Shooting in Disney without permission: Legal?

[Gillvane]

I don't, either. There is no way to know without a lot more detail, and even then, it's up to the court.

I understand what you mean that one, is a a federal statutory cause of action (copyright) and one (trespass) is a state common law cause of action (tort).

However, I feel that a court of equity would take into consideration someone's claim that their free speech is being violated if there is an injunction against them. Which is where fair use comes into play. If this is not fair use, then there's no violation of free speech to consider. I don't think a court of equity would simply say a claim of trespass trumps any claims of violating a First Amendment right so that's just not a consideration. Fair Use isn't just a federal statutory issue, it's also been held by the Courts as a Constitutional First Amendment issue.

http://whatisfairuse.blogspot.com/2008/03/first-amendments-relationship-with-fair.html

 

[David Jimerson]

I understand what you mean that one, is a a federal statutory cause of action (copyright) and one (trespass) is a state common law cause of action (tort).

However, I feel that a court of equity would take into consideration someone's claim that their free speech is being violated if there is an injunction against them. Which is where fair use comes into play. If this is not fair use, then there's no violation of free speech to consider. I don't think a court of equity would simply say a claim of trespass trumps any claims of violating a First Amendment right so that's just not a consideration. Fair Use isn't just a federal statutory issue, it's also been held by the Courts as a Constitutional First Amendment issue.

http://whatisfairuse.blogspot.com/2008/03/first-amendments-relationship-with-fair.html

They may or may not take it into consideration, but they're totally different spheres.

 

[Gillvane]

Thanks for that. Can you explain the differences please (and the jurisdiction) IANAL and I know these small differences can be crucial.

Edit: thanks for the edit above with the link

I'm not an expert in this area of law and would never advise anyone in this area of law. I'm just stating my opinions like anyone else on this forum.

Generally a public "space" is at issue when you make a claim for freedom of speech. You want to pass out pamphlets for Jesus or stand on a soap box and say Republicans or Democrats are the devil, whatever. That's legal in a public "space" like a sidewalk, or what is considered a "public forum" like a park, owned by the government. That doesn't give you the right to pass out pamphlets for Jesus in the grocery store. The grocery store is not a public "space", even though the public can go there.

The other issue is invasion of privacy. What if I take a photo of your and your mistress in the grocery store and send it to your wife? Did I invade your privacy? No, you're in a public "place". You have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is true even if you have to buy a ticket to go in, like at a concert. The issue becomes, is it a public "place" or not. If it's a public "place" you have no expectation of privacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

 

[Batutta]

Good article that gets into the nitty gritty of how the film was handled legally.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/ho...nd-got-away-with-it?page=1#articleHeaderPanel

 

[Barry_Green]

Thanks, Batutta. That answers a lot of questions, including a link to a Columbia Law School's professor's article on why it didn't violate laws and indeed would/should fall under "fair use": http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...-the-law-of-fair-use.html?mbid=social_retweet

No real need for those of us who haven't seen the film, weren't involved with it, and have no firsthand knowledge about it or the process of making it, to continue to hash out theoreticals and suppositions when we have the story of the filmmakers and of specialist lawyers who have actually seen it and given their educated opinions.

 

[David Jimerson]

No real need for those of us who haven't seen the film, weren't involved with it, and have no firsthand knowledge about it or the process of making it, to continue to hash out theoreticals and suppositions when we have the story of the filmmakers and of specialist lawyers who have actually seen it and given their educated opinions.

Well, I agree that it's pointless to hash it out, and I think everything's already been said (so I don't have anything further to add), but both the IndieWire article and the Wu article (posted in the OP as well) only deal with copyright issues. Wu himself said it's separate from trespass.

 

[Barry_Green]

Totally agreed about the trespass issue.

I think much of the interest in this case (well, not "legal case", but -- interest in this film and in what the filmmakers did) centers around how they "got away with it" and, further, "why can't I do the same?" Can't we all just go into Disneyland or Six Flags or Sea World or wherever we want, and make whatever movie we want? The Wu article points out pretty thoroughly why no, you can't go use someone else's location to add production value to your film, that's (effectively) stealing. Just like "dogme" didn't legitimize making crappy handheld films on cheapo DV cameras, "Escape From Tomorrow" doesn't legitimize trespassing and stealing locations. There are very specific and limited reasons as to why the filmmakers may get away with having done this, and those reasons may not apply in any way to some other filmmaker.

And had Disney ever gotten wind of what was going on in their park, they would have been absolutely within their rights to throw the filmmakers out, and had that happened, their $650,000 budget would have been wasted.

 

[David W. Jones]

The problem... We have raised a generation who feel they are entitled, and lack the professional ethics that many of us learned early in our careers. Just the random thoughts of an old guy.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The problem... We have raised a generation who feel they are entitled, and lack the professional ethics that many of us learned early in our careers. Just the random thoughts of an old guy.

I will of course point out that in regard to 'copyright/trademark' infringement, a generation (that is older guys that most here...) ago, Andy Warhola made a big splash in the 'modern art' world with images of cans of Tomato soup, as well as other Trademarked items...

Campbell's Soup did 'contemplate' suing, but dropped the idea, speculatively because of the 'negative' press such a suit may engender. As it is, Warhola's works are still presented in galleries, still published, etc.

I use this as an example that the so called 'entitled' generation was much earlier than 'today's youth', as Warhola's works engendered a Rage of the Mundane in high class galleries.

 

[Gillvane]

The problem... We have raised a generation who feel they are entitled, and lack the professional ethics that many of us learned early in our careers. Just the random thoughts of an old guy.

If you're just stealing IP then yes it's a lack of professional ethics. However, fair use is ethical. It's protected by the US Constitution.

 

[Gillvane]

Thanks, Batutta. That answers a lot of questions, including a link to a Columbia Law School's professor's article on why it didn't violate laws and indeed would/should fall under "fair use": http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...-the-law-of-fair-use.html?mbid=social_retweet

No real need for those of us who haven't seen the film, weren't involved with it, and have no firsthand knowledge about it or the process of making it, to continue to hash out theoreticals and suppositions when we have the story of the filmmakers and of specialist lawyers who have actually seen it and given their educated opinions.

That's the same article I posted when I started this thread.

 

[Scott F]

That's the same article I posted when I started this thread.

Then I think we've come full circle. Lock 'er up!

 

[groveChuck]

Nah, tomorrow's full circle...
Coming to theaters, iTunes and VOD on Oct. 11th

Bring on the carnage, or yes, at least the lawyers...
"The torts were flowing like disembowled bodies..."
"Only the undead would challenge a world power like this..."
"It may be meant to be settled only in the court of insane opinion..."

Trailer: