Release needed for owned art work's use in film?

[elmerlang]

I possess/own some original posters for a band I was in. The artist says I need a release from him if I want to show them in a movie. He says tho he may sell a painting, for instance, he retains rights to the use of its image. Anyone know if that's true? Anyone have a proper release for such?

[Gary Huff]

I'm assuming that's true, only because I worked for a larger corporation and their lawyers insisted that we blur out the image of a desktop wallpaper in the background of a shot that was not one of the stocks that came with Windows and we didn't know where it came from.

[elmerlang]

Interesting, and thx for the reply, tho I'd say that the difference is I possess and own the artwork. Still, I do think it's probably true.

[Gary Huff]

Do you own the only copy of these posters, or are there multiple copies?

[elmerlang]

I own the originals and have some copies too and doubt anyone else has copies but can't be sure.

[Gary Huff]

Yeah, if you have the only prints of the artwork, I would suspect that it would be a point in your favor, however I'm no lawyer, and it would be best to consult with one.

[David Jimerson]

The artist doesn't give up the copyright when he sells a painting.

However, if the artist did the work for hire, then he may not have ever had the copyright.

This all depends on the contract with the artist.

This is not a question you will resolve here on DVXuser.

[OldCorpse]

However, if the artist did the work for hire, then he may not have ever had the copyright.

This all depends on the contract with the artist.

Exactly. Because it depends entirely on the specifics of the "work for hire" contract - for example, the artist may have retained some specific rights he negotiated, such as showing in a film, even if the rest of the rights belong to the hiring entity.

Only a lawyer can answer this - and it may involve not simply knowing the law, but a discovery process where the exact status of the rights needs to be investigated in the specific case. Which is why in general I try to avoid any and all such conundrums by obscuring as much as possible of anything that might bring out the litigious, because even if you are 100% in the right, you may not want to spend the money defending yourself in a lawsuit, and you can be sued regardless of the merit of the case. Even if you win, you lose. So unless you have really deep pockets, being in the legal right is no protection against sustaining financial losses. Not worth it, IMHO. In this situation, where I'm actually confronted by a potential rights holder - I run for the hills, especially if it's a trivial matter to avoid the property in question while executing my project.

[Razz16mm]

I possess/own some original posters for a band I was in. The artist says I need a release from him if I want to show them in a movie. He says tho he may sell a painting, for instance, he retains rights to the use of its image. Anyone know if that's true? Anyone have a proper release for such?

Yes, the artist owns his images just as a photographer owns his. Unless the sales receipt or contract for the work was explicitly stated as work for hire, the artist retains copyright.
Guide to writing a copyright release: http://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Copyright-Release

[paulears]

You probably own the copyright in the product, but it's quite possible the guy complaining has the right to stop you marketing your product using his image. If he's a signed artiste to a record company or similar, then they can stop you using his likeness as it's controlled. However, they can't use your poster if you own the copyright t the design of it - so it's negotiation. I own the copyright to loads of things I cannot use - just how it is, I guess.