More Vivian Maier

mohmad khatab · Nov 10, 2021

I am very sad and feel a lot of disgust.
This is the hateful life. a cheap method from a cheap author in order to get profits,
This author suffers from a lack of talent and a lack of creative imagination.
If this author had the real talent, he would have filled the world with books, stories and literary novels, but he is not,
An opportunistic pragmatist author who writes a story for a deceased person in order to make money.
This author is not writing about the life story of Napoleon Bonaparte, but is writing about a character who was alive a few years ago. Did the author obtain permission from her to write that story before her death?
What is this cheap author?
What is his relationship to that woman who lived quietly and died quietly.
Would this author have thought of her if he had met her in the public garden or at Al-Marwa sign by chance?
It is as if the private lives of others have become permissible by pragmatic authors in order to achieve profits.
As a photographer, I am fascinated by this genius photographer and consider her one of my teachers.
And I hope to be like her one day, I live in peace and die in peace and they find my work by chance and the artistic world is astonished by the high level of those works.
This genius photographer who passed away from our world, was keen to keep her private life secret.
Personally, I do not care about her private life at all, but I will consider that maintaining the confidentiality of her private life is a moral agreement between me and her implicitly, and I will preserve not to go into or roam around in her private life, since she was insisting that no one knows any information about her life own.
Why does the opportunist author insist on exposing that private life after her death, all this in order to make a profit in a cheap way?

I'm not going to talk about the religious fanatic here. Which criminalizes eavesdropping and spying on people's private lives, but I will only talk about the liberal ethical side, and it also strongly rejects any attempt to reveal anything about the private personal life of any person.

removed account4 · Nov 10, 2021

I haven't really been following the whole VM saga from the beginning. Admittedly I am less interested in most "street photography" than a lot of people. I don't get most of it but that is my own problem, and I can appreciate that other people enjoy and can relate to it. That said, I was under the impression that the owners of the images/negatives did their due diligence to search for the owners and had no idea what they had. I mean enthusiasts on Flickr &c really isn't a barometer of value of the images. I didn't realize he found family overseas to sign copyright paperwork, I have no problem with him creating a buzz over an unknown woman street photographer's work and making movies and gallery exhibits and selling the work, that's what promoters do, they promote. He didn't say or suggest it was His Work did he?, he has given her credit. Are they upset that a relative they might not have cared about when she was alive or ill now is famous posthumously? Are her relatives suing him to regain ownership of the images and to seize the profits from everything sold?

Maybe I am misunderstanding everything that has transpired since her oeuvre was discovered. To me it seems that what is going on with VM's work is only going on because of the promotion and buzz Maloof et al. have created around it, and they are giving HER her time in the light, very much like that guy Uncle Earl got his time when people discovered his AA-esque landscape work, or when someone discovers a Superman Action Comic #1 in the wall of their house.

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 10, 2021

Don Heisz said:
This isn't really discounting the value of copyright, which has a legal meaning and will be upheld or not. My comment was mostly against condemnation of Maloof and others who have profited from her work. They have promoted her work to the point where it is profitable. They invented her as a photographer.
Perhaps by strict copyright inheritance, all publishing rights should go to a family member. But that does not diminish the contribution Maloof and the others made to making her very well-known.

Maybe Maloof will discover my photos.

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 10, 2021

While I'm still alive.

Pieter12 · Nov 10, 2021

marcmarc said:
the results critiqued by experts

Now that's a can of worms.

Pieter12 · Nov 10, 2021

I really see very little difference between what Maloof did with Maier's work and how Berenice Abbott relentlessly promoted Atget's work. Except Maloof was more successful from the get-go. I don't know about international copyright law, but while Abbott owned Atget's negative (plates), I don't know if she ever acquired the copyrights.

Sirius Glass · Nov 10, 2021

Don Heisz said:
This isn't really discounting the value of copyright, which has a legal meaning and will be upheld or not. My comment was mostly against condemnation of Maloof and others who have profited from her work. They have promoted her work to the point where it is profitable. They invented her as a photographer.
Perhaps by strict copyright inheritance, all publishing rights should go to a family member. But that does not diminish the contribution Maloof and the others made to making her very well-known.

Pieter12 said:
I really see very little difference between what Maloof did with Maier's work and how Berenice Abbott relentlessly promoted Atget's work. Except Maloof was more successful from the get-go. I don't know about international copyright law, but while Abbott owned Atget's negative (plates), I don't know if she ever acquired the copyrights.

I wholeheartedly agree. If Maloof had not put the time and effort to evaluate, organize and publish Maier's photographs, the world would not have seen her work. Those who condemn him are just angry that they could not have made money doing it themselves, not that they had the talent and ability.

pbromaghin · Nov 10, 2021

marcmarc said:
I never bought his assertion that his priority was to honor Maiers work and bring it to the attention of the world. If that were the case I think he should have waited until all her film was processed and the results critiqued by experts and then he would have a body of her best work.

So you think he was made of money from the very beginning.

MattKing · Nov 10, 2021

marcmarc said:
I mean if I remember correctly he even traveled to Germany or somewhere after he tracked down her nearest surviving relative and got them to sign over whatever copyrights they may have held. That pretty much tells you where Maloof's priorities were.

The person he tracked down was actually not the only intestate beneficiary, and may very well not have been the person entitled to the greatest interest in her estate.
What is more important though is what Maloof did after finding that person.
The correct next step would have been to assist that person in initiating the legal process for dealing with the estate's interests - apply to the probate court for appointment as estate administrator. That procedure is slow and costly, and would have likely resulted in Maloof having to convince a court of the appropriateness of what he wanted to do - as well as pay more of the profits into trust.
It is that process that Maloof tried to get around.

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 10, 2021

Is it possible copyright laws have gotten to stringent? If you pay me off on a debt that you owe me with a bunch of negatives, and then you die two years later, why should I have to worry about some relatives we don't even know exist that live on the other side of the world?

MattKing · Nov 10, 2021

Alan Edward Klein said:
Is it possible copyright laws have gotten to stringent? If you pay me off on a debt that you owe me with a bunch of negatives, and then you die two years later, why should I have to worry about some relatives we don't even know exist that live on the other side of the world?

It is easy enough to transfer the copyright with those negatives - just do it with an appropriate Bill of Sale.
That is one of the options available to Mr. Maloof when Ms. Maier was alive - find her and then pay her some money for the copyright.

removed account4 · Nov 10, 2021

MattKing said:
The person he tracked down was actually not the only intestate beneficiary, and may very well not have been the person entitled to the greatest interest in her estate.
What is more important though is what Maloof did after finding that person.
The correct next step would have been to assist that person in initiating the legal process for dealing with the estate's interests - apply to the probate court for appointment as estate administrator. That procedure is slow and costly, and would have likely resulted in Maloof having to convince a court of the appropriateness of what he wanted to do - as well as pay more of the profits into trust.
It is that process that Maloof tried to get around.

Can they sue him in a court of law ? or is it a Done Deal ?

MattKing · Nov 10, 2021

jnantz said:
Can they sue him in a court of law ? or is it a Done Deal ?

I don't know where things currently are in the administration of the estate, but it was eventually brought under control of the probate court in Cook County, and steps were taken to retrieve control of the estate assets. There has been a settlement of some of the outstanding issues, which I'm sure involved Mr. Maloof.
I expect he got to keep some of the profits of his efforts, and had to give up some, but I don't know.

Pieter12 · Nov 10, 2021

It's pretty ridiculous that people are arguing the merits of this matter. Besides lawyers, who really cares? It is most probable that no one would have ever seen Vivian Maier's work, there would be no profit to share and she would have vanished into oblivion had not some entrepreneurs put in some effort and printed and disseminated her work. Sure, they made a profit. That is what they got to these storage locker auctions for. But it was all a blind bet, no one knew the contents. Didi Maloof do enough research to find her? For all he knew, she was dead. Luckily for the world, Maloof & company saw some possibility for profit there. And we (at lest those who appreciate Ms Maier's work) now can enjoy it.

warden · Nov 10, 2021

No matter how her work made it into popular circulation, I am thankful. The backstory is not sufficiently interesting for me to buy this book, but the photos themselves? They always reward the time spent, and I look forward to seeing more when they are available. It's hard to overstate her talent for timing, composition, and capturing things that matter.

removed account4 · Nov 10, 2021

Pieter12 said:
It's pretty ridiculous that people are arguing the merits of this matter. Besides lawyers, who really cares? It is most probable that no one would have ever seen Vivian Maier's work, there would be no profit to share and she would have vanished into oblivion had not some entrepreneurs put in some effort and printed and disseminated her work. Sure, they made a profit. That is what they got to these storage locker auctions for. But it was all a blind bet, no one knew the contents. Didi Maloof do enough research to find her? For all he knew, she was dead. Luckily for the world, Maloof & company saw some possibility for profit there. And we (at lest those who appreciate Ms Maier's work) now can enjoy it.

it does matter to me just because I find it interesting. I am fascinated that VM was someone died in obscurity and now she is only known because someone found her storage locker and didn't throw out the film. There won't be any storage lockers with negatives in the years to come, maybe a 3 1/2 inch floppy with obscure file formats that only Fox and Dana's pals in the Chevy van will be able to extract images from. I really feel sorry for 20 years from now, assuming the world survives that long, cause of the solar blitz that will have erased everything, cause there won't be no binders full of negatives to be found except for maybe the 1000 people worldwide who currently still use film.

Pieter12 · Nov 10, 2021

jnantz said:
it does matter to me just because I find it interesting. I am fascinated that VM was someone died in obscurity and now she is only known because someone found her storage locker and didn't throw out the film. There won't be any storage lockers with negatives in the years to come, maybe a 3 1/2 inch floppy with obscure file formats that only Fox and Dana's pals in the Chevy van will be able to extract images from. I really feel sorry for 20 years from now, assuming the world survives that long, cause of the solar blitz that will have erased everything, cause there won't be no binders full of negatives to be found except for maybe the 1000 people worldwide who currently still use film.

1. Your comment says nothing about copyright ownership, the seemingly ravenous greed of Mr Maloof and lack efforts to locate Ms Maier, which seems to have become the gist of this thread.
2. And what will the effect of raising temperatures and pollution have on film negatives and prints? In the time period you are describing, photo chemicals and materials may be just as obscure as the methods of retrieving electronic data from obsolete storage media. And scanning may become obsolete, as fewer documents will be procured on paper, another wasteful use of resources. And after the coming solar blitz you are predicting, will the continued existence of photographs in any form really be of any significant importance?

removed account4 · Nov 10, 2021

Pieter12 said:
1. Your comment says nothing about copyright ownership, the seemingly ravenous greed of Mr Maloof and lack efforts to locate Ms Maier, which seems to have become the gist of this thread.
2. And what will the effect of raising temperatures and pollution have on film negatives and prints? In the time period you are describing, photo chemicals and materials may be just as obscure as the methods of retrieving electronic data from obsolete storage media. And scanning may become obsolete, as fewer documents will be procured on paper, another wasteful use of resources. And after the coming solar blitz you are predicting, will the continued existence of photographs in any form really be of any significant importance?

I don't care about the copyright ownership I just think the story is interesting.
and regarding the solar blitz we're due for one .. not sure when it will happen but it won't be pretty.

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 10, 2021

MattKing said:
It is easy enough to transfer the copyright with those negatives - just do it with an appropriate Bill of Sale.
That is one of the options available to Mr. Maloof when Ms. Maier was alive - find her and then pay her some money for the copyright.

Why should Maloof have to pay for the negatives twice? They were left in a locker, she signed an agreement for the locker that if she doesn't pay the monthly fee, they get to keep it. And then he bought the negatives and everything else in the locker at an auction. He owned the contents of locker. Now he's got a secondary cost involved and he was not aware of. That shouldn't be. The law should be that he owns the copyright to the negative. She forfeited it and he shouldn't have to pay for it twice.

Arthurwg · Nov 10, 2021

Don Heisz said:
This isn't really discounting the value of copyright, which has a legal meaning and will be upheld or not. My comment was mostly against condemnation of Maloof and others who have profited from her work. They have promoted her work to the point where it is profitable. They invented her as a photographer.
Perhaps by strict copyright inheritance, all publishing rights should go to a family member. But that does not diminish the contribution Maloof and the others made to making her very well-known.

You can't say they "invented" her as a photographer. She invented herself and did it well. Beyond that she was discovered, and it's quite possible that without the efforts of Mr. Maloof her pictures may never have seen the light of day. I believe that without Bernice Abbott's "discovery" of Atget, we might never have heard of him either, and I believe she made a few dollars from the sale of his work.

Don_ih · Nov 10, 2021

Arthurwg said:
You can't say they "invented" her as a photographer. She invented herself and did it well. Beyond that she was discovered, and it's quite possible that without the efforts of Mr. Maloof her pictures may never have seen the light of day. I believe that without Bernice Abbott's "discovery" of Atget, we might never have heard of him either, and I believe she made a few dollars from the sale of his work.

I can say they invented her as a photographer. Specifically, a "Nanny Photographer". She likely considered herself defined differently. And she never got paid to take photos and never exhibited as a "photographer" - she may or may not have ever considered herself that. Everything about her is pure speculation.

The fascinating story sells the photos easily as much as the photos themselves.

It requires no argument that people need a reason to actually look at someone's photos. That story did it.

Pieter12 · Nov 10, 2021

Alan Edward Klein said:
Why should Maloof have to pay for the negatives twice? They were left in a locker, she signed an agreement for the locker that if she doesn't pay the monthly fee, they get to keep it. And then he bought the negatives and everything else in the locker at an auction. He owned the contents of locker. Now he's got a secondary cost involved and he was not aware of. That shouldn't be. The law should be that he owns the copyright to the negative. She forfeited it and he shouldn't have to pay for it twice.

Unfortunately, that is not the case here. Ownership of the negative does not automatically transfer the copyright. While I agree that it seems like a foolish situation where neither the copyright owner can make prints nor the negative owner can sell prints, it does make sense in other fields. It tries to prevent piracy of films and books by entities that may have access to the masters or printing plates.

Another aspect of this is in commercial photography, where once scanned there would be nothing to prevent a client from using an image over and over when they had just purchased limited, one-time rights to the image. It is also the business model for many wedding photographers, who make most of their profits from reprinting photos of the weddings they cover. Granted, none of this entails physical possession and ownership of the negatives, but is a somewhat similar situation.

On that note, I wonder how this all relates to Lee Friedlander and the Bellocq plates he owns and has published?

Don_ih · Nov 10, 2021

If you think of a negative as itself a kind of copy of the "photo", then making and selling prints from a negative you buy is pretty much the same as making and selling copies of a print you buy.

Sirius Glass · Nov 10, 2021

Don Heisz said:
I can say they invented her as a photographer. Specifically, a "Nanny Photographer". She likely considered herself defined differently. And she never got paid to take photos and never exhibited as a "photographer" - she may or may not have ever considered herself that. Everything about her is pure speculation.

The fascinating story sells the photos easily as much as the photos themselves.

It requires no argument that people need a reason to actually look at someone's photos. That story did it.

Actually she should sue him for defamation of character by labeling her and libeling her as the "Nanny Photographer" instead of a Wonderful Previously Unknown Amateur Photographer".

Pieter12 · Nov 10, 2021

Arthurwg said:
I believe that without Bernice Abbott's "discovery" of Atget, we might never have heard of him either, and I believe she made a few dollars from the sale of his work.

It was Man Ray who introduced Berenice Abbott to Atget's work. Their studios were close by. Abbott worked for Man Ray, printing in his darkroom in Paris. After Atget's death, Abbott bought his plates from his estate, but had a hard time selling prints until much later on. Even then, I don't think she made a lot from them. She had a partner in the purchase and had to split the proceeds for a long time. I think she subsequently bought out the partner, but she never made the kind of money form Atget's work she had envisioned.

More Vivian Maier

mohmad khatab

removed account4

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

Pieter12

Pieter12

Sirius Glass

pbromaghin

MattKing

Moderator

Alan Edward Klein

MattKing

Moderator

removed account4

MattKing

Moderator

Pieter12

warden

removed account4

Pieter12

removed account4

Alan Edward Klein

Arthurwg

Don_ih

Pieter12

Don_ih

Sirius Glass

Pieter12

More Vivian Maier

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency