Escape from Tomorrowland - UNAUTHORIZED DISNEY MOVIE!

[WDWChloe]

The version i saw on Youtube says "THE FOLLOWING MOTION PICTURE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED...."

Either you missed the NOT or there are versions floating around with the first screen hacked.

edited to add a link to a New Yorker article where a law professor from Columbia shows why the film is probably allowable under fair use.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...row-disney-world-and-the-law-of-fair-use.html

Oh geez *facepalm*
Thanks for that! I seriously looked over that key word; NOT!

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

From what I have read and think, there is some truth to iconic architectural structures being protected under "fair use" and thus perhaps Disney couldn't sue .... but I would think that there would be enough characters and drawings/art shown (that is not protected) that if Disney really wanted to go after them they could - but they would have the weigh the cost of that vs. waht they would gain vs. any negative press, etc.

I think that if it comes out that the movie paints the parks/Disney in a negative light (or that is the reaction to it) they will go after them - otherwise, why bother

This makes the most sense, by protecting their copyright rights its just giving the movie more free press.

Lets face it this type of low budget movie that uses other peoples talent and copyrights as the only way to make there own screen play work, will end up in a very limited art fairs and theaters.

Whether one college professor, (who did not address the character use issue)thinks that Disney could not win a suit to prevent it being released and others like the The York and Los Angeles Times thinks it could, is not really the point. Disney could simply get a court order and keep the movie under wraps for years, something this Mr. Moore would not be able to afford.

While whether Mr. Moore is talented I will not judge, but using a American Icon of good family entertainment and wholesomeness, turning it into something evil and weird and murderous is plainly wrong.

AKK

 

[Lewisc]

[/COLOR]
Lets face it this type of low budget movie that uses other peoples talent and copyrights as the only way to make there own screen play work, will end up in a very limited art fairs and theaters.

Art

AKK

The film isn't using other peoples copyright. They avoided using anything which was subject to copyright protection (It's a Small World song for example).

Maybe they violated the terms of their annual pass. Everything I've read suggests their use of the Disney characters is covered under fair use.

Mel Brooks made a career making parody films.



I agree, this film is likely to get limited theatrical release. The fact that it premiered at Sundance and was selected for showing at Roger Ebert's festival was a big accomplishment. Getting showed at ANY screen is a huge accomplishment.

 

[WDWChloe]

ya know... after watching the trailer another 3 or 4 times, the only thing that is going to bother me the entire movie is that it was shot in WDW & Disneyland...I hate when TV shows did that too... Like Full House, they'd be riding Dumbo one second, then watching Indy the next scene [in DHS].

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

The film isn't using other peoples copyright. They avoided using anything which was subject to copyright protection (It's a Small World song for example).

Maybe they violated the terms of their annual pass. Everything I've read suggests their use of the Disney characters is covered under fair use.

Mel Brooks made a career making parody films.



I agree, this film is likely to get limited theatrical release. The fact that it premiered at Sundance and was selected for showing at Roger Ebert's festival was a big accomplishment. Getting showed at ANY screen is a huge accomplishment.

Hi Lewisc,

I disagree, it is one thing to take shots in the MK, but in using the Disney version of the characters in a weird and degrading manner, it reduces the characters value and in doing so voids out the Fair use rule and Disney can sue for their loses.

I was using the wrong word in copyright, its trademarks, patents, properties? my error!

I quote the writers opinion piece:

Its important to understand that Disney does not have some kind of general intellectual-property right in Disney World itself. It is not a problem to film the Magic Saucer ride. The case would depend on the appearance of Disneys trademarks or copyrighted works in the background of the film, like when Goofy wanders by or when we see the waving robots in Its a Small World. Filming these works without justification would be an infringement of the copyright law. The question is whether they are fair useor in other words, whether technical infringements are negated because they are justified by public policy. If there were a fire in Times Square, TV-news teams would be free to film there despite all of the copyrighted billboards in the background, given the publics interest in the reporting and the First Amendments protection of the press.

Now if the movie changed the billboards and made them weird or reduced their selling value that ends fair use.

Again I quote his opinion piece:

Meanwhile, with relevance to the trademark law, there is no real chance that anyone would plausibly think that the film was sponsored by or affiliated with Disney. The scene where a Disney Princess attempts to crush a child seems to eliminate that possibility

He makes a point but he stopped short of noted by making the princess weird and evil, it reduces the character's value, especially in the eyes of a child, makes the princess worthless as a wholesome, loving character.

Now before you point out as the writer did that the princess in that scene could not be though of as Disney sponsored, is not the correct, as the princess is still dressed and looks like the Disney version. If the movie dreamed up their own version Disney would have nothing to say about it.


As to the art world fair showing the movie, I think you will find its only of interest to the artsy crowd. So the *huge deal* would in my view be mostly limited to the fairs and the art theaters and not the American paying public.

I make no pretense at being artsy. I gave up on that crowd when they tried to tell the country an *artist* putting a cross in a jar of urine was art. The country did not agree, but his sicko artsy bunch thought it was art.

If Disney makes a issue of this, the lawyers will all line up on different sides of the line and fight it out. As the said before, if Disney does make a legal fight of it, it will be locked away for good.

AKK

 

[DizCaptain]

I don't see the big deal. I just watched the trailer and would I call that art? No. Would any of my artsy film-buff friends call that art? No. This movie is more apt to be categorized as goofy and stupid (in an endearing way). I will probably watch it given the chance, just because it looks like a good laugh. The movie looks legally fair, and even if it weren't, what do I care? Either way, it'll probably quickly join the ranks of Birdemic and Iron Sky as one of those "so-bad-its-funny" movies.

 

[Lewisc]

Hi Lewisc,

I disagree, it is one thing to take shots in the MK, but in using the Disney version of the characters in a weird and degrading manner, it reduces the characters value and in doing so voids out the Fair use rule and Disney can sue for their loses.

I was using the wrong word in copyright, its trademarks, patents, properties? my error!

................

If Disney makes a issue of this, the lawyers will all line up on different sides of the line and fight it out. As the said before, if Disney does make a legal fight of it, it will be locked away for good.

AKK

I offered a link to an article from a Columbia University law professor. You quoted extensively from the article. You omitted the relevant paragraph.

A famous case over the artist Thomas Forsythes Food Chain Barbie series is similar to this one. In the late nineteen-nineties, Forsythe created a line of artistic photographs of Barbie under attack by various vintage appliances. According to Forsythe, he wanted to critique the objectification of women associated with [Barbie], and to lambast the conventional beauty myth and the societal acceptance of women as objects because this is what Barbie embodies. His work made just thirty-seven hundred dollars, but Mattel sued for both copyright and trademark infringements. The courts threw out the complaints under a fair use and First Amendment rationale. The judges were so annoyed by the lawsuits that they awarded attorneys fees of nearly two million dollars to the artist.

Not only did Mattel lose the suit but they were forced to pay two million dollars in legal fees.


Disney takes this to court and the movie gets a lot of publicity. Even if Disney wins, unlikely based on what I've read, the movie will wind up all over the web and get far more attention. Disney didn't take action over similar, but less elaborate, "movies" shot in their parks.

The consensus seems to be the one part where the movie might be in trouble is apparent failure to get releases from people shown in the movie.

Parody is considered "fair use". From the context it is clear this is parody. Don't compare this to the "art" of a urine dipped crucifix. Think of a Mel Brooks movie. National Lampoon.

You are using the wrong words. Disney would have a case if the movie violated items which are subject to copyright. The movie maker deliberately omitted items such as It's a Small World song which are subject to copyright. Weird Al got releases for his song parodies. There isn't a copyright violation.

Trademarks aren't protected from parody. People watching the movie won't think Disney is in any way responsible.

You can certainly think what the movie director is wrong and rude. You can think he is benefiting from the work of Disney. Same to the way Mel Brooks benefited from Star Wars when he made Spaceballs.
You have a point.

The movie is getting limited theatrical release and VoD airing the middle of October. Pretty obvious lawyers either think Disney doesn't have a case or that Disney will decide not to take action.

BTW the thread title is incorrect. The movie title is Escape from Tomorrow. not tomorrowland.

edited to add: I agree with Dizcaptain. This movie isn't really "artsy"

Some people might consider it a great first film from a new director. A great example of a movie shot with a unbelievably low budget. Without the kind of cameras and equipment typically associated with feature films. A parody. Comparison of the happy imagery of WDW with the real life problems in the lives of guests. Add some fantasy.

Others will consider it a bad home movie exploiting the Disney name and characters.

I'll wait until (actually if) I see it before I decide which category I put the movie.

Sounds like Tonka has already decided.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I offered a link to an article from a Columbia University law professor. You quoted extensively from the article. You omitted the relevant paragraph.

A famous case over the artist Thomas Forsythes Food Chain Barbie series is similar to this one. In the late nineteen-nineties, Forsythe created a line of artistic photographs of Barbie under attack by various vintage appliances. According to Forsythe, he wanted to critique the objectification of women associated with [Barbie], and to lambast the conventional beauty myth and the societal acceptance of women as objects because this is what Barbie embodies. His work made just thirty-seven hundred dollars, but Mattel sued for both copyright and trademark infringements. The courts threw out the complaints under a fair use and First Amendment rationale. The judges were so annoyed by the lawsuits that they awarded attorneys fees of nearly two million dollars to the artist.

Not only did Mattel lose the suit but they were forced to pay two million dollars in legal fees.

Point taken, however in that case the Forsythe was making a political statement. In this case Moore is simply making a surreal horror movie with no public value other then what I would as this point consider limited entertainment. There are many cases of people using Disney characters without permission and they were stopped. There was a case or maybe a situation is a better word) in NJ years ago, where a day care had a local artist draw the Disney characters on the walls. Disney heard about it and brought a action to have the characters removed on the basis that they were infringing on their property rights and were poorly done. I don't think this went all the way to a court verdict, but the court apparently wanted it settled and let the word out that that by doing the characters poorly the Daycare devalued the characters, who were intended for children and therefore fair use was voided.

Disney did end it by arranging for there own artists to repaint the characters and the day care agreed after 5 years to remove them.

Ever go into a store/T shirt shop with a parody of a Disney character or brand and ask them to print a T shirt with it???....without Disney permission???......It is not going to happen! I know that for a fact.


I am sure we both can find different suits and cases to go both ways and there are already many legal opinions on both sides of this issue.


Disney takes this to court and the movie gets a lot of publicity. Even if Disney wins, unlikely based on what I've read, the movie will wind up all over the web and get far more attention. Disney didn't take action over similar, but less elaborate, "movies" shot in their parks.

Agreed the best thing to do is let it die with the artsy crowd

The consensus seems to be the one part where the movie might be in trouble is apparent failure to get releases from people shown in the movie.

Parody is considered "fair use". From the context it is clear this is parody. Don't compare this to the "art" of a urine dipped crucifix. Think of a Mel Brooks movie. National Lampoon.

OK...lets....Young Frankenstein, by making the monster (and mind you I was always on the monster side in those movies ) they took a evil monster and turned him into a comedy figure, along with other figures, thereby not degrading the characters.

Not to mention they shot the movie on a studio lot and not in a private park with private icons and people around.
You are using the wrong words. Disney would have a case if the movie violated items which are subject to copyright. The movie maker deliberately omitted items such as It's a Small World song which are subject to copyright. Weird Al got releases for his song parodies. There isn't a copyright violation.


I bow to you here, I am not a lawyer and not sure of the correct property protection words to use.

Trademarks aren't protected from parody. People watching the movie won't think Disney is in any way responsible.

You can certainly think what the movie director is wrong and rude. You can think he is benefiting from the work of Disney. Same to the way Mel Brooks benefited from Star Wars when he made Spaceballs.
You have a point.

The movie is getting limited theatrical release and VoD airing the middle of October. Pretty obvious lawyers either think Disney doesn't have a case or that Disney will decide not to take action.

BTW the thread title is incorrect. The movie title is Escape from Tomorrow. not tomorrowland.

edited to add: I agree with Dizcaptain. This movie isn't really "artsy"

Some people might consider it a great first film from a new director. A great example of a movie shot with a unbelievably low budget. Without the kind of cameras and equipment typically associated with feature films. A parody. Comparison of the happy imagery of WDW with the real life problems in the lives of guests. Add some fantasy.

Others will consider it a bad home movie exploiting the Disney name and characters.

I'll wait until (actually if) I see it before I decide which category I put the movie.

Fair enough, but *surreal* as this movie is described as is a *artsy* form

Sounds like Tonka has already decided.

My bottom line here is as you pointed out , I object when I see someone degrade the wholesome and magical brand of Disney to promote their own agenda.


If this Mr. Moore is as good as some think, let him develop his own style, characters and screen plays without taking someone else's (Disney and Disney imaginers and animators) work.

Lets face it, if the Disney name was not involved, we and likely no where else what anyone have heard about this movie.

AKK

 

[Lewisc]

My bottom line here is as you pointed out , I object when I see someone degrade the wholesome and magical brand of Disney to promote their own agenda.


If this Mr. Moore is as good as some think, let him develop his own style, characters and screen plays without taking someone else's (Disney and Disney imaginers and animators) work.

Lets face it, if the Disney name was not involved, we and likely no where else what anyone have heard about this movie.

AKK

If Disney wasn't involved the topic probably wouldn't be discussed on DIS.

I don't know what style Mr. Moore will develop. Mel Brooks made a lot of parody movies. Weird Al made a career out of parody records (with permission). Mr. Moore next movie could be a parody of some other company. Could be something different.

Lawyers quoted don't think Disney has a great case. It looks like Disney is going to let this slide.

Makes sense to continue this discussion after (or if) we've seen the movie.

Maybe it's clever and well done. Maybe it's nothing but exploitative. Why decide without seeing it.

I don't think this is really a big deal.

edited to add: I'm not lawyer. You don't have to be a lawyer to know what kinds of items are protected by copyright law. Spaceballs "borrowed" a lot from Star Wars. Sounds like the Barbie case used actual dolls.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

If Disney wasn't involved the topic probably wouldn't be discussed on DIS.

I disagree there, the interest in the movie would be nil, with the exception of the artsy world.

I don't know what style Mr. Moore will develop. Mel Brooks made a lot of parody movies. Weird Al made a career out of parody records (with permission). Mr. Moore next movie could be a parody of some other company. Could be something different.

Agreed

Lawyers quoted don't think Disney has a great case. It looks like Disney is going to let this slide.

I hope they due , but as has been pointed out by myself and others, Disney need simply have the movie prevented from being released and spend years fighting the issue, something Moore cannot afford. Even if it ends up on the net, it would only make it more of a financial issue for Moore as if its in any way traced to him or this staff or friends, etc.....he's in hot water.

Makes sense to continue this discussion after (or if) we've seen the movie.

Agreed, we can agree to disagree until we see it , if ever! fair enough

Maybe it's clever and well done. Maybe it's nothing but exploitative. Why decide without seeing it.

I don't think this is really a big deal.

edited to add: I'm not lawyer. You don't have to be a lawyer to know what kinds of items are protected by copyright law. Spaceballs "borrowed" a lot from Star Wars. Sounds like the Barbie case used actual dolls.

My point was more that this is all opinion until it gets to court, and I am not a expert on copyright or trademarks etc.. The fact is one reason out legal system is so screwed up is the lawyers have managed to make everything *grey * and not *black and white *(ok not everything has to be black and white, sometimes it is grey) as the laws should be.

AKK

 

[Lewisc]

I hope they due , but as has been pointed out by myself and others, Disney need simply have the movie prevented from being released and spend years fighting the issue, something Moore cannot afford. Even if it ends up on the net, it would only make it more of a financial issue for Moore as if its in any way traced to him or this staff or friends, etc.....he's in hot water.

I didn't miss that. It's unlikely, based on the articles, Disney would be able to legally block release of the movie. Enough pressure and conventional distributors might decline. I'm not even sure they're currently involved. Given the free publicity that would result Mr. Moore could sell the movie online and probably do alright. Given enough publicity and the movie might be booked directly in smaller, Independent "art" theaters.



I wonder if Disney even cancelled their APs.

edited to add. It sounds like Mr. Moore got some good advice. He knew enough to substitute music for It's a Small World song.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I didn't miss that. It's unlikely, based on the articles, Disney would be able to legally block release of the movie. Enough pressure and conventional distributors might decline. I'm not even sure they're currently involved. Given the free publicity that would result Mr. Moore could sell the movie online and probably do alright. Given enough publicity and the movie might be booked directly in smaller, Independent "art" theaters.

All indeed possible, but I don't think many others would back Mr. Moore up and get involved if it was known Disney was going to fight it out. A court injunction to keep the movie under wraps until the suit is settled, etc., etc.The costs could go into millions and go on for years. I do agree with you it would be foolish for Disney to make more noise and bring it to court.I wonder if Disney even cancelled their APs.

Gee Lewisc, that would be a bit spitefully...... wouldn't it?

edited to add. It sounds like Mr. Moore got some good advice. He knew enough to substitute music for It's a Small World song.

The whole thing does have the feel of attorneys going over the plans from the start.


AKK

 

[Lewisc]

What makes you think Disney would get an injunction? Mattel's case was so weak they had to pay 10 million to pay defendants legal costs. Parody is a fair use exception to trademarks. You can't be suggesting the movie is anything but parody.

Mr. Moore did a lot of planning. It would have been stupid not have an attorney review their procedures.

I haven't gone to Disney's website to check. I suspect shooting a commercial movie violated Disney's terms and conditions. Cancelling their APs may be about the only thing Disney can do and you think that would be spiteful.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

What makes you think Disney would get an injunction? Mattel's case was so weak they had to pay 10 million to pay defendants legal costs. Parody is a fair use exception to trademarks. You can't be suggesting the movie is anything but parody.

Mr. Moore did a lot of planning. It would have been stupid not have an attorney review their procedures.

I haven't gone to Disney's website to check. I suspect shooting a commercial movie violated Disney's terms and conditions. Cancelling their APs may be about the only thing Disney can do and you think that would be spiteful.

what makes you think they can't. That is a legal tool to prevent the plaintiffs from suffering anymore damage then has been already (allegedly) been done, while the court sorts out who is right and who it wrong.


Spiteful, petty, the same at this point. That is really not a important issue, all they would need to do to get back on the property is buy tickets with cash an false ID's.


AKK

 

[wdw_monster]

I can't wait to see this movie!! Looks very interesting

A lot of people that aren't good ol' Disney freaks like us think Disney is a evil big bad business anyways and I always get told how Walt was a big racist. I think people are to sensitive on weather it's going to ruin the pretty pretty princess image for their children, it's not like your kids are going to watch it anyway

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[wdw_monster]

I can't wait to watch this movie!!!

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[WDWChloe]

Does anyone know of a list of the selected theaters for October 11 yet?

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Does anyone know of a list of the selected theaters for October 11 yet?

If there are any!

AKK

 

[Pirate princess 2]

I did watch the trailer yesterday on imdb. My own personal opinion was that it looked very strange, but I think it's suppose to. Anyway, aside from Disney's legal rights, what about families who were at WDW at the time and may have ended up in this movie? I did not specifically see any in the trailer, but I can't imagine that some families have not ended up in this movie. What are their rights? I've been on the streets in New York when they were filming a movie. I knew what they were doing. It didn't bother me. To be filmed and placed in a theatrical movie and not even know about it seems very creepy to me, especially when dealing with families and minor children.

 

[melancholywings]

It's private property and I doubt he had the correct permits to create it either and could get in legal trouble for that.