{"id":1492,"date":"2024-06-24T19:56:17","date_gmt":"2024-06-24T19:56:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/tom-petty-documentary-stole-filmmakers-footage-lawsuit-claims\/"},"modified":"2024-06-24T19:56:17","modified_gmt":"2024-06-24T19:56:17","slug":"tom-petty-documentary-stole-filmmakers-footage-lawsuit-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/tom-petty-documentary-stole-filmmakers-footage-lawsuit-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Tom Petty Documentary Stole Filmmaker’s Footage, Lawsuit Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tA filmmaker is suing Warner Music over the 2021 Tom Petty documentary Somewhere You Feel Free<\/em>, calling the movie a \u201cbrazen exploitation\u201d that used nearly an hour of his copyrighted film footage without permission.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles federal court, Martyn Atkins says he never gave the Somewhere<\/em> producers consent to use hours of footage he filmed of the music legend during the 1990s but that the movie nonetheless contained \u201ca shocking 45 minutes\u201d of his materials.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cAtkins did not provide consent, did not otherwise license any of the footage, and was not compensated in any manner for the Film\u2019s unauthorized, brazen exploitation of the works Atkins created and owns,\u201d his attorneys wrote in a June 18 complaint.<\/p>\n

\n\tReleased in March 2021, Somewhere You Feel Free<\/em> promised viewers \u201cnever-before-seen footage\u201d of Petty as he worked on his 1994 album Wildflowers<\/em>. Much of the footage was filmed by Atkins, who served as art director for the album and says he often documented the proceedings with a 16mm camera. Later, Atkins says he and the music legend watched the footage and discussed eventually using it to create such a documentary.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut after Petty\u2019s tragic death in 2017, the project didn\u2019t come together until 2020, when Atkins says he was invited to a meeting with Petty\u2019s daughter and other reps from his estate. After they promised him the job of directing the upcoming documentary, Atkins says, he provided them with a detailed breakdown of where he had stored the original footage at Warner Music\u2019s storage facility.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut after that first encounter, he says he was \u201cnever asked to another meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cAtkins had been conned into believing he would produce and direct the film so that Atkins would reveal the location of his footage to defendants,\u201d his lawyers write. \u201cHe was then cut out completely \u2014 in every imaginable respect. He was not even told as a courtesy that his works would be misappropriated and featured, let alone asked his consent.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tWhen he saw the movie, Atkins says he says he was shocked at what he saw: Roughly half of the movie\u2019s 90-minute runtime was composed of his footage, including some of the \u201cmost compelling and iconic shots of Petty\u201d in the movie. \u201cAtkins simply could not believe it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tA likely defense argument from Warner Music is that Atkins produced the footage as a so-called work-for-hire \u2014 a legal term meaning he created it at the request of someone else. If true, that would mean that even though Atkins filmed the footage, the rights to it were retained by Petty or the label. After all, he was the art director on Petty\u2019s album and stored the film in Warner\u2019s facilities.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut in his lawsuit, Atkins specifically aimed to preempt that argument: \u201cThe footage Atkins shot \u2026 was not subject to a work-for-hire or other such agreement. Atkins did not license the footage to Petty, Warner Records, any Warner Records affiliate, or anybody else. He was not acting as an employee of Petty or Warner Records, or any other party [and]\u00a0 here is no agreement in existence relating to any of the film footage.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tBeyond simply using the footage, the lawsuit claims that Somewhere<\/em>\u2018s producers have \u201crepeatedly misrepresented\u201d that the footage was \u201cmagically and unexpectedly discovered\u201d before the documentary was shot. \u201cThe film\u2019s producers have systematically implemented this false narrative to manipulate the viewing public and bolster the marketing of the film,\u201d the complaint reads.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn technical terms, the lawsuit names Warner Music unit WMG Productions LLC, as well as the film\u2019s production company, Girl On LSD LLC. The lawsuit includes counts of direct and secondary copyright infringement and a claim that the defendants effectively stole his property.<\/p>\n

\n\tRead the entire lawsuit here:<\/strong><\/p>\n