Law suit agains Vivian Maier estate

blansky · May 19, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
Is valuable APUG time and space being used for peanut gallery comment on some intestate passing?

I'm sure Sean is very appreciative of your concern for his website.

And you may wish to consider that bandwidth usage when you keep posting things about your posts causing you to be banned or other such self indulgences.

blansky · May 19, 2015

MattKing said:
The Vivian Maier situation has made a lot of people think about the interconnection between the film they shoot and the ownership of the copyright attached to the photographs.

I doubt on this site because most people don't really have a reason to care.

I think they actually like to soap opera aspect of it more.

But it is a fascinating story. Somewhat crazy lady, incredible photographer, lots of lawyers, courts, opportunists or not, storage lockers, beheadings, bodies buried....

Pioneer · May 19, 2015

In all this time I have YET to see a single heir who has been left out or have lost their birthright because Maloof & Co. discovered, promoted and printed the work of Vivian Maier. Maybe, just maybe, Maloof and Goldstein actually tried to do the right thing and find the proper heirs without government or lawyer interference?

Now that Cooke County is involved (a well-known defender of government honesty) they have decided that they deserve to get any money that may be earned, not to pass along to any potential heirs, but to pay their own expenses. I was under the mistaken belief that taxes charged by Cooke County actually paid their expenses.

Silly me.

blansky · May 19, 2015

APUGuser19 said:
Yeah, it was a dumb comment of mine.

We've all made them.

Peter Simpson · May 20, 2015

Pioneer said:
In all this time I have YET to see a single heir who has been left out or have lost their birthright because Maloof & Co. discovered, promoted and printed the work of Vivian Maier. Maybe, just maybe, Maloof and Goldstein actually tried to do the right thing and find the proper heirs without government or lawyer interference?

I agree. They made a legitimate effort to find the next of kin, and may (or may not) have made a mistake. They sank a lot of their own money into cataloging and developing, and have a right to get at least that back. Any legitimate heirs should be compensated, of course. But if Maloof&Co had done nothing, those photos and unexposed film would have gone to the incinerator, and we would never have seen them. I'm not sure whether the film is abandoned property, sold to cover the costs of storage, or part of an estate.

Not a black and white (sorry) case, not by a long shot.

Cook County? My opinion is best not expressed.

DREW WILEY · May 20, 2015

Well, I'm on the East Bay with artiste colonies (pothead-infested firetraps) being demolished all around. That's the good thing. The bad thing
is that highrise condos are replacing them and will slowly get filled with high-paid techie geeks, who will probably also have to dumpster dive just to eat after their obscene rent is paid. Maybe there is some undiscovered genius living in one of those firetraps who happened to use a
camera instead of aerosol cans for their creative outlet. Not likely. But ya never know. Best not to know, or someone might sue you.

pbromaghin · May 20, 2015

Here's where it all would be:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.893...!1e1!3m2!1sLyNb9XZr2wEWAp01-rFdIw!2e0!6m1!1e1

Alan Klein · May 20, 2015

The rightful heirs cannot sell the photos. How are they going to make prints without the negatives that are owned by others? The owners of the negatives don't own the copyright. So they can't make prints even though they own the negatives.

So it's in the interest of both parties to make a deal so they can both benefit financially.

Mainecoonmaniac · May 21, 2015

Is this the art gallery world? This is so sleazy.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/ric...hots-without-permission-for-100k/#more-166178

blansky · May 21, 2015

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Is this the art gallery world? This is so sleazy.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/ric...hots-without-permission-for-100k/#more-166178

Gotta say that is a great picture.

What is interesting is that he isn't stealing the picture per se ( although he is) he is showing his work as a comment on pop culture. It's very iffy legally, but interesting none the less.

I would guess that most of the other ones are not as good as this one due to the fact that the original is a fascinating picture.

This should probably be it's own thread.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 21, 2015

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Is this the art gallery world? This is so sleazy.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/ric...hots-without-permission-for-100k/#more-166178

Yeah, but this one cracks me up. Instagram is such a narcissistic joke.

Reminds of something like this from a couple years ago, some woman "artist", if I remember she has an Asian name I believe, was taking other's photos of automobiles, adding high contrast, colors, various digital tweaks, etc, then selling them as her own too. Mostly as -over the couch in the living room- type of framed "art", but nonetheless. Because in her mind she "added" so much it was now her "art" and not the original photographer's. I think she was getting away with it too. Forgot her name....

MattKing · Jan 13, 2016

I've started another thread about Vivian Maier, with a link to some apparently well researched background about her. The estate law issues that arise are fascinating.

Here is the link: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Sirius Glass · Jan 13, 2016

semi-ambivalent · Jan 13, 2016

MattKing said:
Cook County is acting as a trustee for the interests of the rightful heir(s). As trustee, they won't get to keep the benefits for themselves.

As a resident of Illinois for the first thirty years of my life, I dare you to believe this.

s-a

Sirius Glass · Jan 13, 2016

We remember that the late mayor Richard J. Daley said, "Vote early and vote often."

MattKing · Jan 13, 2016

semi-ambivalent said:
Originally Posted by MattKing (there was a url link here which no longer exists)Cook County is acting as a trustee for the interests of the rightful heir(s). As trustee, they won't get to keep the benefits for themselves.

As a resident of Illinois for the first thirty years of my life, I dare you to believe this.

s-a

I'll rephrase:

"As trustee, legally they are not permitted to keep the benefits for themselves."

No comments here about how well that will work there.

DREW WILEY · Jan 13, 2016

Where is Al Capone when we need him? He seems to have been skillful at quickly settling petty disputes in that part of the world.

Sirius Glass · Jan 13, 2016

MattKing said:
I'll rephrase:

"As trustee, legally they are not permitted to keep the benefits for themselves."

No comments here about how well that will work there.

Conventional wisdom says to stay as far away from Chicago, its politics and its government.

Pioneer · Jan 13, 2016

Chicago is broke. Any money coming in is already being spent.

Once things are settled they have all the best intentions of paying it back.

Of course, when you are broke, it may be awhile before they can afford to pay anyone.

The law says they must pay it to the true heir(s) when everything is said and done. The law says nothing about what is to be done in the meantime.

I don't know that this is true of course, but I do know that politicians can smell untouched money better than any bloodhound.

John Koehrer · Jan 16, 2016

As trustees they won't keep the proceeds from any sales, they'll just "borrow" them.:

Jim Jones · Jan 16, 2016

I assume the trustees' expenses are paid. That could beat getting an honest job.

Law suit agains Vivian Maier estate

blansky

blansky

Pioneer

blansky

Peter Simpson

DREW WILEY

pbromaghin

Alan Klein

Mainecoonmaniac

blansky

Richard S. (rich815)

MattKing

Moderator

Sirius Glass

semi-ambivalent

Sirius Glass

MattKing

Moderator

DREW WILEY

Sirius Glass

Pioneer

John Koehrer

Jim Jones

Law suit agains Vivian Maier estate

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency