"Escape from Tomorrow" movie filmed in Disneyland secretly

[Erik Olson]

The parks rule for photography states, "Photography, videotaping, recording of any kind, broadcast or transmission for commercial purposes [is prohibited]."

There could be a blurring of the lines if Disney were able to prove that parties posting to social media, in blogs or on video sites like YouTube or Vimeo were being directly compensated for those assets.

The Park Rules and Regulations clearly state, with respect to Disney's use of your image, taken within their property, "We may photograph, film, videotape, record or otherwise reproduce the image and/or voice of any person who enters the Park and use the same for any purpose without payment to any person."

This stuff is quite clear.

As far as whether the filmmaker has been monetized through the work, that may not be important unless Disney wants to recover damages. Their greater interest may be to simply exert enough legal pressure on the producer(s) to bury the film under the very threat of litigation, which is entirely within their rights.

[TylerDurden]

The parks rule for photography states, "Photography, videotaping, recording of any kind, broadcast or transmission for commercial purposes [is prohibited]."

There could be a blurring of the lines if Disney were able to prove that parties posting to social media, in blogs or on video sites like YouTube or Vimeo were being directly compensated for those assets.

The Park Rules and Regulations clearly state, with respect to Disney's use of your image, taken within their property, "We may photograph, film, videotape, record or otherwise reproduce the image and/or voice of any person who enters the Park and use the same for any purpose without payment to any person."

This stuff is quite clear.

As far as whether the filmmaker has been monetized through the work, that may not be important unless Disney wants to recover damages. Their greater interest may be to simply exert enough legal pressure on the producer(s) to bury the film under the very threat of litigation, which is entirely within their rights.

Again, I'm not unclear about the rules, but unclear as to how (after it has been said that besides the main characters, there are no visible and discernible extras in the movie) that people are ok with having their image stored by Disney or a family video-camera, but not a small filmmaker. Basically, all I'm getting out of your posts is not that you're actually bothered by having your image taken, but by the fact that this guy broke Disney's rules. If that's the case, that's Disney's problem, not yours. But the thing is, they probably won't nab him because like I said before, this is a demonstration of talent, not an exercise in brand defamation.

[StevenW]

Here's an interesting article. Disney never went after anyone although they could theoretically go after someone for violating their copyrights.

Legal limbo: Disney could go after you for posting vacation videos online - DailyFinance

I could find no example of such a lawsuit so far, probably because few people would think that defending their free Web upload rights would be worth the legal bills. Typically, the first step of such a dispute would be for a copyright holder to contact the Website hosting any offending video and demand its removal, and as soon as that happens, the hosted copies of the vacation video are usually deleted.

Until the big theme parks address this legal gray area, be warned that your home movies of the Enchanted Tiki Room are uploaded at your own risk, and they could theoretically result in your facing down the barrel of some corporate weaponry -- or at the very least, seeing your vacation videos erased by YouTube on the basis of no clearly stated set of guidelines. Without a clear policy in place, Disney could be justified in requesting the removal of all them tomorrow.

Until Disney claims its rights, we can argue all we want.

[Erik Olson]

Again, I'm not unclear about the rules, but unclear as to how (after it has been said that besides the main characters, there are no visible and discernible extras in the movie) that people are ok with having their image stored by Disney or a family video-camera, but not a small filmmaker. Basically, all I'm getting out of your posts is not that you're actually bothered by having your image taken, but by the fact that this guy broke Disney's rules. If that's the case, that's Disney's problem, not yours. But the thing is, they probably won't nab him because like I said before, this is a demonstration of talent, not an exercise in brand defamation.

It has been clearly stated that Disney has trespass, brand tarnishment and defamation among the other arrows in its quiver on this matter. How they decide to use them is up to Disney. As far as it goes for individuals who may appear in the movie, they will explore their options at their will. The filmmaker is the one who exposed himself, and his resulting film, to scrutiny and potential legal action. We're not making this stuff up and no amount of debate here is going to change that.

[Wreckless Abrandon]

Again, I'm not unclear about the rules, but unclear as to how (after it has been said that besides the main characters, there are no visible and discernible extras in the movie) that people are ok with having their image stored by Disney or a family video-camera, but not a small filmmaker. Basically, all I'm getting out of your posts is not that you're actually bothered by having your image taken, but by the fact that this guy broke Disney's rules. If that's the case, that's Disney's problem, not yours. But the thing is, they probably won't nab him because like I said before, this is a demonstration of talent, not an exercise in brand defamation.

I'm late to this discussion, but Disney knows it has a reputation to hold up. It will do its best to make sure it doesn't do anything illegal without anyone's consent. The family? They're not out to make money. They just want their memories in video format.

The filmmaker, no matter if they're big budget or "indie" in the end is still trying to make money, or do something artistic, or both. I don't want my face used in a racist/pedophile/misogynistic film regardless of the budget of the film and regardless if it does make a lot of money or not.

This guy wants exposure. He got it. He's like every unsuccessful film maker out there. Trying to get his big break.

His story is creepy. That's another reason why people have issues with it. And if the reports of people being grabbed without permission are true, then that's completely disturbing.

I'm not an fan or advocate of Borat, Jackass, etc. when they involve unknowing people. Mess with your friends and cast members, but not with someone who's just walking to the grocery store. And this guy's film doesn't interest me because of so many reasons that others have mentioned.

[Erik Olson]

Here's an interesting article. Disney never went after anyone although they could theoretically go after someone for violating their copyrights.

Legal limbo: Disney could go after you for posting vacation videos online - DailyFinance

Until Disney claims its rights, we can argue all we want.

On this matter, it is most likely that Disney (or any other IP holder) can simply issue a Cease and Desist to the hosting site and have the offending asset removed. You see this placeholder title card on sites like Facebook, YouTube and other social media sites with regularity. What we don't know is whether Disney pursues any further action once the asset has been removed by the third-party host.

As has been stated many times in this thread, it may be that Disney simply will bury the film under the threat of litigation to eliminate the offending material.

[The International]

I just can't quit this thread...

Many of you think the story, and by extension the filmmaker, are "creepy." Uhh, hello? That's like calling Walt Disney a creepy guy because he thought of Cruella DeVille, or Heath Ledger creepy because he played the Joker, or Christoph Waltz a fascist because he played a Nazi. The roles are creepy and the plot might be creepy, but that's the point of art. It's not supposed to be comfortable. The juxtaposition is incredibly basic: something bad happens at the Happiest Place on Earth. It's meant to be creepy, just as Snow White is meant to be scary and Indiana Jones is meant to be thrilling.

[TylerDurden]

I'm late to this discussion, but Disney knows it has a reputation to hold up. It will do its best to make sure it doesn't do anything illegal without anyone's consent. The family? They're not out to make money. They just want their memories in video format.

The filmmaker, no matter if they're big budget or "indie" in the end is still trying to make money, or do something artistic, or both. I don't want my face used in a racist/pedophile/misogynistic film regardless of the budget of the film and regardless if it does make a lot of money or not.

This guy wants exposure. He got it. He's like every unsuccessful film maker out there. Trying to get his big break.

His story is creepy. That's another reason why people have issues with it. And if the reports of people being grabbed without permission are true, then that's completely disturbing.

I'm not an fan or advocate of Borat, Jackass, etc. when they involve unknowing people. Mess with your friends and cast members, but not with someone who's just walking to the grocery store. And this guy's film doesn't interest me because of so many reasons that others have mentioned.

I don't really see how this post contributes anything. Like The International said, it's a film, it's art, it's not like there's a real-life stalker videotaping his exploits as he goes around messing with people (then I'd be on your side haha). Disney once hired a pedophile (the director of Jeepers Creepers, who's name escapes me) to direct a film. They released Pulp Fiction under their Miramax label. They have no problem with 'creepy' art.

[Erik Olson]

I don't really see how this post contributes anything. Like The International said, it's a film, it's art, it's not like there's a real-life stalker videotaping his exploits as he goes around messing with people (then I'd be on your side haha). Disney once hired a pedophile (the director of Jeepers Creepers, who's name escapes me) to direct a film. They released Pulp Fiction under their Miramax label. They have no problem with 'creepy' art.

Actually, a film crew taking my picture and voice without notice or express permission is a direct invasion of my privacy. I have a reasonable understanding (and have agreed, contractually) that my image may be inadvertantly captured by both Disney and others while in the parks. In fact, Disney actually has you under an agreement when you step foot on their property that you have released image and voice for commercial use [to Disney] without compensation for commercial purposes.

Imagine that a creepy person started following you through the park and taking surrepticious photos of you and you noticed. This would, at minimum, be grounds for that photographer to be removed from the park - or more, depending on your appetite to push the matter.

Framing their art, which is clearly, by the filmmaker's own description, not in keeping with the image carefully-crafted by Disney, sets them up for plenty of litigation. Disneyland is not a public place. It is a four-walled piece of private property and they have rights that exend beyond what someone can do outside of the areas they control.

What this fellow did wasn't artistic, it was a violation of the rules you agree to follow by entering the private property owned by the Disney Company. Just as dropping your pants in Fantasyland and singing at the top of your lungs will bring certain results, so will his meticulously-planned invasion of the parks for commercial gain.

[TylerDurden]

^you do realize that the stalking was a made-up part of the film's plot, and not actually what was happening.....right?

[StevenW]

On this matter, it is most likely that Disney (or any other IP holder) can simply issue a Cease and Desist to the hosting site and have the offending asset removed. You see this placeholder title card on sites like Facebook, YouTube and other social media sites with regularity. What we don't know is whether Disney pursues any further action once the asset has been removed by the third-party host.

As has been stated many times in this thread, it may be that Disney simply will bury the film under the threat of litigation to eliminate the offending material.

With Youtube, it is much easier than a Cease and Desist letter. All Disney needs to do is do a blanket block to all Disney videos. At Youtube, Disney can just fill out a form. It's that easy.

I use Youtube a lot. You can't imagine all the Disney videos uploaded there. There are massive amounts of Disney cartoons, music, movie clips, and trip reports. They were there for a long long time. It seems like only the other media companies have reacted.

If this filmmaker decides to upload his amateur production, I am sure it will be there for quite awhile. Or it will be the first time Disney decides to block it.

[Erik Olson]

There is nothing amateur about this production, save for the way they completely ignored normal, legally-defensible methods for securing locations and talent releases.

And how is someone creeping around Disneyland, covertly taking images of the park, its guests and employees - who had not been released for picture or sound - any different than stalking, precisely?

This isn't an expose on OSHA violations in the parks by 60 Minutes - this is a guerilla filmmaker who broke rules, stole identities visual and aural and then went on a PR campaign to try and gain notariety from his exploits.

"Stalker" and "criminal" are the perfect words for describing his activities.

[The International]

There is nothing amateur about this production, save for the way they completely ignored normal, legally-defensible methods for securing locations and talent releases.

And how is someone creeping around Disneyland, covertly taking images of the park, its guests and employees - who had not been released for picture or sound - any different than stalking, precisely?

This isn't an expose on OSHA violations in the parks by 60 Minutes - this is a guerilla filmmaker who broke rules, stole identities visual and aural and then went on a PR campaign to try and gain notariety from his exploits.

"Stalker" and "criminal" are the perfect words for describing his activities.

Actually, no, they're not... I don't know what definition of "stalker" you're using but if this guy is a stalker then he's also a thief and a terrorist and any other meaningless bad-sounding word you'd like to throw around.

The National Institute of Justice says:

Stalking is conservatively defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated (two or more occasions) visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear."

So tell me, which of these apply to the filmmaker in question?

[Erik Olson]

Until someone produces an argument that is different from what has been said before, I see no reason to continue. Reiterating a baseless point over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until someone withers under the weight of your empty, baseless argument isn't a conversation and certainly doesn't constitute a debate.

Worse, for both sides, is that Disney will very likely carry out their litigation quietly in the background and we'll never know the true result of all this speculation!

[TylerDurden]

Until someone produces an argument that is different from what has been said before, I see no reason to continue. Reiterating a baseless point over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until someone withers under the weight of your empty, baseless argument isn't a conversation and certainly doesn't constitute a debate.

Worse, for both sides, is that Disney will very likely carry out their litigation quietly in the background and we'll never know the true result of all this speculation!

Same can be said for you (regarding baseless empty arguments); your posts have all summed up to say the exact same thing without getting anywhere or turning over anyone who wasn't already on your 'side' over. In fact, this guy has come under no litigation or legal trouble and his film has already been shown. So actually, you're argument is even more empty. Case closed.