More Vivian Maier

[warden]

I find it interesting that there is so much willingness to talk about the legality of this situation but so little regard for it as an ethical situation. ...

I'm not saying her photos should have been buried along with her. .

So what are you saying? What do you suggest, and what would you have done if you had found these negatives? (I haven't read the whole thread so maybe you already offered your thoughts.)

I see nine pages of commentary about the ethics and legality of this unique situation, and the two are linked. The law is based on moral, ethical, and practical concerns after all, and was useful in this case to sort out some of the thorny complexities after the ball was sent rolling by Maloof et al.

I don't know what I would have done in Maloof's situation, but I would not have had an inclination to protect the negatives from the prying eyes of the world, because the world is better with these images available for education and enjoyment, and in this case that trumps Vivian's uncommunicated wishes. I don't think she is being harmed in her afterlife. After confirming the death of the artist I suppose I would have tried to place the work in a museum, which is where it should be imho, but I doubt any museums would have been interested in the photos of an unknown photographer. And if any had interest they would have to charge for the permanent archival storage of the materials, which is where I would have bowed out because that's quite expensive, especially considering how prolific Vivian was.

Failing at the museum approach, I probably would have made a book to celebrate her gifts. So sue me. ;-)

 

[Arthurwg]

So I assume all of you would be perfectly happy with having someone else display and promote photos you took but never specifically wanted shown to anyone?

The answer is simple: YES.

 

[removed account4]

So I assume all of you would be perfectly happy with having someone else display and promote photos you took but never specifically wanted shown to anyone?

maybe, but I have plans for them already so it really doesn't matter.

 

[mooseontheloose]

So I assume all of you would be perfectly happy with having someone else display and promote photos you took but never specifically wanted shown to anyone?

It's not that she necessarily didn't want to show anyone, she may not have had anyone to show them to. I feel the same about my own photographs, I rarely show them to anyone, have only printed a fraction of what I have, and while I dream of having my own exhibition, the thought of it terrifies me as well. That being said, if somehow after I died my photos ended up in the hands of someone else who thought they were great and worth printing, exhibiting, and selling, that wouldn't bother me at all. To be fair though, I'll probably state in my will (once I have one) what I would like done with my photos beyond them being tossed into the trash, which is the most likely thing to happen, since, like Vivian, I am unmarried and childfree. The rest of my family has no interest in photography, so I doubt anything will happen with them beyond my lifetime.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

if somehow after I died my photos ended up in the hands of someone else who thought they were great and worth printing

This is important. An artefact has a life of its own, independent from the intent of the person who made it, who can be unaware (and most often is) of its future significance. Photographs are historical documents in their essence, so the chance they may acquire meaning beyond that of the one intended by the photographer is always there.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

So unless it is in a will DO NOT SHOW to anyone, it is free to do whatever? Smells like standard BS to me.

 

[removed account4]

So unless it is in a will DO NOT SHOW to anyone, it is free to do whatever? Smells like standard like BS to me.

a lot of things that are legal and right and done by the book seem like BS, same old same old..

 

[Deleted member 88956]

a lot of things that are legal and right and done by the book seem like BS, same old same old..

I’m talking about anything legal just pure ethical issue of cashing in from dead’s work without that dead leaving behind any evidence what should happen to that work.

 

[BrianShaw]

So unless it is in a will DO NOT SHOW to anyone, it is free to do whatever? Smells like standard BS to me.

One does not have to account for copyright protection in their will. It stands on its own. I suppose one could will the copyright and/or usage rights to someone in a will. But unless otherwise specified, copyright protection remains in force. Things could be different if for legal heirs, though.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So unless it is in a will DO NOT SHOW to anyone, it is free to do whatever?

Oversimplifying, so the answer is yes, and no. For one thing, depending on the country in which the photos are shown and how the laws are written there, the people featured in the photographs - supposing we're talking street photography - can object to their showing, as there are such things as the right to image.

We thing as photographers, meaning we think about our photos as photographers - as artefacts created by us, that has a meaning to us beyond the time it was taken and the moment shown. This is not how most people thinks about many photographs they take. In flea markets you always see trays filled with to called "found photos" - there are also whole websites devoted to this. Legally, one could probably argue that ownership was abandoned, and therefore the photo could be used by anyone buying it. For the people in the photographs, however, this is another matter.

 

[removed account4]

I’m talking about anything legal just pure ethical issue of cashing in from dead’s work without that dead leaving behind any evidence what should happen to that work.

I know. and as I said,

a lot of things that are legal and right and done by the book seem like BS, same old same old..

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Oversimplifying, so the answer is yes, and no. For one thing, depending on the country in which the photos are shown and how the laws are written there, the people featured in the photographs - supposing we're talking street photography - can object to their showing, as there are such things as the right to image.

We thing as photographers, meaning we think about our photos as photographers - as artefacts created by us, that has a meaning to us beyond the time it was taken and the moment shown. This is not how most people thinks about many photographs they take. In flea markets you always see trays filled with to called "found photos" - there are also whole websites devoted to this. Legally, one could probably argue that ownership was abandoned, and therefore the photo could be used by anyone buying it. For the people in the photographs, however, this is another matter.

Isn't there just one problem being brought up by those who disagree with the way her images have been handled?

At least from my perspective none of it has to with legality of what has been done, it is all about ethics and BS story (as long as ANYONE can truthfully tell) of Maier's life, desires, wishes etc. I don't know what is it gong to take for people to realize nearly everything that has been said about her as a person and photographer (or picture taker) cannot be verified, neither can it be disapproved. I'm allergic to anything that has one main theme running in the background: profit. And this cute story has been done quite masterfully and it affects how her photographs are viewed. Sort of brain washing blended with images. And I expect more books to come as it appears to drive sales quite well.

 

[BrianShaw]

"found photos"

Legally, at least in the US, both abandonment of copyright (intentional) and orphan works (as is mostly being discussed in this thread) are quite challenging and often seem to lead to controversy. It's all fine-and-good until someone contests the usage.

 

[removed account4]

... look at what happened with Miroslov Tichy by comparison ...

 

[warden]

It stinks, but it’s how it goes. Thinking about it, you see things like this fairly often when it comes to the estates/trusts of artists.

Robert Indiana comes to mind.

 

[16:9]

It's a fool that looks for logic, consistency, fairness or morality in copyright law. People corral whatever they can get away with and laws vary arbitrarily around the world. In the case of a single-artist activity like painting and photography, everything should instantly revert to public domain the moment that person dies. Physical artefacts that outlive them should be treated as any other possession. In the case of films and musical recordings, it's more complex as there are multiple claims of originality, but that's another discussion.

 

[awty]

She had some obvious behavioral issues. If she really did not want to share her work, she could have destroyed it and not have to pay to store it. On the other hand she was a compulsive hoarder and could not let go--possibly a reason for not sharing--not even with those she raised who you would think would be somewhat close to her. But she's dead, there is no immediate family, does it matter? Only as a topic of ethical discussion.

What do you mean by "behavioral issues"? because she doesnt conform to your ideals of what a woman should be, she's not somebodies pet. Theres no proof that she had any mental illness, this is purely speculative. She managed to live independently right into her 80's, not bad for a supposed crazy person.
We do not know the circumstances of her losing her storage lockers, she may of been relying on someone else paying who decided not to, she may of not got the email about a price rise, there's multitudes of circumstances that could of resulted in her losing the locker. People lose them all the time, just got to see those reality tv programs buying storage lockers with treasures in them.
She was most likely still working on what ever she was working on, lots of people still work into there 80's, good old queen Lizzy was born around the same time and still going.
You say hoarder, I show the photo to my wife and she says looks like someone with a storage problem. Most businesses offices 30 years ago looked worse than your photo, my accountants office still does. The woman was meticulous in her photography, in her dress and no doubt her keeping of records.
Does it matter? probably to more people than you think, if it didnt we wouldn't be getting a book written by a market speculator to promote the current marketing strategy of her works.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

What do you mean by "behavioral issues"? because she doesnt conform to your ideals of what a woman should be, she's not somebodies pet. Theres no proof that she had any mental illness, this is purely speculative. She managed to live independently right into her 80's, not bad for a supposed crazy person.
We do not know the circumstances of her losing her storage lockers, she may of been relying on someone else paying who decided not to, she may of not got the email about a price rise, there's multitudes of circumstances that could of resulted in her losing the locker. People lose them all the time, just got to see those reality tv programs buying storage lockers with treasures in them.
She was most likely still working on what ever she was working on, lots of people still work into there 80's, good old queen Lizzy was born around the same time and still going.
You say hoarder, I show the photo to my wife and she says looks like someone with a storage problem. Most businesses offices 30 years ago looked worse than your photo, my accountants office still does. The woman was meticulous in her photography, in her dress and no doubt her keeping of records.
Does it matter? probably to more people than you think, if it didnt we wouldn't be getting a book written by a market speculator to promote the current marketing strategy of her works.

Well, she was a hoarder, which falls within the diagnostics of obsessive compulsive disorders. But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is what she hoarded. Specifically, newspaper clippings, thousands of pages neatly organized in binders, receipts and mail. That last one reminds me of Erik Satie and the fact that they discovered years and years of unopened mail in his closet after his death. But I find the newspaper clippings most intriguing. She obviously had a compulsive need to document. But document what (or documents of what)?

 

[MattKing]

There are legal methods to enforce one's wishes with respect to the use of one's photography. They aren't perfect, but they would have been much more likely to have succeeded than what happened.
This post in an earlier thread talks about another biography of Ms. Maier that I read, which describes a much more rounded Vivian Maier, who was much more interested in people, including showing them at least some of her photography.
URL="https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/vivian-maier-hgg.120354/page-4#post-2244438"]Vivian Maier @ HGG[/URL]
A lot of her stored stuff wasn't lost, because a number of her former charges (when she was a nanny) worked together to help her. But she had way more stored stuff then they knew about (or could afford to keep stored?).
I think there is a real chance that Ms. Maier would have loved to have the world see her photographs, even if she would not have wanted to receive any of the accompanying attention.
I get exercised by the legal issues because, well, I happen to be interested/offended by them, and I bring some knowledge - both legal and photographic - to the table.
But the issues of principle - I don't know that it is necessarily an issue of ethics and morality - those issues are very interesting. What to do with the work of a photographer after they are gone? Particularly when they didn't take the opportunity to do what they could to direct the issue.

 

[mooseontheloose]

But the issues of principle - I don't know that it is necessarily an issue of ethics and morality - those issues are very interesting. What to do with the work of a photographer after they are gone? Particularly when they didn't take the opportunity to do what they could to direct the issue.

I think a lot of this is connected to the current age we live in. Without social media, would anyone know of Maier's work? Maloof tried to get galleries and museums interested in the work, none wanted it (initially). It's not until she blew up on social media and the first gallery exhibitions that people really began to take notice. If this had happened 20, 30, 40 years ago, perhaps her photographs would have ended up in the dump like so many others, since she has so many undeveloped rolls and not a lot of prints made.

Technology is definitely outpacing how fast the legal profession can keep up with it, and the issues involved with the ethics of promoting and profiting off someone else's work is something that will not only need to be addressed in the courts, but by content creators as well. Just look at the movie industry - they are using complete digital renderings of deceased actors - presumably with the permission of the families, but would the actors themselves have approved of the use of their likeness in such a fashion? I assume current and future contracts will likely have something pertaining to this as the technology improves.

 

[Don_ih]

@warden asked what I would do: I have, in my darkroom, a few hundred rolls of exposed 135 and 120, taken by someone in the 1950s using a Leica IIIF and a Rolleiflex. I don't know who took the photos - I bought it in a lot of darkroom stuff and the seller didn't even know where they came from. I've only looked through a few rolls and made a few small enlargements to look at, but there are interesting pictures there. I'm not doing anything with them. They're not really mine - they never will be - yet some day I may post them online somewhere. If I do, I'll just say what I know to be true about them.

 

[Arthurwg]

Well, she was a hoarder, which falls within the diagnostics of obsessive compulsive disorders. But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is what she hoarded. Specifically, newspaper clippings, thousands of pages neatly organized in binders, receipts and mail. That last one reminds me of Erik Satie and the fact that they discovered years and years of unopened mail in his closet after his death. But I find the newspaper clippings most intriguing. She obviously had a compulsive need to document. But document what (or documents of what)?

I sometimes think that all photography, especially the unpaid kind, is an obsessive compulsive disorder. I know mine is.

 

[removed account4]

About IDK 10 years, maybe more, someone found me online here I think, its kind of fuzzy now. they were in charge of someone's "stuff" and they contacted me, friend of a friend / acquaintance sort of thing. They live about 45 mins away and invited me to someone's house. I got there, it belonged to someone who had recently passed away who had no living relatives and not many friends who were interested, and the place was an absolute mess. he was a shutterbug / firebug had hundreds, maybe thousands of photographs and negatives and glass plates, trinkets, baubles, kodak Hawkeye brownies, all over the place and I was asked if I wanted them because they're going to end up in the dumpster. I felt terrible that this guy's "stuff" was going to end up a dumpster. I thought of him photographing the national parks and carefully labelling the photos in the photo albums, I though of the piles of negatives and glass plates of buildings burning down, and him sitting by the scanner and the jakes giving him the nod when he showed up. should I take this stuff or leave it?
long story short I put things in my trunk and drove them 45 minutes away where they still sit in boxes in my garage. every once in a while I sit on the front stoop and look at all this stuff,
some might call it crap. I wonder why I took it and what I should do with it. I've thought of firefighter museums like good jakes, and making prints or scans and giving them the images, but I have never done that, when this guy was around he would have done that already. I have thought of the local library or town history museum but they don't want any of this. so it sits in a box in the back of the garage under the decommissioned 10 gallon fish tank and soaker hose for another few years until I sit on the stoop again. or maybe I'll just leave it at a firehouse like an abandoned baby in a bassinet wrapped in a blanket or put it out on the curb with a sign that says: FREE!

 

[Arthurwg]

Vivian Maier, Vivian Maier, Vivian Maier!

 

[warden]

@warden asked what I would do: I have, in my darkroom, a few hundred rolls of exposed 135 and 120, taken by someone in the 1950s using a Leica IIIF and a Rolleiflex. I don't know who took the photos - I bought it in a lot of darkroom stuff and the seller didn't even know where they came from. I've only looked through a few rolls and made a few small enlargements to look at, but there are interesting pictures there. I'm not doing anything with them. They're not really mine - they never will be - yet some day I may post them online somewhere. If I do, I'll just say what I know to be true about them.

It's interesting how closely your approach matches Maloof's: bought some negatives, scanned and printed a few, didn't know the wishes of the likely deceased photographer, share pics online. If I'm remembering the story correctly that's what Maloof did until people more knowledgeable than Maloof informed him (thankfully) about the importance of the work.