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?

[Janke]

It's true. An artist owns the copyright of piece of art, even if you have bought the original - unless he has released the copyright to the buyer.

[elmerlang]

Thanks. As I suspected.

[MrMicah]

As for a release, its just a contract and can be simple or complicated.

Many university film schools etc publish their standard release forms for acting talent and, depending upon how significant your film is, you could probably modify one of these to allow the artist to give you permission for use of his poster artwork in your film for: <add your intended list>

Also, the artist might have provided a release before and might have a simple agreement that suits your circumstances.

[Krane]

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?

My references tell me it depends on region. In the U.S. you typically become the sole owner and can do with it as you wish. Most common in the rest of the world an art piece cannot be altered--for classic art anyway. But that's not exactly your question is it?

So far, I can't find a listing as to allowing it to appear in a movie. But it is an interesting question. I'm trying to research those legal questions like that right now, but for what I've gathered so far, it can be a daunting task. You almost need a lawyer for virtually everything.

I guess if it's displayed in the background it would be alright. But I know an expert and will check to see if he will give me a straight answer. Most times he just says no. Less/no liability that way I suppose.

[cgbier]

Throw away your references. They are worth as much as your wrong advice. The issue has been answered already, correctly to boot, by Janke.

[Krane]

Actually, its your unsolicited and impertinent comments that serve no purpose other than to troll that I'd like to throw away.

While the answer given is generally true, there are exceptions. For instances a Disney employee that draws an animation of Mickey Mouse does not own the rights to that drawing even though he is the artist. Nor does someone under contract hired to complete or render someone else's original creation. If all of legal rights to ownership were that black and white, there'd be no need for courts and judges.

[cgbier]

Then I wonder what purpose your steady misinformation has.

[Erik Bien]

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.

This will depend on the terms specified in the original commission contract between your band and the artist. He may have waived his copyright, making it a "work for hire." More likely, though, he retained his copyright (so he could use the images in future gallery shows and books of his collected works, object to "derivative works" based on his images, etc.).

If there was no contract, or the contract didn't specify the posters as "work for hire," the law generally assumes copyright belongs to the artist who created the work.

[Janke]

Correct. Basically, what I said in post #2.

[MrMicah]

Actually, its your unsolicited and impertinent comments that serve no purpose other than to troll that I'd like to throw away.

While the answer given is generally true, there are exceptions. For instances a Disney employee that draws an animation of Mickey Mouse does not own the rights to that drawing even though he is the artist. Nor does someone under contract hired to complete or render someone else's original creation. If all of legal rights to ownership were that black and white, there'd be no need for courts and judges.

Let me put this succinctly. RETARD!

The question was answered by Janke.

You added disinformation.

Your defence of your foolish disinformation was a further post that was off the point - again.

You have failed to apologise for your misinformation - again.