OK. Again - as I have seen stated before, IF this person hadn't been in the movie business, and IF he had the technical tools available (small hi-def cameras, Final Cut Pro and other editing software), personal funds available and friends to support his plan, how would his endeavor be perceived if it showed up on YouTube (just as some flash mobs have)?
We get that you are very focused on the aspects of the professional aspects of this film. But is it because of the person and his affiliation, or the strategy that ANYONE could do (and probably WILL do now that this has been getting so much attention) if they wanted to.
So, please, setting aside all the legal jargon based on the legal issues relating to the "commercial" aspects, how would the above project be perceived?
I'd love to see this soon!
I definitely think Disney has demonstrated that there is wiggle room for guest-fed content originating from within their parks. They haven't had anyone killed who posts photos of construction progress or somewhat unflattering commentary on how they have managed a particular aspect of their business. I think Disney realizes (and historically has, from the beginning, with Uncle Walt himself pulling back the curtain) a certain value exists in allowing a little behind-the-scenes access. In that context, I concur that Disney has some flexibility.
Where I believe people are misguided, is in this particular case. As you mentioned above, this thing has now happened inside the parks. There is some notoriety to the case and it has been marketed effectively based on how the content was produced. If Disney leaves it untouched, it invites others to push the boundaries further. It potentially sets precedent both ways. Remember hearing that Disney had brought action on elementsry schools who used their music in recitals? I do, and that action had an immediate chilling effect on anyone thinking they could stage a show that included Disney IP - even if the performers were kindergarteners in homemade costumes!
I do a lot of work for network and premium cable TV. You've seen the shows I've worked on. I will tell you that there are people who's job it is to enforce IP and to make sure that there is money moving when certain things happen. As an example, I was working on a popular TLC show revolving around home improvement and we had secured a generous donation of materials from a nationally-known home improvement store for building supplies for one of the shows projects. Shortly into our shooting day, a call came down from Discovery Channel International telling us that not only could we not film at the business, but that we could not accept the materials because Discovery did not have that home improvement company placed as a paid advertiser. That they were donating thousands in product to the show in-kind was of no consequence. It was a little maddening, but we also understood the network's need to not set precedent for allowing product placement or integration without remuneration.
People who work in this industry for any length of time are all aware and usually sensitive to the topics I spoke about earlier because they have had, or know someone who has had, work taken from them or somehow otherwise damaged by some unscrupulous party. Even after the sensational Art Buchwald case over "King for a Day", there were people perpertrating bold IP infringements.
So, you see, Disney's hands are really tied on this and this case isn't akin to them chasing down Kevin or Sam or the Yesterland fellow for publishing things about the parks or destroying a kid who takes nice ride videos with his SLR. This is about a professional crew, operating in a very deceptive way to accomplish a project with clearly-stated commercial aspirations from within the very heart of Disney's carefully manicured house. And, I predict that it will not stand.
Tyler - you can't seem to separate your opinion on what should be vs the legality of where the world really is.
You can be upset over how things are - but they are still that way.
Erik: This is guerilla filmmaking. By design, they won't get permits. Hey, there's a line about the new movie in it in the link.
Guerrilla filmmaking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Escape From Tomorrow, made for a little under a million dollars by writer-director Randy Moore attracted a lot of attention at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. Not only was it largely filmed at Walt Disney World and Disneyland without permits, its fantasy-horror story of a man having an apparent breakdown on the last day of a family vacation at the former park depicted it in a negative fashion. It was unclear whether the film would receive a wider release after the festivals due to the likely legal challenges from Disney.
Those being dismissive are doing so over their opinion of the severity of it.. vs the actual lines the film's creator crossed.
At IMDB, the film is ranked 1,352 today. This is no amateur production. The cast, director and producers are all indicated on that page. An IMDB listing is typically only achieved when a film has been exhibited. Listing crew is tedious and people outside the industry (first-timer, students et-al) usually have a difficult time getting themselves on the site, let alone associated with a given production.
Saying this guy is an amateur, rogue and no-budget artist is disingenuous and patently false. He is a producer, who is marketing a commercially-viable production.
Unless Disney is punking the world, Escape is ***exactly*** what all the people citing legal issues on this forum are saying it is. It is a production that will see civil action against it by multiple parties. Disney should, simply to set precedent and protect its image and brands under their IP umbrella, seek an injunction against the film and attach any revenue from it in perpetude. Damages on the grounds of trespass, defamation and tarnishment are good places to start.
This is ALL ABOUT IP and our rights to protect our image and brands. Entirely.
Stop saying this fellow is an innocent - he's no angel.
Whether this filmmaker is a creep/immoral/etc. is subjective and something about which you guys can argue all day. Just because you believe it's immoral or is not immoral doesn't make the law so.
I'd stick to the arguments about IP law. There's at least some room for debate there.
Even under California's expansive publicity rights laws, no individual is going to prevail against this filmmaker (unless what I've heard concerning the substance of the film is radically different than it is in reality) on a right of publicity or any related claim. The very idea that there will be such a lawsuit in the first place is preposterous; it would require someone seeing the film, identifying themselves in it, wanting to sue, and finding an attorney who would actually agree to represent them. What are the odds of all of those things occurring (especially the first two)? TWDC does not have standing to bring such a suit.
In the case of Escape of Tomorrow they may have found a film idea which is "in theory" interesting , i.e "what happen when a family goes in vacation at the happiest place on earth and that the father suddenly learn that he's been fired from his job and get depressed?". But they may have found the only idea not only which "fits" to be filmed in a Magic Kingdom but ALSO the only one that could be filmed in a way that avoid them to be noticed by the cast members. Because it's one thing to film a movie with this kind of "personal/intimate" story where most of the "action" is inside the mind of the main character ( if i can say ) and it's another one to film AND stay unnoticed a movie that requires "real" action which would be much more difficult if not impossible to hide.
That's why i'm not worry that a no Disney reaction could open the door to similar kind of experiences, because in theory it could be the case but in fact LIFE doesn't work like that.