I never really thought of myself as " a being" that had "something" to copyright, that in a strick sense made me unique. But I guess there are people out there who. . . . . . . . . . . ( fill in the blank as you see fit)
I never really thought of myself as " a being" that had "something" to copyright, that in a strick sense made me unique. But I guess there are people out there who. . . . . . . . . . . ( fill in the blank as you see fit)
Apparently, you have a better chance of getting rich if you die first.thanks,
Serious/seriously/sirius glass. I am literally at the chalk board diagraming my own chart of success ( smiley FACE). PREPARING for the future of infinite success as a film photographer!!! In big large letters on the Marquee. .. YOU"LL BE FAMOUS WHEN YOUR DEAD
o.k. . . .. . jokes aside. ... . Everything about the OP is all about people creating value from dead peoples' toil (ostensively there is a "limited" stock !!! Ha ha ) and monopolizing greed. that practice has been going on since the beginning of time. The Law, at least American Law, has codified this economic/social/ political device: it is deeply ingrained in our culture. No one would buy a VIVIAN MARR photograph if she was alive!!!! DUH!!!
That guy is a very interesting story.... look at what happened with Miroslov Tichy by comparison ...
I suppose the question is........who else would or could it go to.?So if someone dies intestate with no relative and no heirs, then the state gets ownership of the copyrights?
I suppose the state could auction the rights to the copyrights if there were no heirs? So a Maloof may have gotten them anyway just as he bought the photos and negatives at an auction.That guy is a very interesting story.
I saw a video about him, he was in it, on Youtube.
Fascinating person. Made his own cameras and lenses.!
I suppose the question is........who else would or could it go to.?
If "The State" had inherited Vivian's Negs and Photos, i do not imagine we ever would have seen them. It is possible, but we will never know.
I was shocked this thread was still going.
There certainly has been a lot of interesting info posted.
That guy is a very interesting story.
I saw a video about him, he was in it, on Youtube.
Fascinating person. Made his own cameras and lenses.!.
If only he had paid the person/entity who actually owned the copyrights!paying for the copyright
Amen.If only he had paid the person/entity who actually owned the copyrights!
I have said this numerous times - the work that Maloof did to bring attention to the photography is (mostly) laudable.
And I acknowledge that he may not have achieved what he has achieved if he had dealt with the copyrights properly.
But he didn't. And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.
He may have accomplished the opposite. After all, people now know that you better settle these things or you just might wind up in court as Maloof did. On the other hand, he would have had to go before a court to settle these things anyway. Or, without his action, there would not have been a lawsuit to begin with. There has to be a disgruntled party to bring a lawsuit. What should he have done that he didn;t do?If only he had paid the person/entity who actually owned the copyrights!
I have said this numerous times - the work that Maloof did to bring attention to the photography is (mostly) laudable.
And I acknowledge that he may not have achieved what he has achieved if he had dealt with the copyrights properly.
But he didn't. And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.
If only he had paid the person/entity who actually owned the copyrights!
I have said this numerous times - the work that Maloof did to bring attention to the photography is (mostly) laudable.
And I acknowledge that he may not have achieved what he has achieved if he had dealt with the copyrights properly.
But he didn't. And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.
And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.
No, there doesn't have to be a disgruntled party.There has to be a disgruntled party to bring a lawsuit. What should he have done that he didn;t do?
In the USA. work has to actually be REGISTERED with the Copyright Office to be protected.
The internet has done far more damage to copyright protection than the Vivian Maier situation ever could. Visible photos are considered public property by most people.
"In the United States, creative work is automatically protected by copyright as long as it is both:
a) original - ie independently created and not copied from someone else’s work.
b) fixed in a tangible form - ie easy to see, reproduce or communicate over a long period of time. "
from https://assets.publishing.service.g...achment_data/file/456368/IP_rights_in_USA.pdf
So, no, it does not need to be registered.
In the USA. work has to actually be REGISTERED with the Copyright Office to be protected.
When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
False.
Copyright arises at the moment of creation. See below, taken directly from the U.S. Copyright Office website >>here<<:
Granted, if you need court intervention, in order to have any standing to sue you'll at least need to have filed for copyright protection. However, if the alleged copyright infringement occurred prior to the filing for copyright protection and/or outside of 3 months from the work having been published, your remedies will be limited and you will have to prove actual damages.
not really,
Let's say you were Maloof. How much would you be willing to spend to hire a lawyer to deal with probate and the court system? Remember, before he did what he did, there were no estimates of the real value of her work. It was just a bunch of pictures sitting in a box. So you make a small attempt to find relatives and come up with nothing. Then what do you do? Do you start to publish the work figuring you have the rights too and if anyone shows up claiming they are a relative, well, then you'll deal with that then as he has? If that's not the right approach, what do you do? What approach would you consider doing?No, there doesn't have to be a disgruntled party.
The court's equitable jurisdiction in Probate is a regulatory jurisdiction, designed to handle the mechanics of the administration of estates, and to protect the interests ("equities") of those who are otherwise unrepresented. It is only when a dispute arises that the court's legal jurisdiction comes into play - the jurisdiction that is there to deal with disputes.
An proceeding in Probate is intended to determine assets and liabilities and confirm interests in them. It is also the mechanism used to ensure payment of liabilities and to see to the appropriate transfer of assets from the name of the Deceased to the name(s) of those determined to be entitled to them. As that process takes time, the Probate Court also supervises the actions of those charged with administering the estate. In the case of Vivian Maier's estate, that might mean the court overseeing the administrator's actions in maximizing the value of the copyrights for the benefit of the estate. And that may very well mean approving the plans of John Maloof.
Only a very, very tiny percentage of Probate court proceedings involve settlement of disputes.
Most Probate proceedings are more like performance audits.
Vivian Maier's estate is complicated because of the lack of a Will and her complex family. And because the estate's assets are copyrights to the wonderful photography she did. Intellectual property rights are way more complex than cars, homes and bank accounts.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Granted, if you need court intervention, in order to have any standing to sue you'll at least need to have filed for copyright registration. However, if the alleged copyright infringement occurred prior to the filing for copyright registration and/or outside of 3 months from the work having been published, your remedies will be limited and you will have to prove actual damages
Was Maier's work ever registered? Was it protected?
The key question was did her relatives ever get any money for them even though the copyrights were unregistered?Most likely the answer is no.
If you say so ... maybe you should talk to a lawyer familiar with the intricacies of American Copyright Law, and have to sue a client for publishing work without consent...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?