Stupid Guest Tricks

... but WDW is in it.

Disney World Horror Fantasy Raises Knotty Copyright Issues
By BROOKS BARNES

Updated PARK CITY, Utah— Is Randy Moore’s new movie about a father going insane at Walt Disney World simply cinematic art? Or is Mickey Mouse about to get very, very mad at Mr. Moore?

A betting person would put some chips on anger. Mr. Moore — without permission from Disney — filmed “Escape From Tomorrow” inside the company’s own theme parks in Florida and California. If that wasn’t gutsy enough, his film is a horror fantasy that harshly critiques Disney’s style of mass entertainment. It’s not the Happiest Place on Earth in his movie. Not by a long shot.

The movie, while careful to leave out certain copyrighted material (like the It’s a Small World song), would seem to test the limits of fair use in copyright law. There is a lot of Disney iconography in the movie: Mr. Moore, a first-time director, filmed inside at least eight rides and a lengthy sequence involves the line for a Buzz Lightyear attraction.

How did Mr. Moore get away with it? After all, his cast and crew went on the It’s a Small World ride at least 12 times, filming all the way with high-tech (albeit small) video recorders. “I was surprised the ride operators weren’t a little more savvy,” he said after his movie’s premiere at the Sundance Film Festival here on Friday night. full article

Wasn't this an episode of Modern Family?

TiggerHappy wrote:Wasn't this an episode of Modern Family?

Even that I found quite surprising especially for something Disney-produced. They certainly didn't skirt around the identity of character performers.

It'll be interesting to see if he gets the "Adam the Woo" treatment.

Oh I don't know, this will probably end up worse then just a "Lifetime Ban".
I see lawyers and court costs in his future..

Darksin wrote:Oh I don't know, this will probably end up worse then just a "Lifetime Ban".
I see lawyers and court costs in his future..

As Warren Zevon would say, "Send lawyers, guns and money. The s$%@ has hit the fan."

I seem to recall that one of the reasons various guidebooks don't include photos (other than Birnbaum's) is that so many of the facades, etc. are trademarked. I've got to believe that the same issue would exist for this. Also, it isn't a documentary so I'm not sure how fair use would apply. When I read this, all sorts of issues sprang to mind such as "What about the people in the background?" When Disney films, they post notices which set up implicit permission, but there wouldn't be anything for that here. Also, movie makers generally have to pay to use facilities for filming. Since WDW is all private property that seems like a problem. Obviously his approach and comments show that he knew Disney would not approve, so he did it with forethought. It's reasonable to expect that a person acting as a professional film maker would understand the legal issues involved.

The question becomes how much of a PR hit would Disney take if they crucify him?

What's in the fine print on the back of tickets? Any wordings that would indicate private/commercial filming is not permitted?

bookbabe wrote:What's in the fine print on the back of tickets? Any wordings that would indicate private/commercial filming is not permitted?

Probably not, but it is universally known that when a regular guest goes there and takes pictures they are for private use. In this case, and I don't know how or what he does with them, I'm thinking that there is a profit motive there someplace.

Goofyernmost wrote:Probably not, but it is universally known that when a regular guest goes there and takes pictures they are for private use. In this case, and I don't know how or what he does with them, I'm thinking that there is a profit motive there someplace.

Agreed about the privte photos/videos, but this guy has a sales agent looking for a distributer and the film is at Sundance, iinm, so public exhibition.

Ether Randy Moore is incredibly optimistic, extremely naive, or lacks a great deal of common sense. Maybe a bit of all three. I'm not sure why he thought it was a good idea to try and film a movie for public release like this at WDW without getting permission from Disney. Okay, sure, this may garner his movie, and himself, a lot of attention, but I am not one who believes the cliche about there being no such thing as bad publicity. Sure, it took guts to do what he did, but I'm not sure other studios would be keen to fund the projects of someone who seems to be asking to be sued.

If this was a documentary, then MAYBE I could see an argument for being able to film without the permission of the company, but this is obviously not the case. So, I think Disney has a pretty good standing if they want to shut him down.