I can see if there was monetary gain, but as thousands of Disneyland videos are up on YouTube, where's the issue?
Sundance is just a different exhibition option.
If a guest had accidentally videoed a segment that Moore had staged, could they be held responsible for their video?
Let's face it, folks, the only reason this guy is getting press is that he punked the mighty Disney Corporation.
For some reason, this film shot illegally makes me think of actors and music artists speaking up about illegally downloading music or movies. I wonder if they take the same stance.
The difference between this and Flickr/YouTube is the context, the intent and the fact that it's not for documentary/news purposes. And, as noted before, that the public was not informed about it and did not have an opt-out. Sundance is a commercial venture and the film stands to benefit the maker in some commercial/career advancing way.
News footage, as noted, falls under freedom of speech. It's showing people in a non-fiction context for purposes of sharing information. Something like Great American Race that is documenting something in progress might also fall under this. You are also allowed to photograph/film public spaces. You are NOT allowed to misrepresent people...for instance, you cannot take a photo of someone and put it on the news and say he's an axe murderer, or you will get sued for libel.
On private property, owners can set any rules they wish about how photos and video are used, if they can be taken, etc.
Things like sporting events, concerts, et al always, ALWAYS have a notice on your ticket, at the door, etc. that you may be taped for broadcast/the artist's use etc. Same if you're in the audience at a talk show or at a parade. If you ever pass a film set, you will ALWAYS see similar signs.
Films made for artistic/commercial purposes on private property are very different. You do need permission to show anyone who is recognizable on film or TV programs. You can't just decide to film people and then put them in your film. The laws are very very clear on that. Even if you look at amateur photography contests (that you can profit from in some way) take a food look at the rules: you have to get model releases for anyone clearly seen in the photos.
If you don't believe it that's fine, but it's the way the photography/film/TV industry works, and if you as a filmmaker choose to overlook it, any one of the people you filmed can sue you, and should.
^ Exactly right.
I mentioned that before. If the film hadn't been shown at Sundance, would there be an issue? I got the impression that Moore wasn't intent on making a profit from the film and that he could accept it just being shown for free. If that were the case, what would make it any different from any other video shown on YouTube for example?
#2: Entering it in Sundance or sharing it (and his filming methods) with the press suggest a desire to profit in some way - and that could be via publicity (which he's getting); future employment, etc. Profit isn't always monetary. In this case, he's already garnered a lot more press than a lot of the other filmmakers at Sundance because of what he did.
For the sake of argument, if he didn't show it at Sundance or another film festival he'd still have an issue because he's still publicly exhibiting footage of people taken without their consent and depicted in a fictional context.
#3: Even without the legalities it's still highly unethical to exploit people for crowd scenes without telling them. Real filmmakers, including indie, underground and student ones, hire extras for that.
#4: Even amateur films can be done, and are, done with permission/consent.
As a comparison: this film vs. the Horizons YouTube guys, who did occasionally get footage of people on the rides. Both of them broke Disney's rules (and in one case trespassed into cast-only areas on the ride). The difference is that a) one is for profit; one isn't; b) one is a work of fiction, one isn't; c) one was intended for publicity for the filmmaker; the other was intended to be historical documentation of a ride.
http://micechat.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bfdf55 http://micechat.com/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
People visiting Disney parks are photographed by thousands of other guests, not just Disney. If there was no intent to make a profit, would the production values or cost of the effort be an issue?
I mentioned that before. If the film hadn't been shown at Sundance, would there be an issue? I got the impression that Moore wasn't intent on making a profit from the film and that he could accept it just being shown for free. If that were the case, what would make it any different from any other video shown on YouTube for example?"