I know that saying this might make me kind of unpopular with the micechat crowd, but...
I kinda wanna see that movie... :shy:
Whether or not Disney chooses to pursue it, they have a legitimate grievance -- as do the tourists who appear in the film without their knowledge or consent.
Hmm, that's funny, the guy who made Escape From Tomorrow said that he "didn't have much problem convincing companies that the picture was protected under the Fair Use Doctrine" in a very recent interview.
Beyond that a writer for the New Yorker agreed with the director earlier this year, saying that "As commentary on the social ideals of Disney World, it seems to clearly fall within a well-recognized category of fair use, and therefore probably will not be stopped by a court using copyright or trademark laws."
So the question of Fair Use is not as cut-and-dry as you'd both like to claim, and I noticed that neither of you pointed out why one is protected by fair use and the other is not.
Did you read the second part of my post? It's not difficult to find people who think that this film is protected by fair use. Here are a few examples of legal commentators who think the film is probably protected. If you have a legal argument for why it is not protected by fair use I would love to hear it.
'Escape From Tomorrow': Disney's Non-Strategy Strategy to Combat Unauthorized Disneyland Horror MovieQuote:
Loyola Law School professor Jay Dougherty says shooting the film inside a Disney park isn't necessarily actionable (beyond a possible trespassing claim on violation of park rules), and "fair use" exceptions to copyright law could be a defense for using the characters in a larger narrative. But "Disney could have a stronger case regarding trademark law and trademark dilution," he adds.
Why 'Escape From Tomorrow' Likely Won't Make It To Theaters - Law360Quote:
At least facially, it would appear that "Escape From Tomorrow" would have a relatively solid fair use defense. However, I would not necessarily consider it bullet-proof.
'Escape From Tomorrow' Review: Backstory of Its Clandestine Disney World Filming Is More Gripping Than the Movie Itself - TheWrapQuote:
Because of its clandestine production, the film drew a considerable amount of hype at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival, not the least of which out of fear that it would never secure distribution. But much like the paranoia of lawsuits from Disney proved to be unfounded (fair use protects the filmmakers, who only once directly mention the company), Jim’s frightful journey climaxes in a shallow pool of superficial fears, and the film’s critique of corporate homogeneity is obvious and toothless.
I wasn't able to find any articles that explicitly stated that the film was not protected under Fair Use. I get that many of you think the guy did something bad in filming this movie but that's your opinion and it should not be masked under incorrect interpretations of the law.
The legality doesn't really matter at this point anyway since it's fairly obvious that the movie is coming out (in whatever limited fashion) and that Disney will never acknowledge its existence. I have no doubt that Disney could crush this film legally if they so chose, we're talking about the company that is single-handedly responsible for extending copyright laws over the last several decades.
I am not a lawyer so I don't know, just going off articles I've read who have interviewed various lawyers and legal experts, some day Disney has a case, some don't and who knows which way it would go in court.
Still, this movie's going to be in ~50 independent theaters all over the country (check for a full list on their website). I suspect that the amount of money it takes in and the amount of people who eventually see the film are so low as to be inconsequential to Disney. In other words, it probably costs Disney more to mobilize their lawyers than they stand to lose by allowing this film to screen. That plus the Streisand effect, I think, rules the legal question kind of moot since it's fairly obvious Disney is never going to litigate.
I am trying to be objective. I haven't seen the movie, only seen interviews, previews, sundance reviews and things I've read online. The only reason why this movie is getting attention is because of the way it's filmed, and if you break it down to JUST that, kudos to the cast and crew. The reality, the plot is terrible... as in terribly written and mostly lacking marit. I think that's why Disney isn't wasting it's time on an independant film.
Unfortunately, I do think the basic idea "guy gets fired from his job and then has to handle a super happy family vacation at Disney." that's a plot that could have been done quite well. One that many people could relate to; having to smile through adversity. Instead it goes into boarderline pedophelia and from what I understand about midway is basically an acid trip. It's a shame.
The only reason Disney would take legal action would be to "protect the brand" on a copyright/trademark level, because on any other level, it isn't worth their time or money.
The poster even makes it look kind of like a Disney movie, with a white gloved 4-finger hand and Disney script font.
We will probably watch it when it comes to DVD though, just to see the background shots. Who knows maybe I can say I was in a movie....
I am sure quite a few die hard Disney fans will see it (especially when it is on dvd) just because they know the history of it.
Plus, think about this thing in about forty years. Think how mad we all go *now* for in park footage from forty years back. Youtube etc. are still potentially ephemeral - who knows what will happen to the data when the site goes down for good. But this will still be lurking in the margins.
There will be legal action on this matter. It is simply a matter of timing and Disney is playing this right. Let Mr. Moore have his limited theatrical and festival circuit run and then crush him.
Defending against this one film is worth the investment of many millions if it discourages subsequent attacks on their brand and intellectual property.