More Vivian Maier

[Pieter12]

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.

Making and selling copies of a print you buy is definitely a violation of copyright law. Unless you modify it in some way to be loosely interpreted and your own art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince

 

[MattKing]

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.

That is like saying that because you purchased an LP or CD with music on it, you have the right to make a whole bunch of copies of that LP or CD and sell them for a profit.
The copyright isn't attached to the medium. It isn't something physical, it is intellectual property. It is a separate legal right, and belongs to the photographer initially (except in limited circumstances which depend on the jurisdiction). It has almost nothing to do with the negatives themselves - they just happen to be the most accurate storage medium for part of the image creating process.
If someone received a DVD from you with one of your "slide" shows - say as a birthday gift - they don't receive the copyright for the work, unless you specifically transfer it to them (by deed or Bill of Sale). If they turn around and publish your "slide" show, they will have breached your copyright.

 

[mohmad khatab]

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.

Let me salute your wit, you put your hand on the most important point of the story.

 

[CMoore]

That is like saying that because you purchased an LP or CD with music on it, you have the right to make a whole bunch of copies of that LP or CD and sell them for a profit.
The copyright isn't attached to the medium. It isn't something physical, it is intellectual property. It is a separate legal right, and belongs to the photographer initially (except in limited circumstances which depend on the jurisdiction). It has almost nothing to do with the negatives themselves - they just happen to be the most accurate storage medium for part of the image creating process.
If someone received a DVD from you with one of your "slide" shows - say as a birthday gift - they don't receive the copyright for the work, unless you specifically transfer it to them (by deed or Bill of Sale). If they turn around and publish your "slide" show, they will have breached your copyright.

But that is not what happened.
He did not buy Rolling Stones CDs and make copies for sale.

A much better analogy would be................ you buy a bunch of unknown junk at auction.
In that junk, are tapes with a guitar player called Sam Smith, that you have never heard of and neither has anybody you know.
You like the music on the tapes, so you punch the players name into Google and nothing comes up.
You make a few copies, people like them, you start to sell them, and then...........................Vivian Maier happens.

This Maloof guy did not start out on some sneaky, criminal plan to rip-off Vivian Maier.
Nobody knew who she was.

Its not like he was making copies of Ansel Adams photos and selling them.
What he eventually did or is doing may or may nor be legal, I have no idea.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

I didn't say that Atget was unknown. He was well known in certain circles and made a modest living selling his pictures to French institutions and artists. But without Abbott he may've rained unknown to the wider world. This was a great service to photography IMHO.

 

[MattKing]

A much better analogy would be................ you buy a bunch of unknown junk at auction.
In that junk, are tapes with a guitar player called Sam Smith, that you have never heard of and neither has anybody you know.
You like the music on the tapes, so you punch the players name into Google and nothing comes up.
You make a few copies, people like them, you start to sell them, and then...........................Vivian Maier happens.

This Maloof guy did not start out on some sneaky, criminal plan to rip-off Vivian Maier.
Nobody knew who she was.

Its not like he was making copies of Ansel Adams photos and selling them.
What he eventually did or is doing may or may nor be legal, I have no idea.

I can't remember whether you put music to your slide shows.
If you do, do you make sure to either pay for the appropriate license, or only use music that is available on a license that permits free use?
And what if Sam Smith was, for example, Roy Orbison's name when he first started recording.
Those tapes are fine to sell, but their contents aren't yours to copy and distribute.

 

[CMoore]

I can't remember whether you put music to your slide shows.
If you do, do you make sure to either pay for the appropriate license, or only use music that is available on a license that permits free use?
And what if Sam Smith was, for example, Roy Orbison's name when he first started recording.
Those tapes are fine to sell, but their contents aren't yours to copy and distribute.

Slide Shows.?


I am not saying Maloof Had/Has a right to do what he did.
I am simply saying that the average person, that buys a bunch of "Stuff" at auction would be completely unaware of Copyright Law.

How many small business have a Tape or CD player at their Bar, Clothing Store, Smoke Shop.
They are all in violation of the law.
How many do you think are ware of that.?

As i say, i have no idea what a court told Maloof what he needed to do.
I have no idea if he tried to "Skirt" a court order or law, or outright disobey it.

I am just saying, in the beginning, he was probably completely unaware of the laws that he was heading into.
I think a HUGE Majority of people in his shoes would have been ignorant of any trouble to come from printing those negs.

I 100% support copyrights of the living and the dead.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Slide Shows.?


I am not saying Maloof Had/Has a right to do what he did.
I am simply saying that the average person, that buys a bunch of "Stuff" at auction would be completely unaware of Copyright Law.

How many small business have a Tape or CD player at their Bar, Clothing Store, Smoke Shop.
They are all in violation of the law.
How many do you think are ware of that.?

As i say, i have no idea what a court told Maloof what he needed to do.
I have no idea if he tried to "Skirt" a court order or law, or outright disobey it.

I am just saying, in the beginning, he was probably completely unaware of the laws that he was heading into.
I think a HUGE Majority of people in his shoes would have been ignorant of any trouble to come from printing those negs.

I 100% support copyrights of the living and the dead.

Ignorance is not excuse for the law.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Slide Shows.?


I am not saying Maloof Had/Has a right to do what he did.
I am simply saying that the average person, that buys a bunch of "Stuff" at auction would be completely unaware of Copyright Law.

How many small business have a Tape or CD player at their Bar, Clothing Store, Smoke Shop.
They are all in violation of the law.
How many do you think are ware of that.?

As i say, i have no idea what a court told Maloof what he needed to do.
I have no idea if he tried to "Skirt" a court order or law, or outright disobey it.

I am just saying, in the beginning, he was probably completely unaware of the laws that he was heading into.
I think a HUGE Majority of people in his shoes would have been ignorant of any trouble to come from printing those negs.

I 100% support copyrights of the living and the dead.

Ignorance is no excuse for the law.

 

[MattKing]

Slide Shows.?

Alan puts together very nice digital presentations of his photography using the "Slide Show" creation utilities in the software he uses, and then displays them on large screen TVs.
While it isn't my favourite mode of presentation, it can be effective, and he does them well.

 

[MattKing]

Slide Shows.?


I am not saying Maloof Had/Has a right to do what he did.
I am simply saying that the average person, that buys a bunch of "Stuff" at auction would be completely unaware of Copyright Law.

How many small business have a Tape or CD player at their Bar, Clothing Store, Smoke Shop.
They are all in violation of the law.
How many do you think are ware of that.?

As i say, i have no idea what a court told Maloof what he needed to do.
I have no idea if he tried to "Skirt" a court order or law, or outright disobey it.

I am just saying, in the beginning, he was probably completely unaware of the laws that he was heading into.
I think a HUGE Majority of people in his shoes would have been ignorant of any trouble to come from printing those negs.

I 100% support copyrights of the living and the dead.

I think you may be equating "violating the (copyright) law" with something like a criminal offence.
It doesn't work that way.
It is more like: "you have to pay for that - it isn't free".
There is absolutely no way that Maloof was unaware of the legal complexities. He wouldn't have headed over to France if he was.

 

[Pieter12]

I think you may be equating "violating the (copyright) law" with something like a criminal offence.
It doesn't work that way.
It is more like: "you have to pay for that - it isn't free".
There is absolutely no way that Maloof was unaware of the legal complexities. He wouldn't have headed over to France if he was.

Anyone trying to sell (to a dealer, gallery or museum) or publish a photograph has the aver that they own the rights to the image. It is usually part of the sales agreement. Maloof, while most likely being made aware of the copyright laws did what he considered due diligence to locate Ms Maier and her heirs. After all, the copyright extends to 70 years after the death of the creator. If he had been as malicious and greedy as some want to portray him, he would have located the heirs (as he did eventually) and bought the copyright to all the work he owned before putting the prints on the open market. He could also have claimed the prints were in the locker he purchased, giving him full right to at least sell the prints with no obligation to Ms Maier or the estate.

 

[MattKing]

Anyone trying to sell (to a dealer, gallery or museum) or publish a photograph has the aver that they own the rights to the image. It is usually part of the sales agreement. Maloof, while most likely being made aware of the copyright laws did what he considered due diligence to locate Ms Maier and her heirs. After all, the copyright extends to 70 years after the death of the creator. If he had been as malicious and greedy as some want to portray him, he would have located the heirs (as he did eventually) and bought the copyright to all the work he owned before putting the prints on the open market. He could also have claimed the prints were in the locker he purchased, giving him full right to at least sell the prints with no obligation to Ms Maier or the estate.

I'm confused by your post.
Did you mean to say "If he had been as malicious and greedy as some want to portray him, he would not have located the heirs (as he did eventually) ...."
I don't know that it was Maloof who eventually located at least some of those heirs. As I understand it, the efforts to locate those other heirs were motivated by the actions of others who came forward, which eventually forced Maloof to accede to the jurisdiction of the probate court. I do know he was ordered by the court to account for the revenues to that court.
All of which is very frustrating. If he had gone about it the right way, I'd be totally in agreement with his efforts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm confused by your post.
Did you mean to say "If he had been as malicious and greedy as some want to portray him, he would not have located the heirs (as he did eventually) ...."
I don't know that it was Maloof who eventually located at least some of those heirs. As I understand it, the efforts to locate those other heirs were motivated by the actions of others who came forward, which eventually forced Maloof to accede to the jurisdiction of the probate court. I do know he was ordered by the court to account for the revenues to that court.
All of which is very frustrating. If he had gone about it the right way, I'd be totally in agreement with his efforts.

I had noticed that too.

 

[CMoore]

I think you may be equating "violating the (copyright) law" with something like a criminal offence.
It doesn't work that way.
It is more like: "you have to pay for that - it isn't free".
There is absolutely no way that Maloof was unaware of the legal complexities. He wouldn't have headed over to France if he was.

We are talking about 2 different things.
I am talking about when he first bought the negs, found there was an interest and started to print some.
At that initial point, i do not think he had any idea of what the law said or what was to come.

Naturally, once this all unfolded, he became quite aware of the Laws/Barriers.
What he has done after that, i have no idea.

 

[marcmarc]

Not to switch gears here too much but reading through these comments made me think of Lee Friedlander and the glass plate negatives of prostitutes in New Orleans taken by E.J. Bellocq he purchased and later printed for a book devoted to them. I could be wrong, but I do seem to recall seeing some prints from these going up for sale in the famous auction houses like Christies or Sotheby's. Kinda the same principle is it not?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That is like saying that because you purchased an LP or CD with music on it, you have the right to make a whole bunch of copies of that LP or CD and sell them for a profit.
The copyright isn't attached to the medium. It isn't something physical, it is intellectual property. It is a separate legal right, and belongs to the photographer initially (except in limited circumstances which depend on the jurisdiction). It has almost nothing to do with the negatives themselves - they just happen to be the most accurate storage medium for part of the image creating process.
If someone received a DVD from you with one of your "slide" shows - say as a birthday gift - they don't receive the copyright for the work, unless you specifically transfer it to them (by deed or Bill of Sale). If they turn around and publish your "slide" show, they will have breached your copyright.

But the negative is the original recording, That's different than copying a copy. If I sell you my negatives, why should you also need to get a copyright release? Shouldn't it be enough that you bought the negatives?

 

[removed account4]

Making and selling copies of a print you buy is definitely a violation of copyright law. Unless you modify it in some way to be loosely interpreted and your own art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Prince

I'm not sure about Richard prince I think the whole concept of something being turned into "art" bypasses copyright laws in a certain way, the whole "author is dead" situation, like ms Levine reprinting other people's work and claiming ownership to the art. its like photographs of other people/things as "art" vs commercial imagery not having to have model /object release forms, the whole thing is complicated.
I'm anxiously waiting for FB to come out with a published book of photographs that they claim ownership of that turns the world on its head .. seeing they claim ownership of everything published on its websites.

the music analogies don't really work because having music playing in a store is different than using it as a commercial enterprise. unless of course it is using a sample in some sort of rap song or someone is doing a "cover" of the song. Its like when DEVO did a cover of I can't get no (satisfaction) they used the song and redid it the way they wanted and paid the stones a royalty, or when jay z re-sampled Hard Luck Life and asked the original maker if it would be OK..

A much better analogy would be................

its more like finding yo yo ma's cello in the back seat of your taxi and giving it back to him and not saying finders keepers losers weepers.

it seems that a lot of what happened is that mr maloof found the negatives and created worth in them / a buzz. it was perfect timing because the world needed another street photographer and SHE was / is great. she had a great eye, and made great photographs. .. and we have been advertising for him ... when someone google's VM's or his name they find all sorts of posts about her, her life, her work mr maloof, and they might buy the book &c or rent buy the movie and learn more. after all any publicity is good publicity.

 

[MattKing]

But the negative is the original recording, That's different than copying a copy. If I sell you my negatives, why should you also need to get a copyright release? Shouldn't it be enough that you bought the negatives?

It isn't - the negatives are just things, not the images captured in them.
Of course, if I intended to do anything with the negatives, like sell prints from them, I would be a fool if I didn't separately ensure that I bought from you and you sold to me the copyright associated with the related photographic images.
It is like a personal cheque - it isn't the paper and ink you want, it is the right to negotiate it and put the money in your bank!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It isn't - the negatives are just things, not the images captured in them.
Of course, if I intended to do anything with the negatives, like sell prints from them, I would be a fool if I didn't separately ensure that I bought from you and you sold to me the copyright associated with the related photographic images.
It is like a personal cheque - it isn't the paper and ink you want, it is the right to negotiate it and put the money in your bank!

If you sold me the negatives, why would I need to buy copyrights. After all the whole point in owning the negative is to produce prints. Since the original photographer no longer owns the negative, he can't make prints. So should I purchase the negative, why need tp purchase copyright in order to print the pictures? The whole seems very obtuse way of doing things.

 

[removed account4]

Alan it has to do with usage rights
https://thehhub.com/2018/06/04/what-are-usage-rights-and-why-do-photographers-need-them/
you might buy the negatives and prints but you do not automatically purchase the rights to "use" them
that is how photographers make a living, by "renting" the use of images, and that's why registering images at the copyright office is very important, to prove "ownership" of images so if someone "uses" / publishes /sells them without authorized consent the owner can claim damages $ from the person who pirated / stole the work. people think that ownership is automatic at the click of a shutter button, it might have been, but not now in a court of law ( US ) because without copyright registration ownership verification is murky at best no lawyer would take the case and no judge would hear it, even if someone claims they are in possession of the original negatives.

 

[MattKing]

If you sold me the negatives, why would I need to buy copyrights. After all the whole point in owning the negative is to produce prints. Since the original photographer no longer owns the negative, he can't make prints. So should I purchase the negative, why need tp purchase copyright in order to print the pictures? The whole seems very obtuse way of doing things.

You are welcome to use the negatives - print them (or scan them) all you like.
But you are constrained in what you can do with those prints or scans. Show them to your friends - no problem.
Sell them - you can't.
By the way, it is the copyright attached to the underlying image that you won't own.
The physical negatives can be used by you as collector's items, decorative items, gifts to others, or whatever you wish.
In the entire world of creative endeavour, owning a physical piece of artistic creation does not include with it the right to publish or otherwise commercially distribute the intellectual property associated with that art.
It is the same with musical recordings or scores, books, poetry, paintings, plays, pottery and, photographic prints and negatives.

 

[Don_ih]

If you sold me the negatives, why would I need to buy copyrights

If your act of buying negatives is purchasing all reproduction rights (explicitly stated "Here, do whatever you want with these"), you get the copyright. If you buy a box from Joe that contains negatives shot by Frank, Joe can't sell you the reproduction rights unless Frank explicitly told him he had those rights to sell. Signing the contract to sell the physical contents of the locker in case of missed rental payment doesn't include the rights to reproduction of intellectual property contained on materials in the locker.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you sold me the negatives, why would I need to buy copyrights. After all the whole point in owning the negative is to produce prints. Since the original photographer no longer owns the negative, he can't make prints. So should I purchase the negative, why need tp purchase copyright in order to print the pictures? The whole seems very obtuse way of doing things.

… or negotiate reproduction/usage rights, if the seller wants to retain the copyright.

To learn more it would be worth a bit of your time to look at some of the educational material at the US copyright office site. Interesting reading.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

 

[removed account4]

The whole seems very obtuse way of doing things.

LOL. if you think image ownership is obtuse you should read about collecting rainwater in a cistern on your own property !
https://worldwaterreserve.com/rainwater-harvesting/is-it-illegal-to-collect-rainwater/

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I understand what the copyright rules are. The question is why shouldn't the rights to reproduce follow the negatives?

Let's face it. Unless you're weird, and like looking at original negatives on the wall, the whole point in buying negatives is to make prints from them. If I bought the original photographer's negatives, I would assume I could make prints with them. Otherwise, why would I buy them and why would the photographer sell them to me? If the photographer doesn't want me to make copies, don't sell me the negatives. Just sell me a print.

It seems like the copyright law just adds an unnecessary layer for no reason. Why doesn't the law state that if you purchased the negatives, you have a right to print?