Buying New Posters Directly from the Studios

[Neo]

Someone recently mentioned that original, theater posters can be purchased directly from the studios or distributors.  Two prime examples are the double-sided one sheets for Under the Skin and Spring Breakers.  Although many studios do not sell theater posters directly to individuals, I would recommend checking to see if the posters are available from the studios or distributors before purchasing them elsewhere.

http://a24films.bigcartel.com/product/under-the-skin-br-official-poster










http://www.amazon.com/Spring-Breakers-Wish-Were-Poster/dp/B00JRDUVZ0/ref=sr_1_2?m=AGICUSS5KLATP&s=merchant-items&ie=UTF8&qid=1400178383&sr=1-2

[wonka]

Heard on EB that a fair portion of those Under the Skin posters are arriving severely damaged due to the terrible packaging in a very flimsy tube.

Just an FYI.

[Charlie]

Are these DS versions?  This is a big deal to our hobby, if this catches on....

[Neo]

Wonka, the main thing issue with the packaging, that my Under the Skin poster arrived in from A24, was that there was several inches  of empty space for the poster to slide.  That is likely what caused the edge damage.  I sent them another email today about it, including that the best way to address that issue is to use a sheet of Kraft paper, that is wider than the poster, and just shorter than the tube, and to roll the poster in it.  Hopefully they will address the issue.

Charlie, yes the 2 that I mentioned here are double-sided.  I agree, that it's an important matter.  I could say a lot more about it, and I'm sure that the silent majority of collectors also have strong feelings about this kind of thing.  If anyone wants to share other studios that are also selling original theater posters and/or prints, that would be cool.  This thread should be pinned IMO.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

I don't think other studios are selling directly to buyers but they are selling directly to dealers, including some APF members.

Not sure but I'm pretty sure the actors on the posters would have to be compensated under SAG union contracts, so there are barriers to direct sales even if it was sufficiently profitable.

[eatbrie]

They are only selling posters because they are not a studio but a small start up distribution company trying to make money any way it can.  I don't have the numbers but I'm sure they bought the movie for more than they got back at the BO, once P&A is factored in.  Studios don't waste time selling posters for $20.  Or maybe just as a marketing ploy like NL did at the time of the LotR movies.

T

[Neo]

Thanks for the info. and clarification, Mel and T.  

The main issue in this case is that any person can buy these (and possibly other) original posters directly from a website run by a distributor, with a few mouse clicks, and then flip them for much more money on eBay and other sites, and that should be revealed.  If buyers had this information, they would be able to make informed decisions, and not get hustled by flippers.  I understand the ideas of capitalism, doing your homework, etc., and this is just good info. for the hobby in general.  Kudos to the folks who mentioned where to buy these original posters straight from the distributors.

P.S. I got a reply from A24, and they seem like good guys who are going to make things right.

[erik1925]

Not sure but I'm pretty sure the actors on the posters would have to be compensated under SAG union contracts, so there are barriers to direct sales even if it was sufficiently profitable.

This isn't accurate. Actors are contractually bound and obligated to appear not only in the film, but in (and on) any and all supplemental publicity and adverting materials that the studio/production company pays to have made for that particular film.

There are no additional monies paid out to an actor because his/her image is on a poster that might be sold later on down the road.

[eatbrie]

This isn't accurate. Actors are contractually bound and obligated to appear not only in the film, but in (and on) any and all supplemental publicity and adverting materials that the studio/production company pays to have made for that particular film.

There are no additional monies paid out to an actor because his/her image is on a poster that might be sold later on down the road.

I concur.

T

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

This isn't accurate. Actors are contractually bound and obligated to appear not only in the film, but in (and on) any and all supplemental publicity and adverting materials that the studio/production company pays to have made for that particular film.

There are no additional monies paid out to an actor because his/her image is on a poster that might be sold later on down the road.

That's because actors agree to be shown on promotional materials like posters and to appear on TV talk shows, etc.  They are not agreeing to appear on posters that are sold for profit.  The union would certainly demand a cut of any revenue stream from posters, just like DVDs.

[erik1925]

That's because actors agree to be shown on promotional materials like posters and to appear on TV talk shows, etc.  They are not agreeing to appear on posters that are sold for profit.  The union would certainly demand a cut of any revenue stream from posters, just like DVDs.

They don't just agree. They are obligated, as part of their contract, to not only be in the film but to have their image/character used on any and all advert materials or appear at press junkets. They have no say in that, other than those certain, A list actors who may have clauses written into their contracts allowing them first look at photos or maybe a right of refusal of images that might be potentially used that they don't like the look of.

But no actor is simply "agreeing" to be on promo materials. They are contractually obligated.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

They don't just agree. They are obligated, as part of their contract, to not only be in the film but to have their image/character used on any and all advert materials or appear at press junkets. They have no say in that, other than those certain, A list actors who may have clauses written into their contracts allowing them first look at photos or maybe a right of refusal of images that might be potentially used that they don't like the look of. But no actor is simply "agreeing" to be on promo materials. They are contractually obligated.

We agree on this but you said "[t]here are no additional monies paid out to an actor because his/her image is on a poster that might be sold later on down the road."

They are only agreeing to appear on advertising, not "for profit" posters to be sold to the public. Here's a section from the master SAG collective bargaining agreement:

http://www.sagaftra.org/production-center/theatrical/documents?quicktabs_6=1&quicktabs-6

22. REUSE OF PHOTOGRAPHY OR SOUND TRACK

A. No part of the photography or sound track of a performer shall be used other than in the picture for which he was employed, without separately bargaining with the performer and reaching an agreement regarding such use. The foregoing requirement of separate bargaining hereafter applies to reuse of photography or sound track in other pictures, television, theatrical or other, or the use in any other field or medium. Bargaining shall occur prior to the time such reuse is made, but performer may not agree to such reuse at the time of original employment. The foregoing shall apply only if the performer is recognizable and, as to stunts, only if the stunt is identifiable. See subsection F. of this Section. No reuse may be made of nude photography without the performer's written consent.  The provisions of this subsection A. shall not limit Producer's right to use photography or sound track in exploiting the picture, or in trailers, promotional films thirty (30) minutes (or less) in length for theatrical and television motion pictures, or in advertising, as provided in this Agreement. The Union may, in its discretion, grant waivers of the requirements of this Section with respect to the reuse of photography and sound track in public service, educational and like programs and will follow a liberal policy in granting such waivers.

B. If Producer fails to separately negotiate as provided in subsection A. hereof, the performer shall be entitled to damages for such unauthorized use, equivalent to three (3) times the amount originally paid the performer for the number of days of work covered by the material used. If the Producer is unable to find the performer, it shall notify SAG, and if SAG is unable to find the performer within a reasonable time, the Producer may use the photography or sound track without penalty.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

An article about the Rights of Publicity:

http://www.filmmakersforum.org/fmf/articles/ClearanceAndCopyrightCh4.htm

[eatbrie]

Mel, it really doesn't matter how many articles you show us here.  Actors do not make any money from the sale of movie posters, not now, not ever.  Unions had to fight like cats and dogs and strike for TV and video residuals, and that's something that really matters because it means a lot of dough for all parties involved. 

I'm sorry to say but movie posters and the five collectors who buy them, not important.

T

[erik1925]

Mel, it really doesn't matter how many articles you show us here.  Actors do not make any money from the sale of movie posters, not now, not ever.  Unions had to fight like cats and dogs and strike for TV and video residuals, and that's something that really matters because it means a lot of dough for all parties involved.  

I'm sorry to say but movie posters and the five collectors who buy them, not important.

T

Exactly.  

And in the end, its about the bigger bucks and how those dollars are generated, and to whom they are paid. Potential poster compensation to some actor are not high on anyone's priority list, as far as P&M is concerned. And those details are hammered out in the fine print, anyhow.

[guest4531]

Thanks for the info. and clarification, Mel and T.  

The main issue in this case is that any person can buy these (and possibly other) original posters directly from a website run by a distributor, with a few mouse clicks, and then flip them for much more money on eBay and other sites, and that should be revealed.  If buyers had this information, they would be able to make informed decisions, and not get hustled by flippers.  I understand the ideas of capitalism, doing your homework, etc., and this is just good info. for the hobby in general.  Kudos to the folks who mentioned where to buy these original posters straight from the distributors.

P.S. I got a reply from A24, and they seem like good guys who are going to make things right.

@neoLoco - Curious, give me an URL !!!

[Neo]

@neoLoco - Curious, give me an URL !!!

I haven't had time to find any more than the two mentioned in my first comment, but if I see any other distributors or studios selling originals or prints directly to the public, I'll post them here.

[keith]

Mel, it really doesn't matter how many articles you show us here.  Actors do not make any money from the sale of movie posters, not now, not ever.  Unions had to fight like cats and dogs and strike for TV and video residuals, and that's something that really matters because it means a lot of dough for all parties involved. 

I'm sorry to say but movie posters and the five collectors who buy them, not important.

T

I have to agree with Mel. Once a studio, distributor, or production company starts selling posters directly to consumers, the item moves from being promotional to being merchandise. And actor deals will have specific language regarding merchandising revenue splits. In the case of an actor like Scarlett Johannson, I suspect that she has pretty aggressive merchandising language specifying what her take would be.

That said, these things are almost always pre-determined in the long form actor agreement. I assume A24 are just handling the poster sales like any other merchandise they do, and are paying the actors (and other profit participants with merchandising language) their appropriate contractual fees. If they aren't, then it might show up in the future if the actors (or other profit participants) decide that their backend has been under-reported, and they audit the distributor.

But yeah, merch is merch, and it is generally covered by the deal with the specific actor. A24 selling their theatrical posters to fans is no different than selling any other merchandise, and it's expected that they will pay the applicable profit participants on the film according to the merchandising language in their contracts.

[Neo]

I have to agree with Mel. Once a studio, distributor, or production company starts selling posters directly to consumers, the item moves from being promotional to being merchandise. And actor deals will have specific language regarding merchandising revenue splits. In the case of an actor like Scarlett Johannson, I suspect that she has pretty aggressive merchandising language specifying what her take would be.

That said, these things are almost always pre-determined in the long form actor agreement. I assume A24 are just handling the poster sales like any other merchandise they do, and are paying the actors (and other profit participants with merchandising language) their appropriate contractual fees. If they aren't, then it might show up in the future if the actors (or other profit participants) decide that their backend has been under-reported, and they audit the distributor.

But yeah, merch is merch, and it is generally covered by the deal with the specific actor. A24 selling their theatrical posters to fans is no different than selling any other merchandise, and it's expected that they will pay the applicable profit participants on the film according to the merchandising language in their contracts.

That sounds reasonable. 

Are you a lawyer or in the movie biz, Keith?

[keith]

That sounds reasonable. 

Are you a lawyer or in the movie biz, Keith?

Independent film producer, and I end up looking at a lot of actor agreements.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

You can buy three full-size re-release quads, including Metropolis, from Eureka here:

http://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/offers/posters.html

[erik1925]

It should be pointed out, just for FYI (and, as noted on the site), that both the DI and Touch of Evil quads were created and done for Eureka's Blu-ray releases of those films and are each limited edition print runs of 500.

The Metropolis quad was done for the theatrical RR of the film (with a limited edition run of 1000). 

[Neo]

Independent film producer, and I end up looking at a lot of actor agreements.

Cool.   

If you'd like to share some of your films here, that would be great.

[Neo]

You can buy three full-size re-release quads, including Metropolis, from Eureka here:

Good call. 

[jedgerley]

Heres one:

http://drafthousefilms.com/