Warner Music Group is being sued for copyright infringement over a Tom Petty documentary.

LOS ANGELES (CelebrityAccess) – Warner Music Group (WMG) is in the hot seat amid lawsuits from filmmakers and artists. Martin Atkins. Atkins said nearly half of the documentary footage in 2021 will be A place where you can feel freeIt records the creation process of . Tom Petty’s iconic album wildflowers, Used without his permission. Atkins’ recent lawsuit filed in California federal court could have serious implications for WMG.

director Mary Wharton, A place where you can feel free It gives you a behind-the-scenes look and draws extensively from our 16mm film archives. According to Atkins, the video wasn’t discovered by accident. He claims to have informed the Petty Estate of his location within the Warner Records archives.

Atkins served as art director wildflowers Collaborated with legendary musicians such as: johnny cash and eric Clapton, He and Petty are “fast friends,” he claims. While making wildflowers On subsequent tours, Atkins captured a wealth of footage, all of which he owned and was not part of his employment contract with Petty or WMG.

The filmmaker’s complaint details a 1995 agreement in which Petty offered to store Atkins’ 16mm film reels and audio elements at a secure Warner Records facility in Los Angeles. Atkins maintained access to these materials at all times, including in 2014 when he and Petty revisited the idea of ​​creating a new project. wildflowers What was recorded. Petty’s passion for video was evident, and they planned to have Atkins direct and produce a project using his material.

Despite Petty’s death in 2017, the documentary concept remained active. In early 2020, Atkins met Petty’s daughter. Adria, and Petty estate manager. At this meeting, Atkins claimed that he believed he would be brought on board to direct and produce the film, and that he revealed the location of his archival footage. Discussions covered potential creative direction, funding, and scheduling. Atkins left under the impression that he would soon be working on the project.

But following Atkins’ lawsuit, he was excluded from the process entirely. The documentary was conducted without him, and his footage was used without his knowledge or consent. Atkins claims that if his material was included in the documentary, he expected to negotiate a licensing agreement or receive a fee. Instead, he was blindsided by its use and subsequent release.

In the lawsuit, Atkins seeks damages, restitution, and the return of the original film and audio materials. This legal battle highlights important issues related to intellectual property rights and the use of archival material in filmmaking. As the case unfolds, it will be important to see what implications this case has for the music and film industries, particularly with regard to the handling of long-term archived footage and the rights of original creators.