The Vivian Maier Lawsuit Begins
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2014
- The New York Times is reporting there is now a lawsuit concerning the rights to the work of the famous "Nanny Photographer", Vivian Maier that has galleries and book stores pulling work from their shelves.
www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/art...
David Deal, a copyright attorney, has claimed he has found a family member who is the rightful owner of Maier's copyright and they are suing for current work that has been sold by people who don't own this copyright. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
How interesting that these relatives never bothered to contact Vivian Maier when she was alive, when she was poor, and when she needed them. Now that her life's work has made all this money...now they are interested. It's such a painfully greedy ploy that it makes me ill. John Maloof made a concerted effort to find family, and they certainly seemed to want nothing to do with her when she was alive. This really makes me sick.
Ted - one other comment... even though Vivian was indeed a private person, John Maloof found a letter she wrote in which she was attempting to partner with a printer with the sole purpose of having her images printed. She was even specific as to the type of finish and paper that she preferred. It was a tad amusing too because she mentions to the printer that "you will have noticed how difficult I am to work with." You can hear the letter being read aloud at about 45 minutes into the Maloof documentary. Her imagery is incredibly instinctive and sensitive to the frailty of humanity in all its many forms. Whatever you think about form and photographic rules, etc., it is undeniable to me that there is raw emotional strength in all of her images and something completely magical and haunting in the unveiling of her work....what is it Diane Arbus said? ... A secret about a secret...
granted thats kinda how the whole family was like that one aunt who gave everything to her friends instead of family
Well said this guy is so full of s..t
@@shleighgirl9195 I think if we didn't know her story and it hadn't been marketed the way it has we might just find her images charming and well done, but nothing that compares to the greats.
Who are known as devil's advocates? Lawyers?
If Maloof had not taken the risk of developing and printing such a large number of Vivian Maier's photos, she would likely still be unknown and her work would be literally deteriorating into dust. He deserves every penny he received from his wise investment.
Regarding the true ownership, Maloof should be in the clear, but I'd think whoever sold the lot to him may be accountable if it was an improper sale. Oh yeah, and how does that saying go? "Possession is 9/10 of the law."
+mattclarknyc excuse me but...what do you mean when you say..."such a large number" ?
+Claude Rochon Um, what do you think "large number" means? I don't know how many shots of Maier's that Maloof got developed. It was enough to open a gallery with. It was enough to make her posthumously famous. It was enough to cause a bunch of vultures to come out of the woodwork and try to steal it from him.
+mattclarknyc if i'm not mistaken, he did not develop more than, at the most 300. Which leaves us with approx. 100,000 plus negatives. In all likelihood, Maloof did inspect almost all of them before choosing to develop the ones we know of. Now, if he chose those ones to start his business, he most probably made the most astute choice so as to make a definite splash and draw full attention to his claim that he had discovered a great unknown photographer. What follows is, that it is very likely that the rest of the undeveloped lot is next to second quality. Logic. That or Maloof was very wise in keeping the mast majority of the very high quality photos undisclosed. Only problem he should have foreseen....now the lawsuits will pile up until the whole adventure comes to a stop. Bizarre affair.
+Claude Rochon Your point being what, exactly? Every photographer, myself included, takes shitty photographs that I don't want anyone to see. If I were to happen to take really amazing photographs, I'd want them to be seen, whether I were alive or dead. And all that I'd ask? Is that my name be attributed to them as the photographer. Vivan Maier, without a doubt, was an amazing photographer. She had an amazing eye to capture an image, a snapshot of a moment in time. She has been given the recognition she deserves. Do you have some complaint with Maloof or how he has managed the shots of hers that HE IS IN POSSESSION OF? What is your point???????
+mattclarknyc I agree with you but the problem is that you can own the negatives of an image but someone else can own the copyrights.
While it's true that people who knew her were of the opinion that she'd never have wanted her photos shared, or to be known like this, there was a point in 'Finding Vivian Maier' where it was clear she'd wanted her photos to be printed. (And that she was quite proud of them, and of her skills.) She'd written a letter to a lab in France proposing a business partnership. So, this idea that she never wanted her photos to be seen/printed was inaccurate. It seems, as with many artists, she was adept at doing the art itself, but selling one's art/one's self is a horse of a different color.
I thought the same thing, her letter to the French film developer proved she wanted them printed. I assume they never responded OR more likely poor Vivian didn't have the money`! Either way IF she had printed them those would've been left behind, not the undeveloped films.
Shame on Deal! I just saw the documentary and the story is wonderful! Who asked some fucking attorney to put his nose in it? Maloof did a great job! He saved Maier's work, he introduced it to the world and everyone who loves photography should be thankfull. Yes, he is making money out of it, but for what? To pay printers, exhibitions, archives, to preserve wonderful work of great artist nobody cared for before! What is the purpose of the lawsuit? Justice is something different than the law...
"Justice is something different than the law..." Well, to you it is. Tell that to someone serving you with a lawsuit.
I absolutely agree. I'm just glad that Maloof and not some insensitive idiot found the negatives. I also wish he had them ALL. Perhaps the other owners will do as well to preserve and present her work respecting them and her privacy. He's done us and her a huge service and deserves whatever his work in her memory brings him.
I think it's awesome that these heirs were there for her throughout her life and death, and that they sacrificed SO much to help her through her older years. OH WAIT. No one was there for her except the boys she took care of. How interesting.
Heather Humphrey Exactly Heather, how this works: a merchant lawyer - David Deal, sniffed money and sought out some kind of beneficiary of the estate, approached them with an offer for a percentage of the estate if he wins. Typical. Primal. Base.
At what point does A blood line become too tenuous to count? There has to be an end point. The "relation" is clearly oblivious of her. Her work belongs to posterity now. Malloy has shown a lot of integrity. Robin Witting, England
yep!!! I wonder how this turned out?!
Well said
It never ceases to amaze me that whoever thinks they are in line for the property of someone who died, GREED, PURE GREED starts a hard charge for the money. If they say, 'it's not about the money', it's about the money.
I don't understand copyright law, but Maloof has done a great service in recognizing her considerable talent and saving the archive from a dust bin. Developing, printing and categorizing her prolific body of work is no easy task. It may be a courtesy to ask the last remaining cousin about his sentiments, but I doubt that he would object to her life's work being conseved in this fashion. At his age it seems unlikely that he would be up to the task or have the drive to see the project to completion. Her lineage was extensively searched. I doubt all claims that a "next of kin" has magically surfaced. She lived her final years by the generosity of friends and ate cold corned beef hash straight from the can. Kin don't do that to other kin.
Maloof deserve all the credit and the money.
It's ridiculous to think she didn't want to be remembered, if that were the case she would have taken her pictures to the grave with her, she is human, and people want to leave their mark, people want to be remembered, I highly doubt she is turning over in her grave in respect to the exposure she has been getting.
Tony Parker Tony you really should see the film. I think a lot would make sense.
The Art of Photography I did see it, minus 20 minutes, I watched it here on TH-cam , it was only an hour long for some reason, and in response to the other comment on a previous video, the answer is yes, she is the only historical photographer that I am familiar with, but I have to admit she peaked my interest!
Love her work
Niklas Münch well I suppose that's the risk of Photography, one day people might actually look at the photographs...
+Niklas Münch I agree 100%... She did not want people to see her work.. To her it was a personal thing...Not to be shared...But unfortunetly now lawyers are involved....money is involved...greed...screws up everything!! ...I am a fan of Vivian Maier's work...To me she was an outstanding photographer...But, I honestly don't think her worked should be displayed...I think her work should be destroyed if she didn't want to share it...It doesn't matter how well her work is...What does matter is her wishes.. To me that is more important than anything... As badly as I would miss studying her images I do think all displays should cease...And NOBODY should benefit from displaying the images...Her relatives, the lawyers....the state of Ill. ...None of these people are entitled to her work....It was Vivian's ....And should not be displayed under ANY circumstances...I as a photographer (amateur at best) would feel cheated after I have viewed hundreds of her images...But at the same time I feel HER WISHES should be honored...Just my 2 cents
I consider Vivian Maier's photographs masterful works of art. John Maloof saved Maier's work. Apparently, from what Maloof has uncovered, no one else who came into contact with Maier cared a damn about her photography. Maier's employers all said they often saw a camera around her neck, but the employers never asked to see Maier's shots. I hope John Maloof makes a hefty profit from his historical find. He'll need the funds to properly care for and share with the world Maier's film, prints, and collections.
If she wanted her stuff go to the family she would have left a will. It seems she didn't what anything to do with her family to start with. Maloof bought the films, to me there his now, Now the blood suckers are coming out of the wood work looking for a way to steal them from him.
+Steve Wise EXACTLY what I think too...
Steve Wise I completely agree with you.
It was curious that in the Maloof film the suggestion was made that Vivian Maier, nor any of her siblings or cousins (if there were any) inherited from her forebears. There may even have been some bad blood between them. Now some "relative" has been found who may apply to own her works and thus copyright: Bollocks! If Vivian Maier hd wanted to leave anything to this "relative" she would have: Did this relative ever visit to see how she was:Or pay her funeral expenses? No. John Maloof is the right man to take on her legacy, disseminate her work, simply because he bought her negatives at a blind auction and had the wit to see in her work her talent and using his own money take the gamble her work would be liked by others. Ms Maier, shy as she was, would probably have agreed with me, I suspect. By all means, if they find her favorite niece, or uncle in France, remit some of the moneys earned, out of courtesy's sake, but no-one who did not seek out and scan her negatives, should be allowed to "swan in" with a bevy of lawyers to get what Ms, Maier clearly didn't want them to have. Fate has put them in Mr. Maloof's hands and we should respect that. And most of all, his work and initiative has brought us a talented photographer hitherto unknown to the art world.."Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.."
Temujin Hanlon Well said!
+Harry Stevens
I was shocked when they show him signing the back of a print in the movie, and then I realized, through his dedication to her story, he becomes part of her art's provenance. If I were to purchase a print, I'd want to have one with his signature. He's part of her story whether we approve or not. I just find the whole affair fascinating!
A big factor in the splash her photography made is the time capsule effect of her pictures of mid-century America. She's not Cartier-Bresson or Fan Ho, but she was a very good photographer and the world is richer for seeing her work. According to the movie, she did try to sell some of her photos. While the notoriety would have mortified her according to those who knew her, I don't think it is accurate to say she didn't want her work see.
The lawsuit is disturbing and damaging. Sure, the established law is the copyright is separate from the physical negative, but is that really just? Does anyone seriously believe the State of Illinois would curate, develop, scan, print, and presented her work to the world? Why should some distant relative who never met her or even knew of her existence get the copyright when all the work was done by and expense was incurred by the negative owners?
Take this to the next level, if the copyright to the image is separate from the negative, then isn't the image of the faces a separate copyright? Does Henri Cartier-Bresson have a release from the little boy carrying two wine bottles? What about the estate of the soldier killed in the Spanish Civil War? Where does it end? Will any images be left?
Sure, Maloof profited off of her work, and it is unfair she received nothing, dying a pauper. Plenty of great artists died before their work became famous and valuable. It is very sad. All we can give them is praise. However, Maloof added his own value: he discovered the work, curated it, scanned it, printed it, and promoted. He's entitled to profit from his labors and his discovery. The world is better for what he has done, and we'd be poorer without her contribution.
Any time a piece of shit lawyer gets involved, random things of simplistic beauty and honesty get damaged or destroyed. Copyright law is one messed up piece of innovation hampering crap.
It's clear from Maloof's film that correspondence he found indicated that Maier explored making further "postcards" of her work. She wrote to her cousin in Champsaur, France and asked if he would make "additional" postcards that she might be able to sell. It's not clear what followed from the correspondence or whether she was savvy enough to engage in the marketing of her work at that time, but, it seems that though she was a very private person and would not choose notoriety, she was at some point willing to sell copies of her photos, at least, as postcards.
+jan angevine I feel like this man did not even watch the movie.
+jan angevine Couldn't agree more!
Not true that she didn't want her photographs printed and in the public eye. If you watched the documentary, you'd know that she left behind correspondence that said she wanted to do so, but never got around to it. She wouldn't have liked the publicity but she knew her photos were good.
Do you know what ever happened to this trial? I just did a video about her and I avoided all this...thank you so much. Just subscribed. xo Susan
Wow the greed with that lawyer...It's actually kinda ironic.
Her work is just superb and holds a story in almost every picture. Photos people take these days rarely have a story in it and just look "pretty" like a plastic rose.
She probably wouldn't like the exposure but considering how lonely she was inside, in the documentary one of her closes friends even say that the last time she saw her briefly years before death how lonely she seemed and Vivian almost begged her to stay and talk with her to keep her company but she couldn't as she was on the beach with some kids and she could barely keep up or something like that but she said in the documentary that she regrets deeply she didn't stop.
And In documentary it was also said that she was in contact with one of the photo shop owner in her home village and she actually sent him some negatives so he could make the postcards out of it and he did, then they showed him the letter she was unable to send it how she wanted to make another batch of postcards and that the next time she visits she will bring a lot more negatives. So it was hinted in a way that majority of her photos were shot with the reason to be made into postcards.
So in the end nobody of her relatives gave any single f*ck about her and left her almost homeless in her last year and now they care all of a sudden? Yeah ahh huh, sure. The greed is huge.
All John did is preserve a wonderful work that would be depressing if such artwork ended up in trash. I mean anyone can agree she had the eye for photography and could capture the story. One could say she was one of the great street photographers of her time.
John might be making money, heck, scanning all those negatives and preserving such good work it ain't cheap in money and time. I'm very glad for what he did and it was really an honour able to see her work and see the documentary, I just got so inspired and even learned some things about composition.
Sorry for anyone that had to read through this comment but it just makes me angry when the greed comes between in preserving history and art work.
simply put I do not think the family has any right to the property and the man who bought the negatives should retain all legal rights.
Agreed!!! If they didn't take interest in her while she was alive, they should not be allowed to profit from her after her death... What I'm guessing from what it sounds like, her family didn't have anything to do with her. Seems like she had a lonely life!
The whole area of hereditary copyright, the law needs to be completely reconsidered. People who happened to be vaguely related to someone, even if they are closely related, don’t have any moral right whatsoever to claim authorship or get paid for someone else’s work. There are so many people using expensive lawyers, to try to just milk the created content, of people they had no interest in while they were alive. Music is another area. Look at Jimi Hendrix family.
You are are dead wrong Ted. it is clear from Maloof's film that correspondence he found indicated that Maier explored making further "postcards" of her work. She wrote to her cousin in Champsaur, France and asked if he would make "additional" postcards that she might be able to sell.
i just watched the documentary about her life and work....the story really moved me....Vivian has left us a vast treasure and a window into the past. .. her photos are moments captured in time for us and future generations .. Her life was sad but her work and her legacy is fascinating ,beautiful, and awe inspiring ..
But her materials including the negatives in question were sold at auction to pay storage fees. Didn't she lose rights when she defaulted on storage payments?
As he said, copyright does not necessarily follow sale of negatives. If you own the negatives, you own the negatives, but you don't necessarily own the right to make prints (let alone sell prints).
She knew that her work is good, she wanted to show the pictures as said on a letter.
Exactly. That letter to the french printer proves it.
I do not believe that Vivian didn't want her work to be seen. I feel there may have been a part of her that wondered if her work was good enough to share with the world and she didn't do it for fortune & fame so why risk the rejection if there would be any? She was an odd bird and "outside artist". She clearly wanted her work to be seen she was making prints with someone into post cards. Maybe she honestly did not think she could afford to have her prints large and framed for some wealthy exhibit like so many starving artists...but the least likely scenario is that she didn't want her work found or viewed. I think she is delighted and I think what she would be appalled about is that someone is trying to take what one guy stumbled upon at an auction fair and square. I don't believe the kid in this documentary ( forgive me cant remember his name) did it for the money...I think he was honestly quite intrigued and look at all the time and work and effort he went through to figure out her life and who this woman was. None of us would even know of her if it were not for him buying that first 3-400 dollar box of negatives...leave him alone. Don't come crawling out of the wood work as a long lost relative when you had nothing what so ever to do with her when she was alive. I hope she haunts them. Huge fan of Vivian! Incredible, mysterious, inspiring woman!
Just been looking at her pictures, she really did have a fantastic eye for photography!
Thank you for this summary. I do think you got one small piece wrong which is: throughout the documentary the people close to her say she would not have been comfortable with the personal exposure of herself. But they also reveal she had herself been in contact with a printer who she provided negatives to in the hopes of being published. So I don't think it's accurate to say "she didn't want anybody to see her photographs" as you do at 5:30. It seems like it'd be more accurate to say she was intensely private, likely struggling with some mental health issues, and would've been deeply uncomfortable with public scrutiny. But she wanted people to see her photographs - at least the ones for which she sought publication.
I think it is BS that people would say that Vivian would not want anyone to see her photos.
Have you seen the movie?
theartofphotography No. I have not. I say it is bs because I've seen some of Maiers photos in publications in the 70s. If she didn't want anyone to see them then why where her photos in photo publications?
***** I did not see the photo on the Internet. A friend of mine came to the house in 1968 or 1969. We were both interested in photography. He had with him a thin book, more like a pamphlet book and opened it to a page. The photo that I saw was that of the Iron Worker on top of the building by Vivian Maier. My recollection of events might not be correct. What I am quite certain of is that I did see the Iron Worker in a publication about 1968-1974. Of course, without proof, or without the pamphlet in hand, it is only my memory that I rely on. My memory is pretty good on a lot of visual photographic retention. But it is only good if there was something about the photo or event surrounding the photo that made me recall the photo.
***** I didn't say all the photos. I said a few.
***** Why?
Too much jealousy, envy, and greed in this world, it's actually very ridicules, if it all gets messy I hope those trying to course the mess don't succeed. I praise John Maloof for bringing her to our attentin, I know plenty of people who have picked up a camera because of her work and if it wasn't for John none of us would of known her talents, why shouldn't he make any money? he's done all the hard work, this!! ugh honestly it beggars belief.
Sounds mostly jealous.
Her photos are so unique. And she is the real, the real photographer without additing or Photoshoping like photographers nowadays!
I'd never heard of her until I saw a book yesterday in a shop, I saw the front of "Street Photographer" and decided to have a look, I'd probably gone through 3 or 4 images and I realized I was going to buy it, the photos are great, not just quality but they show the 50's-70's in really beautiful images, the medium format Rolleiflex camera captures fantastic tones and she has some great framing. Overall I'm fascinated by the photographer, and surprised that she hid them from the world.
if she didn't want any body to see her work,she just has burn everything before she die. ,i would love to see all 100.000 pics one by one
I hope your estate lawyer sees this when they’re wondering what to do with your browsing history
Dude! 😁
At the end of the documentary didn't she wrote a letter to the photographer from France saying that She would love for him to print Her work and have it shown?!?
Also didnt She said that she doesn't want ANY member of her family to have her STUFF?! Yeah?
Who’s to say what she would have wanted if she were alive though?! She hid some of the best photographs ever and it’s sad how they were found but also I’m happy they were found. She’s one of my fav photographers❤️
Someone in the comments said she went to a gallery in hope they would feature her work but was refused. I'm going to assume she did take those gorgeous photos in hope they would be publicised. If that is the case, she got her wish in the end. She was an amazing photographer.
A must see movie! Remarkable story.
Her pictures made me cry.. She caught stuff on candid camera that I have not seen before and have not experienced those intense emotion about. She was very private, maybe she thought she was not worth it therefore the sectret. They could have thrown her stuff away but at least the 3 collectors allowed us to see what she was capable of. I am so happy that we are able to see her pictures and I think the lawyer is just trying to make some money as he is so jealous that someone else found her and bought her to life. Shame on him!!
The negative is only the 1st part of the image. How it is interpreted and printed should be considered. Had not the new owner of the negatives done his part, then no one would have ever seen her work. I am glad he did what he did to bring her work to light.
Maloof did so much hardwork even finding her family in France.
You have to see the documentary to fully make opinions about it. Vivian Maier wrote a letter to a photo store in France that she wanted to print some of her work, so she was aware of her work, she wanted to show it, maibe not in the way that is shown now, but she didn´t want to hide it as you say
I think in her lifetime she indicated she wanted nothing of her belongings to be left to her family. Interesting, since she did not publish or circulate her photos, they were not copyrighted. Copyright law provides copyright protection by publication or circulation, even without a copyright notice. If she never did that then whoever owns the negatives would own the work. Also the people responsible for publishing her work have expended a great deal of effort and resources to do so. And since the state has made no claim on the estate, the time frame required in which to make a claim has certainly expired. On a purely copyright basis, I don't see there being a case here. If any of the work had been previously published or circulated then copyright ownership would be an issue. But they weren't. Also, her belongings were not strictly an estate. They were never part of a probate process, and came close to being discarded as junk. Those paying storage fees would have had a legal right to sell them to recoup their storage costs. Creditors can make claims against estates, even if they are in probate. Complicated possibilities but there was never a copyright so I think it will boil down to rights to physical ownership of the materials. A shame galleries have pulled the prints, though. This might put her on the shelf as an artist for many years.
I acquired around 2000 hours of audio recordings of a man's telephone conversations this year after his death. I got permission from a close relative. The remainder ended up in several large dumpsters and is now gone. The recordings span 1985-2016. I have no way of listening to all of this material, but it contains an amazing realtime novel of a small town American man's life, aspirations, anxieties, and his unique personality. The material is problematic, however, because living individuals are mentioned and sometimes featured in the content. It's hard to know what to do with this trove.
Wow! What did you do?
Jesus... this must be really interesting. Only thing i care about is wether the images stay on the web.. and the answer is: Yes they will stay here FOREVER. And her images are really good.
She applied for no copyrights to her personal works. It was purchased legally in an auction. If you buy a storage locker, what's inside is yours. Greedy shiest-er lawyers.
+Stephen Elkins : Physical possession does not convey intellectual posession. You don't have to apply for copyright. It is conveyed upon creation.
no reltive ever cared about her, they shoud not take her money.
She must have known her collections were to be found sooner or later. Something in her may have held her back from sharing.. What a fantastic discovery & document as well.
I watched several interviews with Maloof and there is a short when he is talking to a tv show and mention that he's working on a documentary that will be released in 2013. I looked trough the web to find that documentary but find nothing than many others. If you know the name of that documentary could you please link it here? Thanks!
I think it's sad that a simple man came across these films, and discovered she had an incredible talent and was worth recognition as she seemed to be side-lined whilst alive I see no issue with giving her work a chance to be seen, there are many points in the film where she is plagiarised as crazy and eccentric and often cruel (completely justified I do agree with those said people being interviewed), although she was clearly living with some sort of illness/trauma. Had she been about in our times where there is less stigma of these issues and more knowledge I feel that she could have gotten help to be the wonderful side of that person we see in other areas of the video and I feel that Maier wouldn't have minded her photos being shown, regardless of whether she would have liked it or not is simply irrelevant now, as bless her soul, she isn't here to comment. The main thing here I that this man devoted so much time of his life tracking down this extraordinary ladies life and giving her a legacy rather than simply being known as the crazy, lonely nanny. She was clearly incredibly talented, amazing eye for life and photography which deserved to be shared with the world and it's sad that very sad people out there our trying to tear down an amazing story simply for profit, I think it's extraordinary what John Maloof done and it shouldn't be shamed as anything less!
What happened with the lawsuit?
Thanks for this insightful video. Being a beginning street photographer myself, I'm wondering about Model releases. Can you just print & sell portraits of people who do not know you will sell their portraits?
Sounds like a lawyer who just wants to make a buck by finding some obscure relative who likely never had anything to do with Vivianne. Despicable.
Bingo
Your earlier Vivian Maier video, could you provide a link to it in your about section? It's annoying to have to go through all your other videos.
It's actually at the end of the video.
Any update about the situation in 2022?
There was not one of Vivian's pictures I didn't like.
They wouldn’t have shown the bad ones. And she would have thrown away the bad ones. We haven’t even seen half of the total archive.
Maloof is opportunistic but I still think his actions doesn't have any ill-intent. It's just that he dedicated his life in showcasing Vivian's work and felt that he deserves to be compensated for that
Tenuous claims by distant relations who cared naught prior to the fact have naught in the way of credibility after the fact.
I saw the video on Netflix and it is indeed well done. Maloof may not have been a filmmaker before but he is one now in my book. He addresses a few of your points in the video. First, the business about the collection not being curated, a term that is being overused to the point of blurring its meaning. He explains that he did not want to be the curator in the beginning but contacted several museums to perform that service and could get no takers. He determined that if no museums would do the job, he would have to do it. He arranged for showing locally in Chicago, which he completely underwrote and produced. The work was critically recognized and took off from there. The reality is, if he had not taken on the task himself, we wouldn't be talking about her now.
The other point is about her privacy and not wanting anyone to see her work. Maloof discovered some correspondence with a publisher/photographer in France discussing using her photographs in postcards that he produced. Modest for sure but shows a latent desire at least for others to see her work.
On the copyright issue, don't you have to formally apply for that from the U.S. Patent Office, and did she do that? These negatives were sold at auction by the owner of the storage room that she rented from him. Seems to me if was in the batch of belongings, all of the rights of ownership were being conveyed under the law.
Lastly, just to say I think your photography series is the best. It is, in fact, unique on the internet, and I look forward to each and every episode. Best of luck on the venture and the upcoming exhibition.
Ted Forbes , I TOTALLY agree with you on every point. I am a photographer who quite like Mme Maier was never quite enthused at the idea of exposing my work ( which i think is quite worthy of it if i contemplate other photographers' works ) not because i am shy or reluctant to share, but because i find that there are enough photographers with top class portfolios already milking the bassin of collectors and fans of photography. I find i have a great eye for composition and 'another' for making something out of nothing, so to speak. If Vivian Maier spent all this money on approx. 3,500 rolls of film and yet could not be bothered to have them developed, this must be good enough reason to conjecture that she might have thought " i had a great time doing this, it kept me in contact with humanity in my own special way but when i die they ( the photos ) can be dispersed i could not care less" OR "these pictures are about people and they belong to the people. The State can have them and use them for Exhibits dedicated to the people". The second would appear to be the likely option given that she was so enclined to take populated shots as opposed to abstract compositional shots from everyday reality. I also TOTALLY agree that she is being made into much bigger than she really is. 120,000 negatives don't make anymore than 15,000 grand photographs if you are a fantastic photographer and no more than 30,000 if you are SO GOOD that you practically invented ART. Otherwise NOBODY ever did Masterpiece after Masterpiece for years on end. Even Bach becomes repetitive ad nauseam if you listen to his whole body of work for 30 days non stop. I think Vivian Maier's output is not extensively shown for that very same reason.
We are show about 300 different photos at this point. Lawsuit or no, had there been tens of thousands of absolutely fantastic shots, we would have been exposed to a LOT more than 300 pictures a LONG time ago. The Lawsuit thing would almost appear to be a scheme to stop the outflow so as to secretly protect the mystique before we are allowed to verify that she actually took 1 great "history in the making shot" for every roll of film. Let's not kid ourselves about VM. She it no runt, but she is not the Revelation that her 120,000 secret little photos would have us believe, she could be revealed to be. Simply put, you cannot come across 24 fantastic opportunities for grand classic photos out of every 36 exposure rolls ; and if you can, you're the FIRST one in history to be able to do so in one afternoon !! When we get to see 40,000 of her negatives printed for inspection ( which will be NEVER ) we'll see what the fuss is all about. In the meanwhile this is just a lot of helium and about 36 grand historical social photos. I can take pretty well almost all of these shots myself by hanging out downtown and waiting 40 years to show them, until they have acquired a vintage look to them. 50 years ago her pictures would not have stirred people like they do now. A lot of this is simply Mystique at play. VINTAGE NEW YORK FAUNA AURA ...BUT...she was good and i like her very much. She has just not, shown us much yet. ...and for all i know....and you are quite right again...she did not want US to see it all. So maybe there IS a good reason why we have only seen so few. She knew her worth. She was good enough to know that she was just that. Good. I shall indeed watch your weekly capsules. I just might like my work more yet and understand my little raw genius. But get ambitious...i doubt it. Enjoy your freedom Vivi ! Claude Rochon
+Timo Canto No problem Gino. Let me prepare my will. I will endeavour to be as creative as possible until you pass away. Please advise me when you are on the eve of your departure. Also, instructions and mailing addresses of your beneficiaries will be needed to send the first instalments in post-mortem food stamps. All the Best! Lukewarm regards, Ludovic.
I go with Mary Ellan Mark's assessment of Vivian Maier work. "As a photographer, she had it all." I credit the individual who purchased the work. Most likely it would have ended up in a dumpster and he deserves something for that. She was self conscious about her work and resisted displaying it but being embarrassed and appalled from the grave is no worse that having her work plowed into a land fill. I am grateful for just seeing her work. I don't care who gets the money...
I grew up hearing the Beatles... I haven't heard a Beatle song for maybe 20 years. They kept changing the formats and I did buy them. Do I really have to buy them again?
Copyright laws provide some defense, but they're hardly airtight. A copyright gives a living author control over his original work, published or not, including exclusive rights to reproductions, distribution, and displays of the work. Anyone who violates a creator's copyright can be sued by the copyright holder. In the United States, the copyright protection extends for 70 years following the creator's death, with the right of enforcement falling to the creator's estate or designated agent. So, you could stipulate in your will that you don't want your works published, or you could leave the copyright to some person or organization with instructions not to publish them.
Thanks Ted. This is very much an interesting twist to her story. Yes once money is involved all heck breaks loose. Unfortunate but true.
Another weird copyright law is about found/vernacular photos. The us and Canada have no idea about it on their websites.
I want to know more about this weird copyright law. In which country is it law?
Jealousy and Greed.
Great movie and photographer..I think she deserves all her fame
Does copyright apply to unfinished work? Negatives don't need protection because they're not public yet. A negative is only part of the artistic input required in producing a negative. The final print involves development and printing, both of which require artistic input.
Copyright extends to unpublished works. And photographs (whether in negative or print form) are artistic works subject to copyright protection. It seems like you're saying a print can be considered a separate work-sure, in some cases that's true, but a print would still be considered either a duplication or a derivative work of the negative, and those rights remain with the copyright holder in the negative.
I agree with you. It's almost a treasure hunt and the copyright should end up with the one it ends up with. Was maier a nice person or not ? We might never know? Was she a compulsive lying cow? Maybe...Maybe not... Was she shy of her work? Yes. But now she is gone and by keeping all negatives, by never destroying them, she left us something.
Copyright laws have changed repeatedly in the USA from the time when Vivian shot her pictures. NOW the law conveys copyright immediately upon the creation of the work, but this was NOT the case in the 1950s and '60s. And the current law cannot be retroactively applied to older works. This video is now about a year and a half old. I wonder what's happened since Sept. 2014 on this?
Are you sure the law works that way if the film was developed this year? I wonder.
JC Haywire The creation of the photos would have occurred when the camera's shutter was opened and the film was exposed to the light through the lens. The developing of the film, and the printing of images, wouldn't be the "creation".
If someone becomes famous and or if there is money involved, there will always be relatives.
It's a shame her work got fragmented and dispersed after her death. It needed to be properly catalogued and curated.
It was and had been
About Vivian Maier likely not wanting her work shown: does anyone even know anymore who Franz Kafka and Max Brod were?
they need to make a movie about THIS mess! wherever $$ can be found watch out. but this is a great story about art, luck & imagination. if she had done just a few great shots, it would have been worthwhile. was she the 'greatest'?, who knows. is it now a business? yep. thank goodness he bought the box instead of someone who didn't know the difference.
I agree that the film should be appended with this information. Maloof doesn't get into his financial dealings--which I believe should be in the documentary. For example, he mentions, "I found the other buyers and bought the negatives." I want to know how and for how much. That's just as interesting as the Maier narrative.
I totally agree with you on the point about editing after death. I don't really know how I feel about the posthumous Garry Winogrand show in New York, all I can say is, I'd still be interested to see what he shot but it's absolutely incomprehensible to know how or what he would have selected for a show even with the best intent. I think all of us suffer a little bit of voyeuristic tendencies, we are curious about what someone photographed in the past, especially from a secretive photographer. I hope when the dust settles, I actually get to see some of the work she put out in print.
I see this debate a lot and frankly think it's overblown. People ask are we disrespecting Vivian because we don't know what she would and would not want shown, or how it would be shown or even IF she would want anything shown. Every day curators of museums make these same decisions about which paintings and sculptures to display to the public. Art museums have thousands of paintings etc... in storage that never see the light of day. But does anyone complain that these curators are making selections "for" the dead artist?! We don't know if Van Gogh wanted this or that painting shown so maybe we better not show any? She never said she didn't ever want her work shown. Maybe she was shy about showing her work or maybe she didn't realize how good it was? We'll never know. But she's dead now so does it really matter - especially since she never said anything about it? She never had a will saying "my photos are never to be shown". If that were really so important to her she could have put it in a will.
I have uploaded over 200 full size images and have already printed some.
I like this kind of videos: Photo Controversies and Photo News stuffs.
The thing that confuses me a bit and I am Canadian so I have no clue how this works in the US. But as I understand it copyright is normally something that is deliberately applied to a work by legal means. Now in this case it seems to imply that copyright is inherent and applies whether the creator of the work intended to copyright their work formally or not. And if owning the negatives does not guarantee copyright then does this become an issue for living photographers where if you sell a client an image but keep the negatives do you now have to ask the person who bought the picture permission to make new prints for sale? And if someone dies without specifically copyrighting their work wouldn't that put it in the public domain? Is that not why there is no copyright on say for example Oliver Twist.
i think that you will find in most countries, warm is automatically copyrighted the second that it is produced. Most members of the public wouldn't think of the copyright issue, but as soon as you click the shutter on your camera (even for a family happy snap) then you automatically own the copyright to that image and you have the final say on how it is used etc.
Vivian Maier's work is intoxicating and exciting. I believe she kept all of her negatives and film together for someone in the future to discover and find valuable. She would've destroyed it otherwise. All the contrarians dismissing her relevance come across sounding like they are drowning in envy or jumping on the bandwagon for engagement bait and it's painful to witness. Enjoy the discovery. She had a natural gift for the art of photography and it is absolutely obvious to the rest of us.
So if you happen to purchase a collection of potentially valuable photographs at an estate sale (the photographer's estate just sold them to you), do you now have copyright of all the photographs and negatives? What's the first step you should be taking, before spending hours culling through the collection?
call a lawyer and say nothing to anyone else.
No, if you purchase a photograph/negative, you own the physical photograph/negative. By default, the copyright remains with the photographer/estate, unless the photographer/estate assigned those rights to you in writing. Talk to a lawyer, who can potentially negotiate the sale of the copyrights without alerting the estate to the potential value of the work.
Keep in mind that if there's only one copy of a negative and you own it, the estate can practically never profit from their ownership of the copyright. You have no obligation to let them make prints with the negatives that the estate sold to you. So, at the very least, you could negotiate some arrangement with the estate, because nobody profits if nobody can do anything with the negatives (except that you could sell them to another buyer).
@@kqatsi thank you!
Did you just say she didn't want anyone to see her photographs?
Very well presented.
“pimped out” ? How dare you!?
Why does money come into play so much.
There maybe a valid issue of copyright and also the presentation of her work which was not edited, selected or printed with her approval...certainly this will work themselves out in the current litigation but my understanding was the gentleman who purchased the Vivian material purchased this prior to her death....is this not correct?
If this was in the UK and I know it's not but just to let you know, no relatives to claim this estate then it would go to the Crown. In turn if the Crown (state) sold this by auction then who ever buys it now possesses the item and potentially the copy rite providing they register a copy rite on the images.
Excuse me, but Johnny Come Lately greedy solicitor, Deal, just wants a part of the pie. I will NEVER trust a lawyer who enters the picture, so to speak, claiming higher moral ground. That just plain stinks. The negatives were salvaged, the legacy is, I believe in safe hands with the man who saved them from utter destruction. Let that be basis of who gets to own the copyright. Not some cousin in a far off distant land, rounded up by a lawyer. Nope, that just doesn't sit well with me.
Hope your reading all these comments totally in disagreement with everything you have said its incredible your attitude
I wondered whether something interesting would rear its head, and so the story unfolds. This is really going to get interesting somewhat more now, I watched the film and to be honest, am with Ted Forbes on this on how the work is interpreted, and their couple of books out there, one waiting to be published in the UK, this coming fall.
What does this mean now to the books one may already own? Do they become irrelevent?
David Rothwell It probably means if they win the lawsuit, Maloof will owe a bunch of money for works sold and the lawyer will get a cut of future works sold. If they go off the shelves it would only mean the copyright is in question - prints and books will go right back up when that's figured out.
I don’t know Maloof, or the whole sorted story, but if there are no direct relatives then the national archives should get them and display them in museums across the country as a matter of national pride celebrating the American artist
DEFINITE TRIAL BY COURTS IS A MUST !!
OTHER POINT OF VIEW
The US did not ratify the Berne Conventions until 1979, and thus actually had looser copyright laws than the Berne signatories (pretty much every other industrialized nation).
But even so, the fact that the negative was unpublished is what locks it down.
The copyright of a never published, never registered work under the pre-Berne-ratification laws of the US is still owned by the author or his heirs or assigns for 70 years after his death.
Money changes people...
I agree with you, I feel the same about this issue
My photography is a mixture of street/documentry/artsy, (think Siskind, Bravo, E. Smith, Arbus, Sudek. I have a body of work of black and whites and some kodachrome that dates back to 1980. I have only printed out maybe 1% of my work. In life I'm more of a loner. When I shoot I'm a lone wolf that blends in with my surroundings. Even though i only printed a small amount of my work, I consider my work to be a stepping stone to immortality. In time, i will print out most of my work and have it expose to a greater audience. This is what I think Vivian would have wanted because, like me, I have pride in what I shoot and I believe she did also and it time, she would have wanted to share, if she could afford it, expose her work to a greater audience.
I think the key here is the amount of money to be made. Making money off of other peoples' work is not unusual, as I am sure you understand since now supporting yourself with this podcast, but bigger bucks bring bigger challenges. It is sad to see Maier's personal work at the center of something like this.
Thank you Ted. Yours is the first talking-head clip I've been able to sit through for some time. I haven't seen the film yet (I will in a few days) but thanks for your comments on the complexities of the copyright controversy. Off the top of my head, I hope that Illinois State claims the photographs because it seems to me they are of great historical worth as well as artistically. Isn't this kind of thing what the Chicago Art Institute is for? I love that place.
AN OTHER VIEW POINT.
The negatives are just a special copy of the photographs. The rights to the work are a completely separate and insubstantial thing which need to b explicitly purchased. Depending on the original contract, those rights may belong to the photographer or the company he was working for. But they certainly didn't belong to the thrift store and so they can't have been sold to you.
posted by 256 at 2:33 PM on February 27, 2011
What's interesting about your video is you mispronounce her last name. As you can see from my name I can tell you it's pronounced "Myer" .
To all those saying "If it weren't for John Maloof.." ask yourselves how come he discovered her films in 2007 while she wasn't yet deceased and didn't do anything about it up until 2009?? If it weren't for John Maloof there would have been somebody else discovering and making profit out of it. And am pretty sure this other hypothetical guy would have waited for her death also...
+oblivionzzzmike Watch the film "Finding Vivian Maier," and you will have your answer. He looked and could find nothing for two years and only thenbecause of a funeral notice. He went to France in search of relations. This came after his search to even discover there was a French connection, sinceNO-ONE knew her provenance and she was born in the U.S. And for the sakeof Vivian Maier's legacy, I with all those saying, etc will say I believe it a greatstroke of luck that it was this young man- with his curiosity, his capability, his sincerity and his drive- which was anything and everything but money-grubbing-that it was this mensch Maloof- and NOT someone more cynical and self-interested- who came into possession of her work. The problem with your hypothetical average guy is that he'd be neither as capable, or curious, or as. determined, or disinterested, in bringing her work to light.
john Maloof did the fundamental job
I actually agree with pretty much everything that you said! You're also allowed to have your own opinion, regardless of the politically correct left. They can get over it, but then again, we already know they won't and have such sad bitter hateful vengeful and wasted lives that they know nothing other than making others either as miserable or more than they are.
She has a great eye of a street photographer. #JM20216
have you seen the BBC documentary that predates Maloof's? It's a much more objective take on the topic.
Mike Noble BBC did a great job as you would expect!
Its pronounced Meyer
Much of her work is indeed excellent I think, but the whole mystery surrounding her very private life along with her vast output of photographs is what is romanticised and hence appealing, particularly now that she is no longer with us. Artists can become evermore popular when a considerable number of admirers like their work; but many admirers are like sheep, agreeing to like certain art because everyone else seems to, with relatively very few honestly admitting to each - and sometimes themselves - that they really are not always that impressed.
David White
No wonder she didn't want anything to do with the formal ahhht world! It's perfect that this young man found it. She dead. Too late to care about any of this. What about other outsider artist. Their work was gobbled up by collectors and galleries and museums. Sickening turn of events.