptions.

You can't argue for the rights of a "disenfranchised, starving artist" and ignore the IP and personal infringements against the company, unwitting guests and cast members caught-up in the ruse and win the argument.

To everyone rushing to the filmmaker's aid, you should take into consideration the possible damage done to Disney and the infringements on the rights of innocent people, who have reasonable knowledge and expectation that they will show up in home videos and pictures taken by guests and within ride photos taken by Disney, but certainly would be surprised to find that their image was taken surrepticiously for explicitly commercial purposes by someone who should never have been in the park in the first place.

[calsig31]

"What this guy did"....What did this guy do? Have you seen the film? Do you have any facts of where extras, paid or unpaid were used? Or are you just contributing to the collective speculation?

Additional facts are not needed when there has been an admission of such actions by both the slimey filmmaker and his lead actor.

There are a great many things to be upset about in this life, but the inconsequential use of actors that may, or may not be paid, in a movie that that was barely recognized, in a sea of hundreds of films, in one of many world film festivals....Not a big deal.

While some people may not take IP theft or invasion of privacy seriously, there are those of us who take such things very seriously.

[TylerDurden]

Based on one viewer's perspective. A viewer who did not know these and was only watching the film once. That doesn't rule out these people being recognized by someone who does know them, someone watching the film for a second time, or someone who can pick up facial characteristics faster than this viewer did.

A. The lead actor and the filmmaker both confirmed that they interacted on film with workers without informing them or getting their consent.

B. We don't know what "cast members" are listed on IMDB or what roll they have.

Nothing was ruled out by the IMDB listing. Therefore, there is still plenty to argue about.

So this post is supposed to hold more credence over that of a person who's actually seen the film and is continually defending it with more knowledge of it than you..? Not buying it. Oh, by the way...

A) Have you heard of an editing room?

B) Have you not been reading bwillard's posts?

[TylerDurden]

What the filmmakers did is clear from their own statements. They take pride in the fact that they stole their movie and have made a point of pushing that fact front and center in their marketing play.

Everyone has the right to express an opinion, but that doesn't mean they're informed about the legalities of what happened in this case.

Those who profess that there is no difference between Disney's guest agreement, which grants the company certain rights to use your image in association with the parks, and a commercial interest, conducted on the sly by a third party, who had no consent or license from the Disney company to do so, are simply wrong in their assumptions.

You can't argue for the rights of a "disenfranchised, starving artist" and ignore the IP and personal infringements against the company, unwitting guests and cast members caught-up in the ruse and win the argument.

To everyone rushing to the filmmaker's aid, you should take into consideration the possible damage done to Disney and the infringements on the rights of innocent people, who have reasonable knowledge and expectation that they will show up in home videos and pictures taken by guests and within ride photos taken by Disney, but certainly would be surprised to find that their image was taken surrepticiously for explicitly commercial purposes by someone who should never have been in the park in the first place.

No, there's definitely a difference, but the point is the same. The argument is that people don't want to be photographed. That's reasonable, the problem is that they are getting photographed every day! Not only by Disney's security cameras and ride photos, but by people video-taping their vacation or columnists for this very website!

If I ride Splash Mountain, and the person in front of me buys the ride picture, Disney has made a profit off of my image. How is this more wrong? Because it says it's allowed on a ticket? So what? The principle is the same.

And how about if speculators take photos of construction in the park and I'm in the shot. I give the shot credibility, because I make it seem like a real day in the park with legitimate crowds...this person has benefitted from my image so how is that not the same? I have yet to see an argument that explains this because in the end, it is a commercial profit.

And finally, the family video...they put that on YouTube and get lots of subscribers, but the guy videotaping asked me a question and I made it on YouTube...he benefitted from me by getting views, should I be mad at him too?

Oh, and my favorite argument of all is....​only one person has actually seen it.


If you go to Disneyland, you're gonna be in pictures, and there's no reason to say that the filmmaker had no right to be there because he does. The problem is that this is a sue-happy society who takes fine print over common sense and bends the rules to get them money. If you don't want to be photographed, don't go to Disneyland. If you don't want to be photographed by a certain person because the rules say he can't and you can get him in trouble by ratting him out, then you really don't mind being photographed, you just have sour grapes.

[Erik Olson]

Tyler,

It is completely different. If you don't agree, consult an entertainment, corporate or IP attorney, who will explain it to you.

Disney provides peep holes for guests to look into construction areas and, by doing so, invites photography. It is implied that this is acceptable behavior. Your argument extends beyond the pale by taking this concession and saying that trespassing into the defunct Skyway station to snap photos is acceptable by extension.

You may feign outrage over that comparison, but it is precisely the same thing.

No amount of speculation, even by someone who has seen the movie, will negate Disney's (and those who appear on-screen in the filmmaker's work) right to claim trespass, infringement and tarnishment of their identity and / or brand(s).

It is a legal fact and the filmmaker knew all of these things and rolled the dice anyway.

[TylerDurden]

Tyler,

It is completely different. If you don't agree, consult an entertainment, corporate or IP attorney, who will explain it to you.

I understand the rules. Maybe you can explain to me how the principle of having your image displayed in public is different between a filmmaker (who isn't even distributing this for money and as was said before was picked up by Sundance in a sort of surprise move) and any YouTube videotapers, or Disney themselves. Please explain to me why you're more comfortable with someone else using your image to put up for the whole world to see, but not a filmmaker who will show it to comparatively fewer people.

[Erik Olson]

It has nothing to do with my comfort. This is about the law as it pertains to business.

[StevenW]

While some people may not take IP theft or invasion of privacy seriously, there are those of us who take such things very seriously.

Except when Disney does it. I don't care if Disney thinks it has a right to your image since you're in the park. If Disney misuses or exploits a guest's image, they will have to account for their actions.

Awhile back, they had some marketing campaigns when they asks guests to submit their photos to Disney for use in some shows and photo canvas'. It appears that Disney didn't use their vast database of photos from their photographers. So even Disney recognizes the limitations of their own use of guest photos. They had to get the explicit permission of guests.

Whatever rights you think Disney has based on their terms and conditions via the ticket policy, the guests have rights to control their image.

[Mr Wiggins]

It is a legal fact and the filmmaker knew all of these things and rolled the dice anyway.

Exactly. I think one of the positives in favor of prosecuting Moore is that it will likely come out he didn't take a gamble, he chose to punk Disney deliberately -- that his film wasn't the pursuit of a story, but a staged stunt designed to deliver a decade-long loser the publicity he seeks. If Disney's lawyers shake this guy's tree, the incriminating information that falls out about the conception and pre-production phases of his film could make his current self-incriminating interviews look like a kiddie show.

Moore is profiting by playing the outlaw. He is playing the media and the public for the same suckers that he played Disney and its guests in the shooting of his film. Disney's legal department should oblige him in his quest for notoriety, by all means.

[Erik Olson]

Mr. Wiggins,

Noticed you quoted Neil's book on Disney, which should be required reading for anyone on this forum. It was a compelling and, at times, tough read. One of my favorite biographies.

[TylerDurden]

Exactly. I think one of the positives in favor of prosecuting Moore is that it will likely come out he didn't take a gamble, he chose to punk Disney deliberately -- that his film wasn't the pursuit of a story, but a staged stunt designed to deliver a decade-long loser the publicity he seeks. If Disney's lawyers shake this guy's tree, the incriminating information that falls out about the conception and pre-production phases of his film could make his current self-incriminating interviews look like a kiddie show.

Moore is profiting by playing the outlaw. He is playing the media and the public for the same suckers that he played Disney and its guests in the shooting of his film. Disney's legal department should oblige him in his quest for notoriety, by all means.

How is he profiting? Sundance does not pay to have films entered, and this film has not gotten any sort of release yet. As a matter of fact, guests who put their ride POVs on YouTube are benefitting more, as their videos are more public, break explicit rules, and gain such people subscribers.

Honestly, them prosecuting him would be more trouble for them than it's worth, because the film will always exist, and attention brought to the guy will mean more publicity for his movie.