I've had my work purchased by MGM, Miramax, 20th Century Fox and Columbia Pictures. I get calls Dark mountain
original painting
16 x 20 inches to buy my work for movies and they want fast delivery, with no formalities, no questions. Or they go to the next person that can fill the order. It's all about providing a service.

Many years ago, when they were filming The Scarlett Letter in and about Salem Columbine and Pierrot
pastel painting
38 x 28 inches Mass, I got a call from my sister to ask if I could have my local cat shelter let them 'borrow' 30 cats at $20 per head for 6 weeks. This was to add 'atmosphere' to the faux set. My sister lent them her horse Jaka because she was so thrilled Daniel Day Lewis would be riding her. My brother-in law also lent some of his period colonial reproductions to the set. They both regretted their decisions as they were not recompensed, poorly credited and Jaka came back a wreck. Needless to say I nixed transporting 30 howling cats to Salem. It took a year before my sister spoke to me.

In most cases the movie people don't want to pay much for the art they rent. In the cases where we manage to get a good rental fee, we share it with the artist 50/50. But in most cases they go around to the various galleries—there are three in this town—and play one against the other. A typical fee is $100 per work if we can get it and often we have to deliver and pick up. It is actually an annoying business for so little gain when we could be trying to sell art to our customers. We do, however, ask that the gallery name and the artist's name be included in the end credits and it sometimes is.

As an artist who has leased art to be featured in the movies, I would say the artist, too, Hudson River at Boscobel
oil painting
22 x 18 inches should get paid for it. The film industry tends to lease by the week and they pay well. Why should the dealer get paid but not the artist? In my case it was a 50-50% split. Attached is an image of my painting: Hudson River at Boscobel, oil, 22"x18" (framed), as featured in Warner Bros. Something Borrowed starring Kate Hudson, Ginnifer Goodwin, Colin Egglesfield, and John Kransinski.

In our small town of Sechelt, the managers of the local movie house project a variety of images Forest floor
acrylic painting showing the work of local artists and photographers before every show. There is no charge. The title, dimensions, media and artist's name is posted with the image. Everyone enjoys the pre-show event, especially the artists. What great support for the arts and boost for our community spirit!

Whatever property you are allowing a film company to use (boat, car or your front room), as you suggest, check the fine print in your contract for the "restoration clause." Our crews do their best to behave when handling other people's property but film-making is a rough and tumble game at best. The insurance money is there to fix any damage the crew may have caused, especially if you are working with a large company. In fact, over the years I have met several people who are in the location books that "seem" to make a living having their carpets replaced, wall repainted and bathrooms remodeled. So don't hesitate to point out any damage to the location manager in writing.

The good ladies and gentlemen that have worked with me over the years in collecting art work for my sets, have a challenging job. While the art rental houses and dealers do their best in offering a variety of quality choices, the search for the right painting is a tough one. I push the challenge even further: using paintings, not simply to "decorate a wall" but to create a color palette for the entire set. The painting can become the inspiration for a variety of color-related decisions including wall colors, window treatments, furnishings, not to mention a tool to coordinate with my costume designer. After I get a good feeling for the character who lives in that set, I try to put myself in their "color persona" and collect two or three paintings that I think they would have selected themselves, (if in fact they were decorating that room, office etc.). Sometimes, as in a bar, office or bank lobby, the owner isn't even scripted. which requires me to create that character and his or her back story in my mind. Several very interesting things happen in this process. One is that the color palette of the set reinforces the color persona of the scripted inhabitant of the set (depending on how well I have interpreted that character's "color temperature"). Second, and most important for me, I have the talent, skills and expertise of artists who have spent years and years struggling with the challenges of color selection on my creative team. I enjoy the notion that I can partner up with contemporary artists or masters long gone in choosing my color selections. So, for me, paintings in a film set go way beyond "decorating" a wall… Thanks for letting film squeeze into your painter's dialogue.

Several years ago I was watching a video of The Santa Clause , and in the first few Untitled
original painting minutes of the film there was an abstract painting on the wall of the living room set which caught my eye. "Hm, I thought, I like that work." A second later, "Hunh, that's a lot like my work." Then, kablamm! "Hey, that IS my work! That's one of my paintings!" Cheering as it was to know that my work had been chosen (likely out of the AGO's Art Rental), it was also dismaying to realize that I had not been consulted nor asked, nor credited. At the time, several years had passed since the making of the movie, and I would not have had the faintest clue whom to go after to right these wrongs – although given the seasonal popularity of the movie, its "product placement" value might have been considerable for me. So I let it go, and every time I see the movie in shops or thrift stores I have the pleasure of thinking, "Hey, that's my painting in there."

Which raises the questions: Should one's artwork and its maker be noted in the "credits" of the film? And, strictly speaking, is it legal for a movie maker to use artwork unbeknownst to the artist? I wonder what copyright law would have to say about this?

I had a show in a large museum-like setting. I was told that my paintings would be insured, and was Evening call
oil painting asked about the value of each one for this purpose. About a week before the show ended, my wife and I went to photograph it. She exclaimed, "Look, this painting has a tear in it!" I inspected the piece, and it showed a two-inch tear in the bottom left quadrant of the painting.

I informed the visual art director, who immediately photographed the damage and sent it to their insurer. This is a large painting (60x60) which retailed for approximately $8,000(US). There was communication between the adjuster and the art director by email, which she shared with me. The adjuster procured some estimates from restorers to repair the painting. At no time, did anyone actually look directly at the painting, just the photos of the damage. I waited for months for some communication. Nearly eight months later, I received a phone call from the adjuster, who offered me $1500 for repairing the painting. I answered that this should cover a repair, but what about the loss of value of the painting, since it could no longer be sold as "new." He said that he didn't know what I was talking about, and further said that the insurance company would only pay for a repair.

I did some online investigation of my own, and found some resources who spoke directly to this issue, even going so far as to illuminate the fact that insurance claim adjusters are often ignorant of this issue. I referred one of the these articles to the adjuster, posing some hypothetical questions as to how I would tell an art dealer that this painting was damaged, repaired, but that I wanted the original price for it. He was mute.

I contacted my own insurance company, who seemed to understand the situation very well. I have purchased insurance for my work, where it is covered in my studio, in transit, and up to 90 days in other locations. My insurance company spoke with the art center's adjuster, looking for some sort of compromise. There didn't seem to be one, so my insurance company paid me for a loss of value of 50% of retail. In the end, I received a total of 50% of the retail value (after deductible), which seemed fair to me. I also got to keep the painting.

I think my experience might be useful to artists not anticipating such events. In hindsight, I would have liked to have seen the art center's insurance provisions, not just to assume that I would be adequately compensated for the loss. Obviously, I was happy I had insurance as well, and it's not terribly expensive.

I was disappointed to read your experiences with renting artworks for the movie industry. My gallery has been doing that here in Wilmington, NC for almost a decade. We have several large movie studios here and have been a ready resource for film. To date, we have never had anything injured or disrepected by the studios we work with. Recently we've had works in Iron Man III, Revenge, Hart of Dixie, Nights in Rodanthe, Dawson's Creek and several other pilots that didn't make the cut. ALL of the rental receipts are passed on to our artists, even though it is a bit of work for us; we keep nothing as we think the artists really enjoy having their work out there to a large audience. We insure the works off-premise as we've come to trust the studios in our area. Artists who are asked to do this should certainly either get all the info before signing the agreement or feel confidence that their galleries know and trust the film industry reps they work with. We think it's a lot of fun!