LOS ANGELES (CelebrityAccess) — Warner Music Group (WMG) is in hot water after movie producers and artists file lawsuits Martin Atkins. Atkins claims nearly half of footage in 2021 documentary a place where you feel freewhich records the creation of Tom Petty’s iconic album wild flowers, used without his permission. Atkins’ recent lawsuit filed in federal court in California could have significant ramifications for WMG.
directed by Mary Wharton, A place where you feel free Showcasing behind-the-scenes footage and drawing extensively from 16mm film archives. According to Atkins, the footage wasn’t discovered by accident; He claimed he informed Petty Estate Management of its location in the Warner Records warehouse.
Atkins served as artistic director wild flowers and collaborated with music legends such as Johnny Cash and Eric Clapton, Claiming that he and Petty are “good friends.” in the process of making wild flowers During the subsequent tour, Atkins shot extensive footage, all of which was his own and was not part of any work-for-hire agreement with Petty or WMG.
The filmmaker’s complaint details an arrangement in 1995 when Petty offered to store Atkins’ 16mm film reels and audio elements in a secure facility at Warner Records in Los Angeles. Atkins has always had access to the material, including in 2014, when he and Petty reconsidered the production wild flowers Record. Petty’s enthusiasm for the footage is palpable, and they plan to have Atkins direct and produce the project using his material.
Although Petty passed away in 2017, the concept for the documentary is still very much alive. In early 2020, Atkins met Petty’s daughter, Adria, There are also small asset managers. At this meeting, Atkins claims he revealed the location of his archival footage and believed he would be asked to direct and produce the film. Discussions covered potential creative direction, financing and scheduling. Atkins left the impression that he would soon be involved in the program.
However, according to Atkins’ lawsuit, he was completely shut out of the process. The documentary was made without him and his footage was used without his knowledge or consent. Atkins claimed he hoped to negotiate a licensing deal or charge a fee if his material was included in the documentary. Instead, he was caught off guard by their use and subsequent release.
In the lawsuit, Atkins seeks damages, compensation and the return of his original film and audio material. The legal battle highlights significant issues around intellectual property and the use of archival material in film production. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to understand how it affects the music and film industries, particularly with regard to the handling of long-term preservation of archival footage and the rights of original creators.
