PDA

View Full Version : Innerspace Documentary Video!



Pages : [1] 2

Kayoss
09-18-2002, 08:23 PM
You can buy it at http://www.extinct-attractions-club.com

They also have videos of the Peoplemover, Submarines, Mine Train, America Sings and Mission to Mars. Although they sound fantastic, has anybody ever bought them? Are they worth it?

How about you Innerspaceman? Surely you must have one!

innerSpaceman
09-19-2002, 06:04 AM
Ok, where do I sign up?

Actually, Kayoss, thanks for the link and I WILL be ordering the InnerSpace video. The site says that the "new and improved" version won't be ready till late October, but as soon as I have it in my hot little hands, I will post a review.

They have video "documentaries" on a bunch of extinct attractions. This could potentially be a gold mine of fantastic stuff!

Kevin Yee
09-19-2002, 06:32 AM
Isn't this that one guy that everyone cautions about?

Maybe it's not him, but the name sounds familiar. If you're considering this, you may want to search google-groups archive for extinct attractions club and see if this is the guy that a lot of people on alt.disney.disneyland said shafted them (took money, never delivered).

justagrrl
09-19-2002, 07:32 AM
Why is everything at that site available with a "donation"? Instead of saying things are for sale or something it always reads something like "for a $20 donation". What's up with that?

justagrrl
09-19-2002, 07:34 AM
To answer my own question somewhat - it reads:

"We are in no way connected to The Walt Disney Company nor do we represent them or any of
their subsidiaries. We are a non profit preservation group protected by the US governments fair use
of copyrighted material. All images and names and stories are copyright by the Walt Disney
Company and are used solely for historical reference only. No video or film or sound is for sale here
on this site."

Kevin Yee
09-19-2002, 08:29 AM
Not that it's any of my business, but I doubt very much that a judge would find their actions to be protected under the Fair Use rule. Will they send the video even if there's no donation? If not, it's a quid pro quo situation, and a de facto sales transaction even if not in name. That's playing with fire, there.

Andrew
09-19-2002, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Kevin Yee
Not that it's any of my business, but I doubt very much that a judge would find their actions to be protected under the Fair Use rule. Will they send the video even if there's no donation? If not, it's a quid pro quo situation, and a de facto sales transaction even if not in name. That's playing with fire, there.

My, this sounds familiar. Almost as if we went over and over the whole issue back in the old a.d.d days. My general understanding (and hopefully Lani or Alex, our resident fountains of knowledge, will check in here) is that if I take a picture (or video) of something that belongs to you, ownership and copyright of that picture or video is mine. That does not diminish your ownership and copyright status of the object at all--and "fair use" doesn't apply, because I'm not making use of your intellectual property.

I believe it is perfectly legal for me to go to Disneyland, take all the pictures or video I want, assemble them into a nice book or tape, and sell them for profit. I am selling my images, not Disney's property. As long as I don't represent myself as Disney, that is.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, if someone can show me case law saying so.

Kevin Yee
09-19-2002, 10:02 AM
Ahem.

Nope. You cannot assemble a book of pictures of Disneyland and sell it.

The reason is not that Disney owns your pictures, but that your book represents sales generated on the basis of their work (the design and construction of said architecture) as well as your own (the artistry of the photos).

It's a gray area, certainly, and one I'm not sure has been tested in court. Especially by Disney.

But honestly: who wants to be the first one to try it?

I can say with authority that Disney Press will categorically deny you the right to use pictures of Disneyland - even your own - in a book without their permission.

Ghoulish Delight
09-19-2002, 10:12 AM
Still pictures are a more gray area as they certianly do not reproduce the ENTIRE experience, so there can be some debate. But, let's just look at what is being sold here. Video of the attractions. In this case, I see it as being no different than video taping a movie in the theater and selling the tape. We ALL know there are plenty of laws protecting against that. This would seem to qualify as very very similar to that.

RStar
09-19-2002, 10:12 AM
And the problem here would also be that you are using the Disney name, not just the photos. If you called it a book about Disney, you need to get permission just to say so, right? So films of their work, AND putting their name on it would be dangerously treading on their toes.

But I would love to see some films of these old rides. To be able to SHOW my kids innerspace after I've been describing it to them all these years would be great!

smd4
09-19-2002, 10:37 AM
Kevin,

I'm not a lawyer, but I have done considerable legal research regarding this topic in preparation for producing my own book. There are a couple of new cases that overturn what you are saying, and support Andrew.

Click here (http://www.nylawline.com/articlephotog1.htm) to read an article detailing these cases. One is very interesting, a photographer taking pictures of a Vodka bottle for use in the Vodka manufacturer's ads. The bottle was their design, showed their label that they designed, and their name, but the court ruled that the photographer owned the images, and could use them as he chose.

A more recent case, not in this article, but one you may have read about here in LA, was the issue of an artist taking pictures of Barbie (the doll) in suggestive poses with kitchen appliances. Mattel sued, on the grounds that they owned the image of Barbie. They lost, as the artist used Barbie to create his own work.

Anyway, you may want to look into this again.

Andrew
09-19-2002, 11:16 AM
Kind of gotten off track a little, but I've always wanted to see some resolution on this.

Robert Cameron's Above Los Angeles (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/091868448X/disneinforguided/) (Amazon affiliate link) features an aerial photograph of Disneyland. Is that infringing?

LaughingPlace.com often runs photo updates (http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID506400.asp) from Disneyland and DCA. Are they infringing?

Even we here at MousePlanet have both Brian Bennett's photo tours (http://www.mouseplanet.com/dtp/wdwguide/4_Accommodations/POR_photo_tour.htm) and our very popular desktop photo (http://www.mouseplanet.com/desktops/index.htm) sections. Are we infringing?

If not all of these are infringing, where do you draw the line? Could I do a book of theme park photographs that included some from Disney parks, but also other parks? How about a video of my family travelling around the world riding roller coasters, including some at Disney parks?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to get some discussion and (hopefully) good legal references about how this works.

Kevin Yee
09-19-2002, 11:27 AM
I'm also not a lawyer (clearly), and the news about Barbie was very interesting. As I said, this is a gray area.

As for your examples, Andrew:

- if the aerial shots were done without permission, the answer is maybe. Disney paid somebody (specifically Marvin Davis and Ken Anderson) to create the shape of DL once upon a time.

- LP and MP have positioned themselves as "press," which is its own little can of legal worms that no one really knows the answer to.

- Robb's coaster video, if that's what you meant, toes the line too. Robb's themeparkreview.com is press, and acknowledged as such, but for the videos he charges money.

- And a book which you produce showing pictues of DL is in technical violation, I would say. Whether Disney even acts on that is anyone's guess - I'd say most of the time they don't bother. And if they did act, they may not win (as the Barbie case shows).

I still need to digest this. I can repeat, though: Disney Press has and will continue to send out warnings to any wannabe authors and publishers that photos must be approved and licensing fees paid.

As for where to draw the lines, that's why trials and judges exist. I suspect a judge wouldn't rule against your aerial photographer but would rule against, say, the "Inside DL Attractions" people if they hadn't had Disney permission.

merlinjones
09-19-2002, 12:26 PM
Since the video of extinct attractions is a recording of a "product" no longer offered by the Walt Disney Company, how would it define unfair competition? Copyrights were only devised to protect creators commercial rights - - they were never intended to protect intellectual rights in perpetuity.

It seems to me that we should have "use it or lose it" copyrights. So Adventure Thru Inner Space and Song of the South could be in the public domain, as they are no longer deemed to have commercial value to the company.

They can't have it both ways.

As for photos, the Barbie case proved that the icon had fallen in the public domain as an image that artists were free to use and comment upon as long as they weren't confusing the public with a directly competitive Mattel product. Surely Disneyland photos, public icons encouraged to be taken by the sale of film in the park, make such photos your property. You might not be able to market them with a Disneyland trademark title, but th ephotos are yours to shoot.

Same goes for copyrighted items. Once you own a poster or still or toy, for example, a photo of the item itself is yours to republish (as long as its shown as the item and not just the character/image itself).

Kevin Yee
09-19-2002, 12:39 PM
It has to do with future marketability of similar products.

If Disney decided to open a new revenue stream in ten years by selling videos of extinct attractions, this would certainly be their right.

If videos by a competitor were allowed to be sold now, though, Disney's future revenue would be imperiled. Any monetary compensation - if granted via trial - would be based on that figure.

MammaSilva
09-19-2002, 12:44 PM
am I the only one that feels like the fell into the whole "pooh" lawsuit with these different "ifs" I totally understand where Kevin is coming from but what Andrew says makes sense as welll...... my brain is hurting right now:confused:

Cadaverous Pallor
09-19-2002, 01:16 PM
Just wondering - innerSpaceman, are you going to give this guy a shot? Let us know how it turns out.

Kayoss
09-19-2002, 01:50 PM
Man. I want all these videos. Even better, you can get them on DVD!

Morrigoon
09-19-2002, 04:22 PM
Obviously I'm not a lawyer either, but I want to add some thoughts:

The aerial shot of DL was photographed from outside DL property. According to rules that apply to paparazzi, they can shoot a photo of celebrities at their homes IF they are not on their property when they do it (or at least that's how I understand it). Photos taken from inside the park, however, since you are on Disney's property when you take them, probably fall under a different set of rules.

Ghoulish Delight
09-19-2002, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Morrigoon
The aerial shot of DL was photographed from outside DL property. According to rules that apply to paparazzi, they can shoot a photo of celebrities at their homes IF they are not on their property when they do it (or at least that's how I understand it). So very true. There was a strange case last year. A married couple was convicted of performing a lewd act in front of a minor...for having sex in their own bedroom. Their neighboor noticed that, because their bedroom door was open a crack, if you really looked, you could see their reflection in through the bathroom window, in the bathroom mirror, through the slightly opened door. This neighbor then purposely brought her child out where he could see, and video taped the fact that you could see it! The couple were convicted (sentenced to community service) and the judge ruled that because she was outside the property, she was not illegally videotaping the couple. I couldn't believe how that ruling went down. :rolleyes:

slaakker
09-19-2002, 06:03 PM
There is a link at the bottom of the page to Doombuggies.com. This site is managed by a person named Patrick Hurd. If this new site is managed by him, I have had good luck dealing with him. I have purchased two videos. It took him a long time but I recieved what I paid for and was satisfied with the product.

I will warn you though, don't expect professional quality videos. They are mostly a compilation of home video.

However, seeing America Sings again was awesome!

Patrick, if this is your site, let us know!

Chris Lang
09-19-2002, 08:10 PM
Extinct Attractions Club is NOT managed by "Doombuggy Productions" (Patrick Hurd) who produced some videos awhile back. I'm not going to break MousePlanet's TOS by posting a link to his website, but they are separate individuals.

Furthermore, a banner ad or other advertisement on that site does NOT constitute an endorsement by the advertiser.

I highly recommend using Groups.google.com and research the goings on of a few years back. (Search for "extinct attractions club"). Many people never got their tapes, and even recently some people have had trouble getting their materials back from that site.

Ace
09-19-2002, 08:37 PM
Ha, that's pretty funny. I'd really like one of those peoplemover videos (mmmm.....) but if the guy's not gonna follow through then forget it. It seems like Disney vintage videos wouldn't be the most obvious idea for a way to con people.

slaakker
09-19-2002, 09:33 PM
Furthermore, a banner ad or other advertisement on that site does NOT constitute an endorsement by the advertiser.

I wasn't inferring that it was or if I did, I didn't mean to.

Just wanted to find out if it was him and if it was, give him a polite vote of confidence.

Kuzcotopia
09-21-2002, 03:42 PM
Interesting.

They say that the materials here are posted for "Historical Purposes only."

That begs a specific point. If everything the Disney Company creates, even after they destroy it, remains their property forever..

Then whom does that history "belong" to?

There is a huge argument to be made here for elimination of the numerous copyright extensions granted by Congress to media conglomerates. At what point do private companies enjoy immunity from historical observation?

It is time that copyright extensions return to the reasonable 14 years that was established in 1790. Today anything created by a corporation enjoys a 95-year monopoly on them.

This explains why Warner Brothers owns the rights to the Happy Birthday song, and must be paid when it is sung in performance or in a movie or tv show. THE HAPPY BIRTHDAY SONG for crying out loud.

Today we enjoy many characters who were created by cartoonists but have lapsed into the public domain. Santa Claus, for example. Disney has no problems trotting out the Jolly, bearded elf in the red suit, for free and paying no royalties and not accompanying him with the trademark:

Copyright 1902 Thomas Nast.

For it was Thomas Nast who created the likeness we all recognize as Saint Nicholas. He created Uncle Sam, too, which Disney used, without royalties and for free when they stole the character for America Sings.

But it WASN'T stealing, because Uncle Sam was public domain by then. He belongs to all of us.

But he WOULDN'T have been public domain had the laws that Disney pushed to be extended had existed when Nast was alive.