Shooting in Disney without permission: Legal?

I was looking at this flicks official website... I am far from being a lawyer, but I think these folks are pushing Disney pretty far. They even link to a Disney "Pluto" Cartoon from YouTube that does not look like it was posted by anyone associated with Uncle Walt's outfit. I am sure a posse of slick corporate lawyers could jump on the filmmakers with both feet, and then some. I think that Disney has much more concern for the laws of public relations than they do for laws of intellectual property. If Disney came down on the movie it would make headlines and give the film way too much publicity. What ever the law I figure they just want keep the film small and let it fade away. I would also bet the theme parks security is going to make sure nobody else pulls off something like this again.
 
Last edited:
David G. Smith said:
I was looking at this flicks official website... I am far from being a lawyer, but I think these folks are pushing Disney pretty far. They even link to a Disney "Pluto" Cartoon from YouTube that does not look like it was posted by anyone associated with Uncle Walt's outfit. I am sure a posse of slick corporate lawyers could jump on the filmmakers with both feet, and then some. I think that Disney has much more concern for the laws of public relations than they do for laws of intellectual property. If Disney came down on the movie it would make headlines and give the film way too much publicity. What ever the law I figure they just want keep the film small and let it fade away. I would also bet the theme parks security is going to make sure nobody else pulls off something like this again.
Click to expand...

The person posting the youtube video of Pluto might be violating Disney copyright, but posting that link to youtube is definitely not a violation. That's already settled law, posting a link is not the same as posting copyright infringing material. I can link to your post of a copyright infringed IP all day long. You're liable for putting it up, but I'm not liable for posting a link to your post. Disney could go after the person that posted the youtube video, but not the official movie site for linking to it.
 
Last edited:
Disney is one of the biggest companies out there when it comes to protecting their copyright and their trademark. They alone are the reason for the several copyright law changes so that they can hold onto their property for as long as possible. They're known for shutting down many cases that were considered 'fair use', because it was hurting their image, this is why it's so surprising that this film has slipped past them.

David G. Smith said:
I was looking at this flicks official website... I am far from being a lawyer, but I think these folks are pushing Disney pretty far. They even link to a Disney "Pluto" Cartoon from YouTube that does not look like it was posted by anyone associated with Uncle Walt's outfit. I am sure a posse of slick corporate lawyers could jump on the filmmakers with both feet, and then some. I think that Disney has much more concern for the laws of public relations than they do for laws of intellectual property. If Disney came down on the movie it would make headlines and give the film way too much publicity. What ever the law I figure they just want keep the film small and let it fade away. I would also bet the theme parks security is going to make sure nobody else pulls off something like this again.
Click to expand...

I think you hit it on the nail. They probably fought this long and hard and at this point they don't want to draw more attention to it. I commend the filmmakers for fighting this.
 
I'll be honest, for me it comes down to the moral element of it. If someone doesn't want you in their home, or in their barn, or on their land filming and then displaying that footage to the whole world, isn't it their right to tell you to get f--ked? And yet, because this is a faceless corporation, it's okay to break private property laws intentionally and then flaunt those violations in their faces? If this was a docu or a video expose of some corruption that was taking place in Disneyworld, sure I'd understand -- because in some cases, public knowledge can supercede personal privacy (such as sex offender registries, et al). But this is a guy making up a creepy story about some guy who apparently has a sexual obsession with French teenagers among other disturbing acts that work together to needlessly disparage the Disney name.

"Fight the power, f--k the system!" I get it, but if I build a church that's open to the public, is it okay for this guy to come shoot erotic sex fantasies there without my consent, and then continue to promote the result as having been shot in my church?

P.S. I'm aware that I've probably touched on all three DVX-taboo topics, but I hope the moderators will understand that I did so not as a discussion of those topics specifically, but as a comparison tool for the purpose of discussing whether it's really acceptable in our community mores for a filmmaker to violate personal/corporate privacy and property laws, trademark laws, etc., simply because we feel we have some ordained right to film whatever we want.
 
So if I understand it correctly, several people here suggest that it's okay to violate the law and Disney's rights, as long as they're not likely to be held accountable for it?

Where is the professionalism in that?
 
David Jimerson said:
As I said, the owner could seek an injunction against the film for it being shot on private property without permission.
Click to expand...

You can file for anything you want, but I'm not aware of any grounds for such a lawsuit. Are you? I can seek an injunction against you because I don't like the name David, but it's not likely a judge will give it to me without some law or precedence to back it up.
 
Eric Boellner said:
I'll be honest, for me it comes down to the moral element of it. If someone doesn't want you in their home, or in their barn, or on their land filming and then displaying that footage to the whole world, isn't it their right to tell you to get f--ked? And yet, because this is a faceless corporation, it's okay to break private property laws intentionally and then flaunt those violations in their faces? If this was a docu or a video expose of some corruption that was taking place in Disneyworld, sure I'd understand -- because in some cases, public knowledge can supercede personal privacy (such as sex offender registries, et al). But this is a guy making up a creepy story about some guy who apparently has a sexual obsession with French teenagers among other disturbing acts that work together to needlessly disparage the Disney name.

"Fight the power, f--k the system!" I get it, but if I build a church that's open to the public, is it okay for this guy to come shoot erotic sex fantasies there without my consent, and then continue to promote the result as having been shot in my church?

P.S. I'm aware that I've probably touched on all three DVX-taboo topics, but I hope the moderators will understand that I did so not as a discussion of those topics specifically, but as a comparison tool for the purpose of discussing whether it's really acceptable in our community mores for a filmmaker to violate personal/corporate privacy and property laws, trademark laws, etc., simply because we feel we have some ordained right to film whatever we want.
Click to expand...

Using your example, I'd say Yes you can do that if you're making a political statement about the Catholic Church and how they are oppressive sexually, or whatever. But if you had no commentary about the Church and you just snuck in there to shoot Back Door Girls part 17 because you thought it would make money, then no, you have no "fair use" argument.

Again, look at the reason behind "Fair Use". It's to promote free speech. Let's say as an artist you want to make the statement that Disney is a vapid corporate shill or whatever. Disney doesn't have the right to say, only positive statements can be made about us. You can never criticize us as a corporation because we have a trademark or copyright. That would stifle debate, ideas, free speech.

Let's say you want to make a comedy but you have no money, so you decide Disney would add great production value for your comedy. That's not "fair use". That's just trespass and stealing. No one is stifling your free speech because you didn't get to use the Disney IP for free to make your film. You could shoot the same film in your living room.

The idea is, could Disney fight the film makers and claim they don't have a right to "fair use"? Yes, you can always file a law suit. Is it a good idea? There are two reasons to say no it's not.
1. Disney would probably lose because this is a satirical commentary about Disney and probably does fall under fair use.
2. Even if Disney doesn't think this is "fair use" the idea is they don't want people to see the film. MORE people would probably see the film if Disney sued than less, which would defeat the entire purpose of a law suit.

If there was ZERO argument for fair use, and the second possibility was all that existed, I'd agree with you.
 
Jon Starr said:
Disney is one of the biggest companies out there when it comes to protecting their copyright and their trademark. They alone are the reason for the several copyright law changes so that they can hold onto their property for as long as possible. They're known for shutting down many cases that were considered 'fair use', because it was hurting their image, this is why it's so surprising that this film has slipped past them.
Click to expand...

If Disney shut it down, then it wasn't "fair use". Fair Use means Disney could not shut it down. Many people don't understand "fair use". They think, it would be fair if I use it because I'm not making any money. That's fair use, right? No, that has nothing to do with "fair use".

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
 
Legally speaking, couldn't Disney argue their case on the grounds of protecting the privacy of their visitors? I'm curious why Disney isn't shutting this film down, because not only do they have numerous legal arguments against the film, but they have $115b market cap and like a buddy of mine once said about Star Wars knockoffs, "George Lucas only wins in court when he wants to."

This doesn't seem to be so much a case of these guys getting away with it as it is Disney letting it slide, probably for the reasons David Smith and Jon mentioned. But honestly, with the Mouse's PR reach, I don't think it'd be that hard to spin the public side of this story as Disney stepping in to protect the nose-picking, butt-scratching, candy-eating privacy of their visitors. This film makes a precedent in the mind that if you visit Disneyworld, you could wind up fixing the crotch of your pants in the background of a movie on a twenty-foot screen for everyone to see.
 
Gillvane said:
You can file for anything you want, but I'm not aware of any grounds for such a lawsuit. Are you? I can seek an injunction against you because I don't like the name David, but it's not likely a judge will give it to me without some law or precedence to back it up.
Click to expand...

Injunctive relief is available for remedy of trespass to land. It's an equity solution when no damages will remedy the tort.
 
Gillvane said:
If Disney shut it down, then it wasn't "fair use".
Click to expand...
That's too much of a leap to make. Disney could have shut it down because "their lawyers were scarier than our lawyers". It may never have made it to trial. It could have been a perfectly legitimate example of fair use, but the defendants didn't have the money or the will to fight it.

You can't assume that the outcome of a case is solely based on the relative merits of the case, there are other factors. I'm sure there are many people who have plea-bargained to offenses they didn't commit, just to minimize the risk that something worse might have happened to them, even when they know they're innocent.
 
Eric Boellner said:
Legally speaking, couldn't Disney argue their case on the grounds of protecting the privacy of their visitors? I'm curious why Disney isn't shutting this film down, because not only do they have numerous legal arguments against the film, but they have $115b market cap and like a buddy of mine once said about Star Wars knockoffs, "George Lucas only wins in court when he wants to."

This doesn't seem to be so much a case of these guys getting away with it as it is Disney letting it slide, probably for the reasons David Smith and Jon mentioned. But honestly, with the Mouse's PR reach, I don't think it'd be that hard to spin the public side of this story as Disney stepping in to protect the nose-picking, butt-scratching, candy-eating privacy of their visitors. This film makes a precedent in the mind that if you visit Disneyworld, you could wind up fixing the crotch of your pants in the background of a movie on a twenty-foot screen for everyone to see.
Click to expand...
Eric, you're definitely correct here that Disney could and should have the responsibility of attempting to protect the privacy of their clients -- whether legally or by just good business sense, I won't argue. I used to live in Las Vegas, and getting permission to shoot in the casinos was really difficult. We could occasionally do it, but it was not easy. One of the main reasons given is: what if that guy in the background with his arm around that woman, what if that's not his wife? With the "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" mentality there, it would be disastrous for them to be "outing" cheating spouses or -- well, any number of privacy concerns. Now, could they be subject to a lawsuit for failing to protect the privacy of people on their private property? I don't know, IANAL, but I can say this -- if word gets out that "what happens in the Rats Nest Hotel & Casino, doesn't stay there, it gets published on YouTube and Netflix", then that's the end of the Rats Nest Hotel & Casino...

Does Disney have an obligation to protect the privacy of their customers from some renegade filmmaker who's trespassing on their property and actively violating their policies? I would say that yes, they should at least take the effort to do so.
 
David W. Richardson said:
See, THIS is what bothers me. Someone hears what they want to hear and assumes it as fact.

Talk to a qualified intellectual property attorney. That's the only safe course.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. Gillvane's response wasn't what I wanted to hear, it's all I needed to hear to know I shouldn't continue in this discussion. I'm making a concerted effort recently to greatly reduce my presence in debates and arguments on the internet. Now that I know Gillvane's position on the matter, there's no further reason for me to discuss it. :beer:
 
Eric Boellner said:
Hahaha, sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. Gillvane's response wasn't what I wanted to hear, it's all I needed to hear to know I shouldn't continue in this discussion. I'm making a concerted effort recently to greatly reduce my presence in debates and arguments on the internet. Now that I know Gillvane's position on the matter, there's no further reason for me to discuss it. :beer:
Click to expand...

I see. Sorry about that. Smart move, I suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top