More Vivian Maier

[BrianShaw]

here you go.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/267214
its not plagiarism .. or personal opinion. its art history + critical theory

but since you mentioned plagerism ....
is it plagiarism when someone finds someone else's tripod holes and retakes their photographs?
or when someone asks how a print was made so they can do it themselves?

Thanks for the link. I also googled up a couple of other discussions. I'm not so sure about your conclusion. The additional questions would be great to discuss... but in another thread. Has little to do with the original topic.

 

[removed account4]

Thanks for the link. I also googled up a couple of other discussions. I'm not so sure about your conclusion. The additional questions would be great to discuss... but in another thread. Has little to do with the original topic.

Your welcome.

I think it's referred to as "thread drift" ... very few people are talking about VMs work in this thread anyways, they are just badmouthing the author or her biography, and Mr Maloof.

My conclusions: Maloof did his best but unfortunately there are always people who claim he didn't; that the world is a better place that we are able to see VM's work; that I don't listen to people who tell me not to register my work at the copyright office because they have no idea what they are talking about; that copyright protection is useless in a variety of instances ( like the making of art ); and that people who search for tripod holes or information about how to make other people's images might be considered plagiarists by some but darlings of the art world by others; and most people on this website don't talk bout photography they talk about anything but photography.

 

[MattKing]

I don't see any evidence that anyone is saying - don't register at the US Copyright office.
The US is of course, weird, in that it both provides extra special remedies over and above the more traditional remedies found in most of the world, and only extends those remedies if copyright is registered.
In Canada, and I believe most other jurisdictions, registration is voluntary, but the registration fee is worthwhile because if you have registered, some of the things you need to prove are deemed proven.
In the weird US , as Duceman posted above, registration is an excellent idea, because it opens to you a bunch of really useful remedies that make it much more practical to sue someone for breach of copyright. So as he suggested, it is a really, really, really good idea to register copyright.
By the way, as I understand it, registration of copyright for the undeveloped films is impossible until after development.
And of course, you actually have to own the copyright (or be an authorized agent) in order to validly register the copyright.
And that is where John Maloof had a problem - he never owned the copyright.

 

[BrianShaw]

And that is where John Maloof had a problem - he never owned the copyright.

Didn't he track down a distant cousin, who at the time he believed was the legitimate/only beneficiary of her estate. and buy rights? What did he buy in that transaction - copyright or usage rights?

 

[MattKing]

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.

No, it isn't a matter of everyone having their opinion. It is a matter of what the common law, statute law and case authority has determined how much that should be.
If you have a problem like this, you go to a lawyer who is experienced in these types of issues, who will then take the facts that have been gathered so far and make application to the Probate Court for directions. John Maloof would have difficulty doing this himself, but with the cooperation of that relative he found, he could start the process in the name of that person.
You would use the Court directions to determine what level of genealogical investigations was required, but it would not necessarily have to be an endless search.
These are the sorts of things that the Court is used to. The Court would use its equitable jurisdiction to balance the interests of bringing the situation into completion with the competing interests of the located and not yet located intestate heirs. Their are all sorts of tools available to do that, while supporting and encouraging the realization of assets.
Its true, to make that happen, you need money behind you.
If you get that money in place, and do things right, most of the controversy disappears. The estate can then contract with John Maloof to make use of his negatives and his services. Much more Vivian Maier photography can then be released to the world, Mr. Maloof can make a large but fair amount of coin and the intestate beneficiaries can enjoy a windfall.
Any fees and expenses charged by any of the lawyers would normally have to be approved by the Court before they were paid out of the estate.
All of which would have been avoided if Vivian Maier had made a simple Will giving everything to whomever she wished.

 

[MattKing]

Didn't he track down a distant cousin, who at the time he believed was the legitimate/only beneficiary of her estate. and buy rights? What did he buy in that transaction - copyright or usage rights?

The cousin didn't own anything at that stage, other than at best an undetermined claim against the estate. Until the estate is legally vested in a lawfully appointed administrator, no one can sell any part of it, because they don't own any part of it.
Maloof may have purported to buy the cousin's claim against the estate - I don't know whether Illinois law permits that - but that is a far different thing than owning something in the estate.

 

[BrianShaw]

Got it… it wasn’t his to sell.

 

[MattKing]

Got it… it wasn’t his to sell.

Which, in a nutshell, describes everything I've posted about Mr. Maloof in this thread.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Got it… it wasn’t his to sell.

Mr. Maloof should have gotten his money refunded.

 

[MattKing]

Maloof has and owns the majority of the negatives (and movie films, and prints and documents and a bunch of other things). When combined with the copyright interests, the combination is quite valuable. Much of that value will only be realized because of Maloof's (and others') efforts. That is why he is entitled to some serious coin - if he hasn't disentitled himself by first playing fast and loose with the rules.

 

[Arthurwg]

I do think Ms. Levine has forfeited all rights to photography and should leave it to others. That's the mild version of my remarks.

 

[removed account4]

So as he suggested, it is a really, really, really good idea to register copyright

I have him on ignore at the moment, since he claimed I had no idea what I was talking about (when I said to register one's work at the copyright office) ...
and now he's saying the same thing ? LOL. whatever. I don't have time for people playing semantic games. good luck with your thread and your copyright issues if you have any.
I can't wait to be able to ignore threads again, just ignoring problematic people is not enough.

 

[MattKing]

As Duceman posted, you do not have to register the work to obtain many of the remedies available - often the most important ones.
As Duceman posted, it is a really good idea to register, because registration means you can claim additional, statutory remedies that are cheaper and easy to access.
Most important of all, if you find yourself aggrieved by someone appropriating your interests in copyright, but realize that you neglected to register, do not assume that all is lost. There are other, very important remedies that remain - injunctions being particularly important ones - although they are more difficult and expensive to access.

 

[CMoore]

So how does a photographer register their photos.?
Even amateurs have hundreds.

Does each photo get a separate registration number.?
Do you get a "Mater Number" that you can apply to all of your Photos/Negs.?
Thank You

 

[BrianShaw]

It never ceases to amaze me how simple it is to answer questions. I found the answer quicker than it took you to type the questions!

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/

 

[Duceman]

So how does a photographer register their photos.?
Even amateurs have hundreds.

Does each photo get a separate registration number.?
Do you get a "Mater Number" that you can apply to all of your Photos/Negs.?
Thank You

You can register a group of unpublished, or a group of published, photographs. See the information here, especially at the left side-bar.

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/

 

[MattKing]

I'm curious - is there a table of registration fees?

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm curious - is there a table of registration fees?

https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html

 

[MattKing]

Thank you Sir.

 

[CMoore]

You can register a group of unpublished, or a group of published, photographs. See the information here, especially at the left side-bar.

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/photographs/

Holy Cow.............750..!!!

https://stream-media.loc.gov/copyright/gruph.mp4

 

[CMoore]

It never ceases to amaze me how simple it is to answer questions. I found the answer quicker than it took you to type the questions!

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/

Yeah Yeah Yeah

The poster below you gave additional info that includes a video i linked to.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yeah Yeah Yeah

The poster below you gave additional info that includes a video i linked to.

It was just what one sees when one opens the “registration “ pull down.
Did you see the link to fees? I’m sure someone expects it to be free.

 

[CMoore]

It was just what one sees when one opens the “registration “ pull down.
Did you see the link to fees? I’m sure someone expects it to be free.

No, did not look at Fees.
I assumed for a small amount the fee would be "Nominal".?
Have no idea what it would cost to register 750..!!!

As much as i think i am a decent Street Photographer, i probably do not have near the number of gems that Vivian does..................so i probably would be able to afford registration for ALL of my "Masterpieces".

 

[Don_ih]

My copyright dilemma has been solved the most common way: I don't have any pictures anyone would bother to copy .

we are living in a post truth ... world

You're invoking a neo-theology that brings with it a lot of associated claims, most of which you might not like....

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As Duceman posted, you do not have to register the work to obtain many of the remedies available - often the most important ones.
As Duceman posted, it is a really good idea to register, because registration means you can claim additional, statutory remedies that are cheaper and easy to access.
Most important of all, if you find yourself aggrieved by someone appropriating your interests in copyright, but realize that you neglected to register, do not assume that all is lost. There are other, very important remedies that remain - injunctions being particularly important ones - although they are more difficult and expensive to access.

Your welcome.

I think it's referred to as "thread drift" ... very few people are talking about VMs work in this thread anyways, they are just badmouthing the author or her biography, and Mr Maloof.

My conclusions: Maloof did his best but unfortunately there are always people who claim he didn't; that the world is a better place that we are able to see VM's work; that I don't listen to people who tell me not to register my work at the copyright office because they have no idea what they are talking about; that copyright protection is useless in a variety of instances ( like the making of art ); and that people who search for tripod holes or information about how to make other people's images might be considered plagiarists by some but darlings of the art world by others; and most people on this website don't talk bout photography they talk about anything but photography.

What benefits did the estate and Maier's relatives lose to Maloof because Maier didn't copyright her photos?