• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Is it right to publish the private works of famous photographers?

im clueless ..
i guess, maybe if not explicitly stated - last wishes / will / note left with the work
" destroy or keep private do not publish or show in a gallery &c "
the owner of the estate can do whatever he or she wants?

and it doesnt' matter if anyone thinks its wrong to publish ?
written works are often published, even buildings built posthumously aren't they ?
not sure what the difference is ...
 
Who and how was it determined that these were private works not intended to be published? Somebody had to obtain permission from the Leitner estate or other copyright holder to do the project. I don't understand the affront to ethics.
 
OK, let me explain myself and see if I can get through.

The reason I was querying the ethics is that the way I read the original article, it appeared to me that these images where Leiters own personal work - the ones that he had shot of his personal muses, that he had kept to himself and had only shown to those close to him in his inner circle.

If from what I have read above (I have not seen the documentary), they had indeed intended to be published, so this thread has become a bit irrelevant.

But, lets change this around - Hypothetically, lets say that they indeed were personal images, for his (& those who were intimate with him) eyes only - his own little box of nudie Polaroids (for use of a better example). If you were in charge of his estate, would you publish them?
 

It depends. Shouldn't the photographer have made arrangement (in the will) so that the images in question were off-limits for publication, if he wished so. In the event of lack of any specific instructions, i guess the decision would depend on the subject matter and whether the images enhance his legacy or sully it. Obviously from the looks of it, the former may be true in this case.
 
Last edited:
Well, he did not take them with him, so go ahead and publish them. He will not be able to complain. If his estate had a good reason to halt it, then they should step forward.
 
I'm going to go into Howard Greenberg Gallery tomorrow and go enjoy these stolen moments for myself.......
I think the pictures tell me more about the man himself than his other work
 
If Max Brod had listened to Frank Kafka’s wish to destroy his work the world would be a lot poorer. If an artists want their work not to be seen they should destroy it themselves.
 
If the private photos became legal property of a surviving family member or friend, then it's up to that person to decide which photos to publicize, and which to withhold from the public. The question of ethics rests with whoever presently owns the photos, not the publisher who simply paid for the right to reproduce them.
 
Well, a publisher still could refrain if a copyright owner offered him such...
 
Peter Schrager said:
I'm going to go into Howard Greenberg Gallery tomorrow and go enjoy these stolen moments for myself.......
I think the pictures tell me more about the man himself than his other work
Click to expand...

have fun peter !
maybe ..
i wasn't familiar with is work until now
( sorry i am out of the loop ) and i looked
at some of his other work on the weeb ...
all of it seems to show a lonely person to me
maybe because these photographs aren't made from
a distance with a tele and they are up close and intimate of his friends &c
he is a little less lonely ... i don't know, a lot of photography i think
shows the world stuff we can't have and we wish for ..
 
Reading most of the comments on this topic, seems to me that Leiter thought that these pictures were pretty good. Much worse is publishing work that the artist rejected. The cruelest case I can think of is one that occurred some years ago. An academic English professor discovered a novel Hemingway squirreled away in a shoe box, obviously because he didn’t think it was good enough to submit to publisher. Professor published book. Review in NYTimes commented that this publication demonstrated that H really was not a very good writer after all. Printing pictures that a photographer himself rejected may mot be very fair.
As for releasing recorded out takes...often the selection is not made by the artist. Out takes can be very interesting, especially with regard to jazz and vocal performances.
 

Some of it reminds me of the paintings of Edward Hopper or the music of Tom Waits...but with photography you can create something of your own that maybe resonates with others. I enjoy seeing more of my favourite photographers' work-of course if they stated in their will that the work shouldn't be published then that should be that. Brett Weston of course famously burnt all his negatives on his 80th birthday (wonder if he kept the ashes?). I enjoy seeing a broader range of someone's work in the same way I enjoy listening to ,say Bob Dylan's Bootleg Series. Now that is how outtakes should be handled! I always marvel at the quality of the stuff that got left on the studio floor (same with Motown), but sometimes you can have a good song or picture and it just doesn't fit in anywhere.
 

I think you've hit on the main differences at least in approach; his street photography was from a distance and regarded strangers in a contemplative way, while these nudes were very close, naked, and in collaboration with friendly subjects. But it's all done in the "Leiter style". He was good.
 
abruzzi said:
If Max Brod had listened to Frank Kafka’s wish to destroy his work the world would be a lot poorer. If an artists want their work not to be seen they should destroy it themselves.
Click to expand...

This is a strong argument. Actually if the artist does not destroy it itself - it could be that (at least one part of him/her) wants to get the work published and known.
 
barzune said:
What a pathetic world we live in, that common courtesy and common sense should be replaced by politicians and lawyers.
Click to expand...
Don't know about politicians but lawyers in most/all places must have clients in order to benefit from legal proceedings and what do those clients want out of those proceedings? Why MONEY, of course. If they deny this, they are probably hypocrites.......Regards!
 
Some clients use legal proceedings to either block publication, for privacy reasons, or encourage publication, because they want to make publicly available photographs that are currently unavailable.
Trust me - when I was a practicing lawyer, my client's motives were often surprising, and sometimes inexplicable.
How would you feel if your inheritance was a body of photographic work, but it wasn't clear whether you were permitted to display, publish or financially profit from it?
 
Hey, after I am gone, if the family wants to publish it, I will not be able to come back and bitch about it.
 
“No lawyer will ever get into heaven as long as there is space for one more in hell”.
 
guangong said:
“No lawyer will ever get into heaven as long as there is space for one more in hell”.
Click to expand...

You have apparently, never required the services of an attorney?
 
guangong said:
“No lawyer will ever get into heaven as long as there is space for one more in hell”.
Click to expand...
After 24 years of practicing law, including encountering many, many generous, kind, thoughtful and intelligent lawyers, who spent their days providing exemplary services on behalf of their clients and, frequently, on behalf of many of the disadvantaged in my community, I know that if people end up in heaven, then they'll find lots of former lawyers there too.
Of course, if you find yourself in hell instead, you'll encounter a few former lawyers there too!
 
How sensitive the little darlings! Lighten up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register