Dumb. That's all I have to say.
Dumb. That's all I have to say.
In regards to fair use, there is a legal difference between filming for, say, journalistic news reporting and for a fictional, for profit film. In the latter case you just can't use people's likenesses without their consent. Plus, this was done under a SAG contract. SAG has professional standards. Background players are paid or otherwise compensated for their work. They certainly aren't filmed secretly.
It would be hilarious if some of those unwitting extras turned out to be union actors. They would have a solid case for a grievance with SAG, which would hurt this filmmaker and his ability to work in the future far more than a Disney lawsuit might.
That is right, lots of actors among the CMs...if they see themselves in it they should really all file with SAG and clobber the guy.
Also, to those of you who are simply criticizing the aesthetics of the preview...it's actually stunning. The fact that it was made using next to no money is astonishing. And considering how it was filmed, the way it turned out is actually incredible. Those with a knowledge of film should recognize that, regardless of the legitimacy of the movie, it is quite an achievement.
Escape from Tomorrow is not a news report, documentary, travelogue or amateur vacation video. It is a commercial, for-profit film with a fictional story, and as such is liable if it uses people as actors or extras without their knowledge and consent.
It falls under the Fair Use Doctrine, and was used as a medium to express talent. Sure, if the guy shopped it around and it was hitting theatres next week that's one thing. But that's not what this was. Not every film is made to turn a profit.
Fair Use Doctrine is about the use of copyrighted material. It applies to using copyrighted material such as songs, films, celebrities' likenesses and characters. It does not apply whatsoever to using the likenesses of people who are not public figures and is not relevant to that argument.
The filmmaker could argue that his film's use of Disney property falls under Fair Use but that doesn't cover his use of guest likenesses.
There's also a fairly strong delineation between using people's faces for journalism, documentation and non-fiction as opposed to using them in artistic films. When the newspaper publishes a photo of a crime scene, they don't have to get release forms from the people at the scene. When they publish an ad with a photo of a person, they do (or the ad agency does). And the fact that a film is going to lose money doesn't matter one iota in this instance. Even nonprofits that do films have to get release forms. As far as YouTube is concerned, anyone who is doing an actual web series/film/etc. has release forms. Anyone who posts vacation videos that happen to have people walking by is posting something that would fall under documentary or journalism.
And directors/etc. enter their films in festivals with very clear commercial motives - the goals include getting the film noticed, getting press (more cred for future projects = more $$ and investors) and picking up a distributor, which is what happened here.
Also, the fact remains that he CHOSE to hire actors who are Screen Actors Guild members and do this film under a SAG (ie, professional) contract. When you use a SAG contract you play by their rules - all of them, not just the ones that you cherrypick. SAG has very clear rules on hiring background, and this guy violated them. SAG also has a very clear interest in pursuing this because it hurts everyone. SAG performers lost out on a chance to earn money there, the people who were in the background were not compensated, and SAG lost out on the work dues they would have received. It would be totally within their rights to fine this guy to the moon and blacklist him from doing any more films under SAG contracts.
^ Exactly. The story that Moore would like everyone to buy is the "noble starving artiste making art for art's sake," which is pure bs. He shot interiors on soundstages and he had the film professionally posted and scored. This was a for-profit commercial enterprise from the start -- a canny, considered con on the industry that for years ignored him. He's punking the business in general and Disney in particular. The only amazing thing about it is how many people are buying into his game.
This movie is actually coming to theaters.
That distributor only seems to have five films, they must be struggling artists too! Well, no, that is just an arm of a very prolific film distributor that actually has well over 100 films under their belt. And the film is scheduled to be released to theaters all over America and Canada; it's also being sold VOD.
That sounds pretty commercial to me...
Escpae = Escape :)
Now that I got that out of my system... If I have the opportunity to see Escape From Tomorrow I will. I think it's a smart move that Disney is basically ignoring the fact that the movie even exists, though. It hinders the popularity they were trying to gain off Disney's eventual reaction.
You all realize that a lot of movies often have thousands of faces, not all of them are paid or under contract...right?
I take it none of you are fans of Banksy, then.
The thing about art is that sometimes you have to break the rules, including Disney's obligation to their shareholders, in order to create it. Even without seeing a single frame of the film or knowing a line of dialogue you can be impressed that the guy managed to film an entire fictional film inside of Disney World.
I fundamentally don't understand what the moral difference is between Miceage using likenesses without permission and Escape From Tomorrow doing it. Both are taking pictures of you without your consent and putting them elsewhere, and then profiting from said pictures without compensating you. One is a fictional movie and the other is a news update, but any damage (in terms of using your likeness without your permission) that can be done by one of those can easily be done by the other. As I said before I don't really care about the legal implications here because Disney is a legal behemoth that can and has literally changed the law for its own purposes in the past, I'm talking about the morality of it.
And finally Disney is doing the right thing by not saying a peep about this film. It made a blip when it was first announced and now it's going to screen in roughly 50 independent theaters nationwide. Chances are more people will watch the fireworks at Disneyland tonight than will see this movie in theaters. Disney actually stands to lose more by going after it (look up the Streisand effect!) and they're making the right call by keeping completely silent.