Certainly, you do have the right to not agree; I was just curious as to why you felt that way. Further, it is fine that it is just a gut-level reaction. But it has made me think -- again, how is selling your work made at Disney any different from that made at Yellowstone, or any other place that is relatively freely accessible? And as far as making money off those images, we are talking about a place that charges $75 minimum for the privilege of being in range to take those photos. As much as I love the place and firmly believe that Disney is more than just a business, it is still a business (the same way I believe that Lost is both more than "just a TV show," and also a TV show at the same time, it is still subject to ratings pressure, just like every other show on the air).
First, I'm glad you were able to understand where I was coming with in my comments. I'm not trying to start a bloody debate or anything, just answering your questions about my feelings.
As for Yellowstone - to paraphrase what Mark says, it's a national park. Theoretically that means that it belongs to all of us (even if we have to pay to get it!) Obviously this is not the case with Disney.
The "it costs a lot so I should be able to take pics" argument certainly doesn't count - that's like saying "this hotel is expensive so I should steal the towels." One friend of mine used to grab a few grapes off the bunches when we'd go through the produce section at the grocery store, his feeling was that they price in that people sometimes do that. They may, but it doesn't mean that you should do it!
You did lose some points for mentioning Lost though. After hating myself every time I watched it, I finally killed the season pass off my Tivo and I feel so much better. I was tired of having my intelligence insulted by the writers. But that's a whole different topic.
But yet, Disney parks are not your normal business. I wonder if there are examples of non-Disney parks taking any action against people selling photos... companies that don't have such a "cuddly" image, like Universal.
I'm not sure I'm prepared to try to make that particular argument. I was thinking more in terms of a photo of Cinderella Castle versus one of, say, El Capitan. Further, I was addressing a specific post by Groucho, who said he felt selling work shot at Walt Disney World was "distasteful." He added that his feelings in that regard didn't really have anything to do with whether the sale of such photos was legal, so I was approaching the question from the assumption (let's call it a hypothetical) that it is, in fact, legal.
Now now, you're putting words in my mouth.
I
did not say that selling WDW photos is "distasteful". I said that the way it's done at TMIP is something I find distasteful, especially with some rather curious advertising - I specifically remember at least once here, where someone popped out of nowhere, made a rather clumsy attempt to be an independent person who loves the site and regarded him as the "greatest" WDW photographer, then never posted again... it seemed very suspicious and even if it was completely innocent, it reflected badly on the site, at least. At the time, the site was fairly new and the forums were completely barren. My feeling is actually that it probably isn't legal but that Disney has decided that it's going to turn a blind eye for the moment. I'd be surprised to see someone successfully defend selling WDW photos like that in a court of law - but I'm no lawyer, so what do I know.
Maybe there's a gray area, of sorts -- I bought a DVD of a video of Spectromagic and Wishes, and Spectromagic certainly features the characters. What struck me as questionable was that the videographer didn't use the in-park audio; he had substituted the audio tracks from the CD versions of both shows (though he allowed some of the ambient fireworks sound and crowd reaction to come through for Wishes at a couple of points).
Now these, I definitely don't like. Not only is it, again, something where you can probably get better-quality versions for free (even hi-def stuff is starting to become more common if you know where to look), but it's mainly taking Disney's work and turning around to make a quick, unearned buck off it. On the other hand, we have a commercial site like Extinct Attractions, which produces pretty solid documentaries on attractions and other park topics and obtains legal clearances, and on the free side, there's Martin from the UK, who produces extremely good free-to-download "tributes" which are basically documentaries plus ride-throughs for various attractions and such. He gives full credit to all sources at the end of each video, but is forced to insert "video not for sale" texts here and there in his videos, so that nobody takes his hard work and resells it under their own name to make a quick buck, when he wants it freely distributed.
The point, his use of the tracks from the CDs struck me as putting him on shaky legal ground at best.
Definitely. These are hard times for the RIAA and similar organizations, when music can freely be found as backgrounds for
YouTube videos, downloadable photo slideshows, etc. Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the RIAA whatsoever, just commenting.
I guess my big thing is that I don't like when people look to make a quick buck off someone else's work. Setting up a whole site to hawk photos of questionable legality seems like that to me. Selling home videos seems like that to me (especially when Disney happily sells DVDs feature attraction ride-throughs in their stores.) Heck, I'm not even a big fan of what Laughing Place (and one or two others) does, with reselling items - you buy something from their site, they go into the park, buy it, and ship it to you, pocketing a healthy markup on the side, when buyer could just buy from WDW directly for less. Legality doesn't enter into my feelings on the matter; lots of things are legal that bother me much more than these pretty minor things.
