Shooting in Disney without permission: Legal?

G

Gillvane

Veteran
Edit: Spoiler alert if you read the article

"But the underlying assumption of that question—that Disney has a good trademark or copyright case—is wrong. Though the filmmakers may have committed trespass when they broke Disney World’s rules and if it violated the terms of entry on their tickets, the film itself is a different matter. 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."

Very interesting. The movie is getting a limited release in the US so Disney probably can't shut them down or doesn't want to. It's a good fair use argument, but fair use is one of those things you can't always count on since it's subject to interpretation by a court.
 
Last edited:
I made a doc. on theme parks and amusement parks. Smuggled my camera into Disneyland and shot. Was notified by Disney that I better not use it or they would sue - they claimed the suit would be on the grounds of the many trademarks that they control and if those images were in frame (Mickey Mouse ears, Cinderella's castle, Dumbo, etc.), they'd be on me. I told them I was using my footage anyway. Before i knew it, they called and offered my any of their "stock" footage of the park that I wanted - all shot on 35mm film, with released talent - if I would agree not to use my footage in the film.
 
I thought the article summed up "fair use" pretty well. Fair Use is so often misunderstood, especially by the general public and especially youtube posters. The example was this. If you decide to use Disney as the setting for your Romantic comedy because it would add production value, that's probably not fair use and Disney would probably win if they sued you. However, if you are specifically making a satirical statement about Disney, that probably is fair use and even if they sued you they would probably lose.

The idea of "Fair Use" is to allow freedom of speech including satire, not to allow you to use someone Else's intellectual property. Ask yourself, could this be shot somewhere else and have the same affect? If the answer is yes it's probably not fair use.
 
I'm not sure why they're only concentrating on IP issues; seems like the much bigger issue is filming on private property without permission.
 
David Jimerson said:
I'm not sure why they're only concentrating on IP issues; seems like the much bigger issue is filming on private property without permission.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was thinking. At that point, couldn't it turn into a trespassing issue since most places like that have signs posted prohibiting such actions? I'm clearly not a lawyer, so tell me how ignorant I am. :)
 
HorseFilms said:
That's exactly what I was thinking. At that point, couldn't it turn into a trespassing issue since most places like that have signs posted prohibiting such actions? I'm clearly not a lawyer, so tell me how ignorant I am. :)
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to seeing this one too. I don't think the trespassing issue could keep him from selling his film. Disney could probably bar him from ever entering the park again if they wanted to.
 
cyclone said:
... they claimed the suit would be on the grounds of the many trademarks that they control and if those images were in frame.
Click to expand...

I never understand this.
Isn't it the whole idea, of creating a trademark/logo and put it everywhere, so folks can see and realize it?
If you don't want your logo to be seen, don't put it in public - seems pretty bizarre to me.
 
HorseFilms said:
That's exactly what I was thinking. At that point, couldn't it turn into a trespassing issue since most places like that have signs posted prohibiting such actions? I'm clearly not a lawyer, so tell me how ignorant I am. :)
Click to expand...

That would depend on the laws in Florida, but it is pretty standard that even though you are trespassing, if you have a camera, anything you film/photography is your property.
 
Just to add to the discussion, yes I agree the trespass charge is probably Disneys strongest card, but I assume the film team paid to gain entry? also I'm pretty certain many tourists take their stills and video cameras to record junior having a great time. A good legal team could greatly reduce Disneys bite at filming in their park for the purposes of a doco.

I can understand Disney wishing to supply quality footage showing the park in its best light as opposed to what ever the guy filming picked up (garbage sitting perhaps).
 
Postmaster said:
I never understand this.
Isn't it the whole idea, of creating a trademark/logo and put it everywhere, so folks can see and realize it?
If you don't want your logo to be seen, don't put it in public - seems pretty bizarre to me.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of creating a trademark/logo is certainly NOT to put it everywhere, it's to control your brand and create a positive image for consumers. If anyone can use your trademark or logo anyway they want to that defeats the purpose of having a logo. Does Toys R Us (if they were still around) want their logo in a movie about pedophiles? Probably not. Does McDonald's want their logo in a movie about people that are fat and having heart attacks? I don't think so. Adn they have a right to tell someone in those situations they cannot use their logos. However, fair use exists so we have freedom of speech. If it's a satire ABOUT Toys R US or McDonald's then it's probably fair use. If you just want to use those logos adn locations to add production value to your movie, then you need permission or you can't do it without violating copyrights and trademark laws.

Are you making Super Size Me? Then McDonald's can't tell you that you can't do a movie about them. Are you doing a Romantic Comedy and you think it would be cool for your couple to bump into each other in at McDonald's? You probably need permission for that.
 
Vultch said:
Just to add to the discussion, yes I agree the trespass charge is probably Disneys strongest card, but I assume the film team paid to gain entry? also I'm pretty certain many tourists take their stills and video cameras to record junior having a great time. A good legal team could greatly reduce Disneys bite at filming in their park for the purposes of a doco.

I can understand Disney wishing to supply quality footage showing the park in its best light as opposed to what ever the guy filming picked up (garbage sitting perhaps).
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to distinguish between tourist and film maker. It's not your camera, it's your intent. What are you going to do with the footage? You want to pose as a tourist in front of the famous Chinese Theater on the Hollywood walk of fame? No problem, people do it all day long. You want to shoot a movie scene there? L.A. is pretty strict about having a film permit. Just because tourists are allowed to shoot something that doesn't apply to someone making a documentary or movie.
 
Gillvane I agree, they were not tourists, they were making a film without the site owners permission.

But if Disneys best bet of a prosecution is the trespass charge will the fact they were there making a film increase the fine / sentence.
 
Toys R Us is still around.

These guys weren't making a documentary.

There is not nearly enough information here to gauge the merits of any claims, but in general, a property owner could obtain an injunction against a film shot on their property without permission.
 
David Jimerson said:
Toys R Us is still around.

These guys weren't making a documentary.

There is not nearly enough information here to gauge the merits of any claims, but in general, a property owner could obtain an injunction against a film shot on their property without permission.
Click to expand...

Do you mean if it didn't fall under Fair Use, or even if it did fall under fair use?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top