Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 85
  1. #46

    •   
    • Lurking in the corners
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Nothern Ohio
    Posts
    678
    Blog Entries
    22

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    You all realize that a lot of movies often have thousands of faces, not all of them are paid or under contract...right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins View Post
    That's not the point. When a production unit shoots in public, the public are notified -- either the area is signed, telling you that you may possibly be on camera and that by entering the area you agree to it, or PA's chase down individuals who are in shots and get release forms signed.
    Or they close the area and advertize on local TV and radio stations that they need extras for a crowd scene, and you sign the unpaid talent waiver as you enter the shoot area. That's how I've been "oh, you can see... no, gone now" and "There! That's my elbow!" in a couple movies shot in Cleveland.

    “That's the way a lot of things happen... You think one person did something
    but he was just the one to put the color on it." – Ken Anderson
    ​I'm blogging here again!

  2. #47

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,905

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    You all realize that a lot of movies often have thousands of faces, not all of them are paid or under contract...right?
    Some films do use unpaid extras, but at the very least, every production, from blockbusters to student films, INFORMS their extras, or anyone that might happen past the set, that they are actually on camera. If I walk past a film set in Downtown LA, or they're filming an episode of Modern Family at Disneyland, when I go into the shooting area I am always, ALWAYS going to see a sign that says something along the lines of, "we are filming (insert name of show or production company here) here today. If you come into this area, you consent to being on camera and we can use your likeness for our project. If you do not wish to be on camera or consent to these terms, you have the right to leave the area." Even if I'm at something like a parade, a baseball game, or a concert, I might see one of those signs, or see a filming notice on my ticket. That is the only way these productions legally cover their butts. You inform people that they will be filmed and you give them a chance to decline to be filmed.


    Name:  Ted-Haggard-St-James-Church-01.jpg
Views: 194
Size:  159.3 KBName:  is.php.jpg
Views: 192
Size:  54.7 KB
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

  3. #48

    • a wind to shake the stars
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    935

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    This was a guerrilla film, of course he couldn't do that. The entire point of filming a movie in Disney World is that you have to do it without anybody's knowledge.

    Like I said, most of you are probably upset that Banksy didn't get the proper permits for his street art. Heck, if Coca Cola can put up a billboard and get the proper paperwork in order, what's stopping Banksy?

  4. #49

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,905

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    This was a guerrilla film, of course he couldn't do that. The entire point of filming a movie in Disney World is that you have to do it without anybody's knowledge.

    Like I said, most of you are probably upset that Banksy didn't get the proper permits for his street art. Heck, if Coca Cola can put up a billboard and get the proper paperwork in order, what's stopping Banksy?
    Well, if they film someone without their knowledge and use their likeness commercially, then that person has the right to sue you. Exploiting strangers in the name of "art" is completely objectionable. In addition, since he voluntarily chose to film under a SAG contract, he was implicitly agreeing to follow their rules, which included hiring extras. He could have very easily hired or rounded up volunteer extras and brought them into the park, the same way he brought in the cast and crew.

    Banksy's work is a completely different kettle of fish. He's the one working for free; he's not having others work for free FOR him without their knowledge. And if Banksy paints a picture on your building and you don't like it, you have the legal right to remove it. These unwitting, unwilling extras don't have the ability to erase themselves from this film.
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

  5. #50

    • a wind to shake the stars
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    935

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Again, how does having your likeness in the film differ from having your likeness in a Miceage update?

  6. #51

    • -
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Uijeongbu
    Posts
    6,606

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    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 would be impressed if he did it and played by the rules without exploiting people’s images for his own gain. I can’t be impressed with some scumbag who violates copyright and tort law for his own personal gain.

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    I fundamentally don't understand what the moral difference is between Miceage using likenesses without permission and Escape From Tomorrow doing it.
    It was explained several times. One is for profit. The other is non-profit. One is a work of fiction, the other is a journalistic report.

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    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.
    There is a violation of the privacy tort known as false light. When you depict someone in a work of fiction it can cause damage to reputation if you are not portraying them as they are. In a Micechat photo update, they are showing the person in real life, at Disneyland. There is nothing staged and shows them exactly as they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    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.
    So, if it is a big company that has its rights violate, it is ok because they have access to vast legal resources?

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    This was a guerrilla film, of course he couldn't do that. The entire point of filming a movie in Disney World is that you have to do it without anybody's knowledge.
    He could have mentioned to the people who he interacted with on film that he has just filmed their conversation and asked for permission to use it in his film. If they declined, he could shoot it again with someone else. Consent does not have to be given up front.

    He could have done the same with Disney. Once the project is done, he sits down with them and explains that he wants to enter his film in a film festival and arrange for their consent. That way, he still has his filmed with his covert tactics, but has obtained the necessary consent forms to make him reputable and not a sleezeball.
    "You can cut me off from the civilized world. You can incarcerate me with two moronic cellmates. You can torture me with your thrice daily swill, but you cannot break the spirit of a Winchester. My voice shall be heard from this wilderness and I shall be delivered from this fetid and festering sewer."

  7. #52

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,905

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    Again, how does having your likeness in the film differ from having your likeness in a Miceage update?
    Once again there's a legal difference drawn between using someone's likeness in nonfiction journalism or documentary filming or photography and using someone in a fictional artistic endeavor. The former is intended to document ongoing news or conditions; the latter is commercial exploitation where the context may or may not be distorted. The line is drawn with the awareness than impact, intent and final product are different.

    To use the analogy from the previous page, if the LA Times takes a photo at a crime scene they don't have to get permission from those in the image to publish it. If they run an advertisement with a photo of a person, they do (or rather, the ad agency/photographer did). It's the same way it's fine for Miceage to show photos that contain people in a crowd for reporting purposes, but if they made a fictional film about the people at Disneyland they'd need everyone's consent.
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

  8. #53

    • a wind to shake the stars
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    935

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Hey, like I said, I don't care about the legal answers here. It's pretty easy to see who wins in the case of Disney vs. anybody, much less Disney vs. Smalltime Independent Director. I think the entire story of this film is incredibly interesting and I'm fine that he had to cross a few legal lines in order to film it. It's a novel idea, something that has never been done before to the best of my knowledge, and given the nature of the film and the relatively tiny amount of people who will ever see it I'm struggling to think of a scenario in which someone caught on frame in the background will actually be harmed. Or, at least, harmed more than they would be when caught in the background in a Miceage update.

  9. #54

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,905

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    Hey, like I said, I don't care about the legal answers here. It's pretty easy to see who wins in the case of Disney vs. anybody, much less Disney vs. Smalltime Independent Director. I think the entire story of this film is incredibly interesting and I'm fine that he had to cross a few legal lines in order to film it. It's a novel idea, something that has never been done before to the best of my knowledge, and given the nature of the film and the relatively tiny amount of people who will ever see it I'm struggling to think of a scenario in which someone caught on frame in the background will actually be harmed. Or, at least, harmed more than they would be when caught in the background in a Miceage update.
    There's nothing novel about this film. He's not even the first one to film clandestinely at Disneyland; Banksy covered that. He's certainly not the first one to film in a prohibited location. And the fact that he exploited innocent strangers to do it and didn't pay them for their contributions doesn't make him a great artiste; it makes him an unethical slimeball.

    If you don't care about Disney the behemoth corporation, do you care about the little guy - the average guest - who was harmed by being part of this film without his knowledge? Here are some ways that could happen:

    a) Using SAG actors would have meant that those individuals received payment and points toward SAG's health care fund. They lost out on that.
    b) The film depicts an adult's fixation on underage girls. Maybe the guests caught on tape do not want to be associated with that topic.
    c) Maybe they're abuse survivors and it's traumatic to be associated with that topic.
    d) Maybe when they are seen on camera, it is assumed that they DID consent to be in the film - since that is standard practice. They are then associated with the director's unethical actions, which could lose them jobs or respect.
    e) They're also associated with the unsavory theme of the film mentioned in a), which is very damaging.
    f) If the guest is SAG, they're not supposed to be in a film without being properly contracted and paid by SAG. They can be hit with a fine if they're seen on camera in a film that is non-union or didn't follow that procedure.
    g) The conversations captured on tape between guests may not have been intended to be broadcast to a wide audience. Doing so might be damaging personally or professionally. What if one of those guests, for instance, said "God, I hate my job" on camera? It's something that someone might say when talking with a friend; it's not something they want shared with the world.
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

  10. #55

    • World of Color
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Whittier
    Posts
    213

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by DrFink View Post
    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.
    I just realized I spelled Escape wrong

  11. #56

    • Singing Drinker
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,080

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by WoC 95 View Post
    I just realized I spelled Escape wrong
    I just figured you were using an approximation of the Dory pronunciation. "EsssCAPAY"
    Credibility is to be sought for. Credulity is not. Sadly the latter is our normal human state.

  12. #57

    • a wind to shake the stars
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    935

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    There's nothing novel about this film. He's not even the first one to film clandestinely at Disneyland; Banksy covered that. He's certainly not the first one to film in a prohibited location. And the fact that he exploited innocent strangers to do it and didn't pay them for their contributions doesn't make him a great artiste; it makes him an unethical slimeball.

    If you don't care about Disney the behemoth corporation, do you care about the little guy - the average guest - who was harmed by being part of this film without his knowledge? Here are some ways that could happen:

    a) Using SAG actors would have meant that those individuals received payment and points toward SAG's health care fund. They lost out on that.
    b) The film depicts an adult's fixation on underage girls. Maybe the guests caught on tape do not want to be associated with that topic.
    c) Maybe they're abuse survivors and it's traumatic to be associated with that topic.
    d) Maybe when they are seen on camera, it is assumed that they DID consent to be in the film - since that is standard practice. They are then associated with the director's unethical actions, which could lose them jobs or respect.
    e) They're also associated with the unsavory theme of the film mentioned in a), which is very damaging.
    f) If the guest is SAG, they're not supposed to be in a film without being properly contracted and paid by SAG. They can be hit with a fine if they're seen on camera in a film that is non-union or didn't follow that procedure.
    g) The conversations captured on tape between guests may not have been intended to be broadcast to a wide audience. Doing so might be damaging personally or professionally. What if one of those guests, for instance, said "God, I hate my job" on camera? It's something that someone might say when talking with a friend; it's not something they want shared with the world.
    We're talking about people who are in the background of shots. Since none of us have seen the movie we can only speculate (although I'm going to see it on October 11th so I'll report back after that date) but why on earth would this fictional film still contain audible dialogue from people in the background? Do you honestly think that people are going to lose out on professional opportunities because they happened to be in the background of something filmed at Disney World? The idea of that boggles my mind, like a hiring committee is ready to hire a candidate until it comes to light that this person can be seen in the background of Escape From Tomorrow for .9 seconds. I mean it's just as likely that a guest in the background is captured on film and her beautiful face is discovered by a talent agent and she goes on to be a world famous actress, yeah?

    I think it's kind of funny that the argument is that this movie isn't fair use while Miceage updates are. I feel like making a clandestine film about a man's fixation with underage girls in a theme park owned by a company that has made billions of dollars from the images of fictional underage girls might just be some sort of social commentary. I mean, I'm a huge fan of Disney and Disneyland (obviously) which is why I think a movie critical of Disney filmed literally inside of Disney itself is notable.

    Like I said, I'll report back once I see the film but I think these concerns are a bit of a reach in terms of the probability of real harm done. I like the concept of the film (even if the execution leaves something to be desired) and I'll condemn any actual harm that comes to the unknowing guests in the background if we ever have any evidence of it but I'm not going to wring my hands about this "scumbag" at this point.

  13. #58

    • Monorail Junkie
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Concord, Ca
    Posts
    294

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    I had actually forgotten about this movie until I saw the thread. LOL

  14. #59

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    238

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
    Was it for profit though? You don't typically enter film festivals to reap a profit, instead you shop it around to studios. Has the film been picked up by any major distributors? No. Has the film been released into any public movie theaters? No. Is the film available to the general public? No.

    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.
    YES the movie has been picked up by distributers. YES the film will be released in theatres. YES the film will be available to the general public. That is what this whole thread is about. the movie WILL be released in theatres Oct 11th and I am sure will be on DVD 3 months later.

  15. #60

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,905

    Re: Escpae from Tomorrow

    Quote Originally Posted by The International View Post
    We're talking about people who are in the background of shots. Since none of us have seen the movie we can only speculate (although I'm going to see it on October 11th so I'll report back after that date) but why on earth would this fictional film still contain audible dialogue from people in the background? Do you honestly think that people are going to lose out on professional opportunities because they happened to be in the background of something filmed at Disney World? The idea of that boggles my mind, like a hiring committee is ready to hire a candidate until it comes to light that this person can be seen in the background of Escape From Tomorrow for .9 seconds. I mean it's just as likely that a guest in the background is captured on film and her beautiful face is discovered by a talent agent and she goes on to be a world famous actress, yeah?

    I think it's kind of funny that the argument is that this movie isn't fair use while Miceage updates are. I feel like making a clandestine film about a man's fixation with underage girls in a theme park owned by a company that has made billions of dollars from the images of fictional underage girls might just be some sort of social commentary. I mean, I'm a huge fan of Disney and Disneyland (obviously) which is why I think a movie critical of Disney filmed literally inside of Disney itself is notable.

    Like I said, I'll report back once I see the film but I think these concerns are a bit of a reach in terms of the probability of real harm done. I like the concept of the film (even if the execution leaves something to be desired) and I'll condemn any actual harm that comes to the unknowing guests in the background if we ever have any evidence of it but I'm not going to wring my hands about this "scumbag" at this point.
    Since people have been fired on the basis of 140-character tweets, anything is possible. Also, the whole "we won't pay you but you might be discovered!" line is one that is frequently used by directors/etc. who want free labor for their films - and honestly, that doesn't happen.

    And once again, Fair Use Doctrine is an entirely different topic and has nothing to do with using the likenesses of park guests. Fair Use covers copyrighted material; privacy laws cover individuals who are not public figures. In addition, it's been explained before that there are delineations between using images of individuals for the purpose of reporting and for the purpose of making an artistic commercial film.

    The point here, regardless of the actual harm done, is that you just don't put people in your film without their consent. Period. Everyone has a right to decide if they want to be in a film. People who are in films have a right to be compensated for their work. The artistry or social commentary of a work doesn't make up for a lack of ethics during the production. If you're making a film about a company that has a reputation for being exploitative and you exploit people to make that movie what does it say about you?

    And he could have done EVERYTHING he did without exploiting park guests. He could have easily brought extras into the park (if he'd asked around he could have probably found friends or family members of his cast and crew for this; that's what a lot of filmmakers do) or quietly gone up to people and said "can I film you," and he did neither.
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [News] Escape From Tomorrow to be Released
    By milo in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-20-2013, 06:24 PM
  2. [News] "Escape from Tomorrow" movie filmed in Disneyland secretly
    By Disneymike in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 337
    Last Post: 02-02-2013, 12:23 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •