ST Paranoid Disney demands "no fly" zones, vanishes Twitter account to "protect" Ep VII "secrets"

This happens all the time. For example, if the Rolling Stones are having a concert in a public park and have worked with the local government to secure permits, they are within their rights to put "no trespassing" signs up and block off the back stage. Anyone unauthorized to be back stage would be removed. Perfectly reasonable and normal....

 

Kind of like keeping an organized forum, right?

 

You guys are literally Hitler

Or is it Orwell? Whatever....whichever one is worse, you guys are that.

 

First Disney came for Stan Lee, claiming they owned the rights to his Marvel Characters, and I did nothing because I liked the movies Disney has done with those characters. Then Disney came for Deadmou5, and I did nothing, because I didn't know who the hell Deadmou5 is.

But then...Disney came for me, and there was no one left to stand for me.

 

Hey, according to rumors, you get to open the movie.

 

I think this is probably what speaks to me.

Is Disney free to go about keeping this film as secret as they like? Sure. Is it a wise policy? Depends on one's p.o.v., I think. Are they somehow "wrong" for wanting to go to lengths to protect their IP? I don't feel as though they are, no.

But if folks are on public land, in public airspace or floating on public waters? Then as far as I'm concerned, Disney has no say whatsoever (and no grounds to expect otherwise).

If someone is resourceful enough to get spoilers from public areas? Good on them. Don't like it? Tough. Build a bigger fence, you know?

Bear in mind, I'm a fan and supporter of Disney/Lucasfilm, but I think it's presumptuous to expect civilians in public areas to act in accordance with anyone's wishes but their own.

 

Chris Nolan, who's not exactly a spoiler-loving guy, didn't send the cops after people standing on public sidewalks filming the Bane vs. Batman fight, which included even bigger spoilers than that climatic sequence. He also didn't threaten take-down notices for the pictures/videos of those fans. No one's asking Disney to leave a bootleg of the movie online. Just to have some perspective and maybe exercise a little restraint in dealing with these fans.

Also, given that this forum was awash in the posting and discussion of leaked property from Disney, something about glass houses comes to mind...

 

I keep hearing Bryan Cranston's character from Godzilla yelling, "What's really happening is that you're hiding something out there, AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!!"

 

If Disney/LFL had contacted us to ask us to remove those images, we would have done so.

 

The above "glass houses" comparison is not even remotely analogous. While we here search for spoilers and like to read them, we're not on the front lines sneaking pictures from Pinewood, or personally sitting in trees trying to scope pictures.

Following that poster's logic, it is perfectly acceptable for peeping toms to take pictures of you naked as long as they're on public land.

 

Yes, but if police personally showed up to make you delete pictures you took on public land, you might think it a bit overkill.

Ugh. Pure ridiculousness. Taking a picture of production work being done in view of the public isn't equivalent to photographing a person through their bedroom window, at all. Not even remotely. Frankly, it's offensive and unhelpful to make that comparison.

And I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.

 

That happens all the time...it's called "voyeurism" and it is illegal. Just because one takes pictures from public land does not make the act of taking those pictures legal....

 

That's not really the same thing as saying, "given that this forum was awash in the posting and discussion of leaked property from Disney, something about glass houses comes to mind...". And let's face it, nobody taking those pictures thought it was something that was totally OK to take pictures of anyway. They knew they weren't taking pictures of ducks in a park.

 

My point is several here are saying the dad who took his son to the park and snapped some pictures is guilty of an criminal act punishable by police action and lawsuits, while the forums have consumed and discussed illegally-obtained images. If taking a picture of a film set makes him equivalent to a peeping Tom (seriously, Luke'sSeveredHand?), what does it make all of us here?

 

If by "that poster," you're referencing my post, let's be reasonable.

I'm not suggesting that it's okay for someone on public land to do something unlawful to get their scoops. But as far as I can tell, someone climbing a tree on public land, or renting a boat to float on public waters, or flying over free airspace has done nothing illegal.

Disney may not like to see photos taken, but as far as I know, there is no law which protects them from being photographed. Peeping Toms taking nude photographs? Now who's being not even remotely analogous?

 

I see your point, and I'll just repeat this and be done with this conversation.

If Disney/LFL had contacted us to ask us to remove those images, we would have done so.

 

I was replying to 'Severed Hand, there, EHT. Your post was just in the quote tree, and I neglected to remove it.

Of course you would remove them, and I wouldn't blame you for doing so. Having and maintaining a positive relationship with Lucasfilm is something to be encouraged at this site, I think.

 

I'm pretty sure he was replying to me, but I agree with what you say.

EHT,

Yes, I know you would and I respect that. I do think the dad mentioned in the piece was treated harshly, though.

 

The fact is the production has a right to privacy. The peeping tom example was extreme on purpose, because either you or your cohort was painting with the broad brush that taking pictures of a closed set from public property is perfectly legal -- when in fact it is not. When one secures permits to film at a location, and one closes that portion of the property allowed in an attempt to protect IP and privacy, it is perfectly legal. But what do I know, I'm just a lawyer....

 

The only part of this that kind of rubs me the wrong way is the fact that Kathy Kennedy said she knew this kind of stuff would get out there, and that they were going to embrace it and have a more open relationship with the fans who are clamoring for it. I get the feeling that a majority of this was instigated by Abrams and his... oh hell I don't even want to use the words.

 

The thing with the final showdown in TDKR is that there was no way for Nolan to stop that. He was operating on a public street with a number of buildings that were occupied with people. Disney, on the other hand, cornered off a public park with permission of the city so that they could film there and in private. As noted, it's one thing to stumble upon it by accident. It's another to deliberately go there and take photos.

BTW, Disney's lawyers.

 

As ThreeDeathstickProblem says, I was actually replying to him... we replied at almost the same time and I didn't go back to edit my post to quote him. Sorry for the confusion.

 

"All wookies are equal, but some wookies are more equal than others"

Im talking about you, Lumpy...

 

Not sure I agree with that. When word got out TDKR filming locations, the main source of videos was a guy who went there day after day, with the sole purpose of getting pictures/video. The crew put up walls and green-screens to hide the plot twist reveal, but it got out. In response, WB and Nolan didn't remove the footage from YouTube, or threaten the fans with lawsuits. I'm really not sympathetic to the argument a dad walking through a park with his son is violating the rights of a multi-billion dollar corporation.