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.
Been there, done that.
Next.
Was Maier's work ever registered?
Yes, it was protected at the time of creation (i.e., when she hit the shutter button).Was it protected?
Exactly the point. I posted a photograph on APUG around 2007 as an example of humor and for the APUG users to view. In less than 24 hours, the website showed that it had been downloaded hundreds of times. Who downloaded them without my permission? What did they do with the photograph without my permission? That cost me sales of my own work. The only way to protect myself is to never post any of my work on the internet even if posting would help another photographer solve a problem. The problem is not the law; it is the people.
Maybe you could post it again so we can see what was so good about it.Since it was within 24 hours at least I was able to remove the photograph from the website before more damage was done.
Maybe you could post it again so we can see what was so good about it.
I'm sorry if my post came out that way. I'm sure what happened hurt you a lot. It's a lesson learned for all of us.Figure that out all by yourself, did you?
was the work unregistered and did you get compensated ?
As I said before, bla bla bla. .
Only if you're expecting some big pay-day just because someone stole your picture; that's not necessarily how the law is set up, though. Don't like it; change the law.I am well aware of how the system works, without registration the maker is left holding the bag.
That's essentially what I just said.registering the work at the copyright office using the VA Registration Form is painless and quick
offers the maker full protection https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/
please stop suggesting otherwise
Like everything else where civil law is involved, the person with the bigger budget wields the greater amount of power. Copy @Sirius Glass's photo, make some money from it, you get to keep the money - he likely does not have the resources to chase you down and stop you, even if he has registered the photo (who is going to register every photo they take?) with the copyright office (and assuming he even knows who you are).
I think many are.Why is nobody interested in her photography?
As I posted earlier - to do it properly one probably needed to have deeper pockets than I think he did.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?
... about registration
But Maloof did make an attempt to find relatives and could find only one who he made a deal and paid them $5000. So he did his "due diligence" although everyone can have their opinion of how much that should be. After Maier gained fame, her other relatives came out of the woodwork to make their claim along with their ambulance-chasing lawyers. Well, you know that was going to happen. I'm sure Maloof figure on it too.As I posted earlier - to do it properly one probably needed to have deeper pockets than I think he did.
Some things are very difficult to do both profitably and properly. That is an unfortunate fact of life. But that doesn't mean that one should ignore what the rules are.
If it had been up to me, I would have tried to interest a university or historical society in the project.
Why is nobody interested in her photography?
By “artistic borrowings and appropriations” I assume you refer to derivative works. While I personally value the concept of copyright, derivative is so variable that I have a difficult time with it… but, as you say, “get used to it”.Like privacy and truth, copyright has become an obsolete concept. This has evolved over many decades, including the "fair use" principle and "artistic" borrowings and appropriations like the Pretty Baby photo and Marlboro cigarette advertising. Get used to it.
Richard Prince's and Sherrie Levine 's works were not derivative, they were just taken ...By “artistic borrowings and appropriations” I assume you refer to derivative works. While I personally value the concept of copyright, derivative is so variable that I have a difficult time with it… but, as you say, “get used to it”.
I don't know much about Levine, but it seems that the courts decided that Prince's attempt at creating derivative works was not. There seems to me to be a lot of personal opinion in what is derivative and what is plagiarism but if a court determined and there was no overturn in appeal... I'd agree that it was plagiarism.Richard Prince's and Sherrie Levine 's works were not derivative, they were just taken ...
we are living in a post truth post privacy post copyright world... ( I like that Arthurwg! thanks)
here you go.I don't know much about Levine, but it seems that the courts decided that Prince's attempt at creating derivative works was not. There seems to me to be a lot of personal opinion in what is derivative and what is plagiarism but if a court determined and there was no overturn in appeal... I'd agree that it was plagiarism.
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?