"Escape from Tomorrow" movie filmed in Disneyland secretly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMazz

We cannot rely on The Times to tell us which parks since they CONSTANTLLLLY mix the two parks up (something that really peeves me out, oh well).

This film was not made to make money directly. The making of this film was/is an investment in his career. The pay-off will come down the road after this publicity stunt blows over (and that could keep him relevant for years as we all know legal stuff takes a while to work itself out). Broken rules etc., I still want to see it b/c I am a fan of the parks and I do find it very interesting that he was able to get away with it. Even if it doesn't pay off in $$$, he still gets a footnote in the history books.

Disney must play this the right way so that it doesn't backfire on them, something that was suggested in the article too, and mentioned in this thread by other MCers. It will find its' way to the web, I'm sure.

---

So true. If Disney takes too a hard handed stand on this, it may well propel the film into the popularity it may not achieve on it's own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMazz

If that was the case, there's alotta fan sites out there that are doing something wrong... and I tread lightly on this topic on purpose considering where I am posting! LOL.

It is a civil case, I'm pretty sure Disney would have to go to court to stop the distribution. And I think the same would be said for the fan sites out there that make money by posting updates within the parks. Disney wont bother with them most of the time, but this guy painted a huge target on his back (esp. when he tried to sell it at the festival).

---

Outside of the production effort and it's getting into the Sundance, this is not more than the average vacationing guest. What would Disney consider an issue if it had just been for his own personal satisfaction. If a typical Disney guest got his average Disneyland video (the kind that thousands make every year) shown at the Sundance, would they go after him?

I can see if there was monetary gain, but as thousands of Disneyland videos are up on YouTube, where's the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malina

The situation with the extras is really what bothers me about this. He wants to break the rules and film somewhere where it's not permitted for commercial use? It's not the first time it's been done, but whooo, go be a rebel, whatever. Exploit innocent people and con them into being your unpaid labor force? That's something with which I have issues.

Indie filmmakers with integrity and ethics pay their extras and, you know, let them know they're actually being used as extras.

---

I believe that there are notices that people visiting Disneyland are subject to being photographed and videoed and should expect to possibly show up in visitor's videos and photos. And thousands of those will show up on YouTube, Flickr and the like to be viewed by millions.

Sundance is just a different exhibition option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malina

Even in a documentary or a reality show - and I have personal experience with this one - you have to sign a release form for your likeness to be used if you are in the shot, and you have to be fully informed that filming is taking place. Even if you're walking by the filming in a mall and you are not technically on the set, but are near it, there's always a sign saying "we are filming _____ here; if you stay you are consenting to be filmed for this project. If you don't want to be on camera please go away." If you ever watch some reality shows, like the one about pageants, you will notice some people have their faces blocked out. Those are the folks who didn't consent to be a part of it.

So this is a huge breach of ethics on the filmmaker's part.

---

I don't believe that's true. Unless someone is the subject of the documentary or reality show, if those uninvolved in the background are not extras or anyway else part of a production, they don't need to be informed. Of all the shots in the Great American Race, how many people in a background do you believe are notified of what is going on. News footage? Sporting events?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retrocool

The biggest issue here is that an independent film was made, using guerrilla filmmaking methods, on Disney property.

---

Again, the only thing that differentiates this from the average guest vacation video is that the individual used skilled production elements. If it hadn't shown up at Sundance, what would have been the problem? If it had shown up on YouTube, would it have been the production skill that would have been objectionable? There have been people who have videoed their marriage proposal, with a bit more production effort being made. And the flash mobs, what about the videoing or them?

If a guest had accidentally videoed a segment that Moore had staged, could they be held responsible for their video?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfdf55

There have been some brilliant films made (Wizard of Speed and Time) made outside of legal channels.

---

Like everything else he has shot, Mike Jittlov made WoS&T legally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfdf55

Let the film stand on it's own merits. If it is also brilliant, then it should get it's due. If not, then it will just fade away.

---

The idea of "creatively brilliant = ok to break the law" is the popular "mystique of the artiste," behind which this guy is hiding and for which many of his critics are falling.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aashee

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.

---

Great point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfdf55

I believe that there are notices that people visiting Disneyland are subject to being photographed and videoed and should expect to possibly show up in visitor's videos and photos. And thousands of those will show up on YouTube, Flickr and the like to be viewed by millions.

Sundance is just a different exhibition option.

---

Yes, photographed BY DISNEY for DISNEY purposes, or by those approved by Disney. Not some random person who decides to make a profit off their likenesses.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfdf55

I don't believe that's true. Unless someone is the subject of the documentary or reality show, if those uninvolved in the background are not extras or anyway else part of a production, they don't need to be informed. Of all the shots in the Great American Race, how many people in a background do you believe are notified of what is going on. News footage? Sporting events?

---

I can assure you that it IS true and it's standard industry practice. There always has to be some notice of filming/permission granted/an opportunity not to be involved.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malina

Yes, photographed BY DISNEY for DISNEY purposes, or by those approved by Disney. Not some random person who decides to make a profit off their likenesses.

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.

---

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?

Thanks Wiggins. :)

Here are some examples of notices of filming for reality shows/etc. in case anyone still doubts:

Jersey Shore:
Attachment 26697
Attachment 26698
Attachment 26699

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfdf55

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?

---

#1: It's a fictional depiction, so yes. It's not the same as a news story or documentary, so it doesn't matter where he shows it, the rules apply. If he made it as a senior thesis for his film class he'd still need consent. YouTube videos - for instance if I film my friends on line for a ride and get other people in the shot - would count as nonfiction/news/documentary.

#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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malina

#1: It's a fictional depiction, so yes. It's not the same as a news story or documentary, so it doesn't matter where he shows it, the rules apply. If he made it as a senior thesis for his film class he'd still need consent. YouTube videos - for instance if I film my friends on line for a ride and get other people in the shot - would count as nonfiction/news/documentary.

#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.

---

None of those points answered my questions above.