More Vivian Maier

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's an interesting side legal question. Let's say the photographer goes broke and/or loses a case in court and pays with the property including his negatives. How would the value of his negatives be valued? What could the recipient of the negatives do with the negatives?

 

[removed account4]

Here's an interesting side legal question. Let's say the photographer goes broke and/or loses a case in court and pays with the property including his negatives. How would the value of his negatives be valued? What could the recipient of the negatives do with the negatives?

if the recipient was given the usage rights to the negatives and the copyright was transferred to him/her he/her could reprint the works and publish them in a book and sell them, he /her could sell the collection to Getty Images as stock images ( if they have any commercial value ) or the recipient could print them him/herself and sign the works like sherrie levine has done over the years, but she didn't own the copyright she just printed and sold the images she printed ... it all depends on if the photographer's name has any value. and after that its all about marketing.

regarding your first question, why would a photographer sell you the negatives and not the rights to reproduce images from those negatives? you'd have to ask the photographer. that is what photograms are. I've been making and sometimes selling photograms for 30 years, and I don't sell the rights to reproduce anything that I sell.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

if the recipient was given the usage rights to the negatives and the copyright was transferred to him/her he/her could reprint the works and publish them in a book and sell them, he /her could sell the collection to Getty Images as stock images ( if they have any commercial value ) or the recipient could print them him/herself and sign the works like sherrie levine has done over the years, but she didn't own the copyright she just printed and sold the images she printed ... it all depends on if the photographer's name has any value. and after that its all about marketing.

regarding your first question, why would a photographer sell you the negatives and not the rights to reproduce images from those negatives? you'd have to ask the photographer. that is what photograms are. I've been making and sometimes selling photograms for 30 years, and I don't sell the rights to reproduce anything that I sell.

The recipient was not "given" the negiatives. He received the negatives when he let's say won a liability case in court. He sued the photographer for some injury the photographer caused. He was awarded $100,000. The value seized from the photographer was $50,000 in cars, furniture and negatives which would only have value if prints were reproduced. Does the winner of the suit get the right to reproduce? Should he if not?

 

[BrianShaw]

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

LOL… understand… apparently not, and if so it seems you seem to simply not like the way that law is written.

 

[CMoore]

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?

I understand what you are saying.
Most anybody would think the same. On the face of things.....It is not an intuitive law.
Somebody abandons their junk, you buy their junk, but they still own the rights to it.?

I assume it dates back to a much earlier time when photographers (like a lot of people) were REALLY taken advantage of by Publishers.
Like when Charlie Parker or Robert Johnson would be payed 50 bux, by a record company to record a song and then the record company would make Thousands from selling the records.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

The old familiar saying. . . “ when they say, it’s not about the sex, yup, it is about the sex”!! In this quote replace the word “money “ for “sex”. People like to watch the money!! Look at the dumb show “ storage wars” they actual have numbers in the bottom right of the screen, so you don’t have to count in your head!! Who wants to be a millionaire etc. . . People just like to watch and get excited! ( yes, I am still talking about money)

 

[removed account4]

The recipient was not "given" the negiatives. He received the negatives when he let's say won a liability case in court. He sued the photographer for some injury the photographer caused. He was awarded $100,000. The value seized from the photographer was $50,000 in cars, furniture and negatives which would only have value if prints were reproduced. Does the winner of the suit get the right to reproduce? Should he if not?

in that particular court of law the judge would specifically say if the usage rights were tied to the negatives. .. or not.
several years ago Annie Leibovitz was in debt and I can't remember if she sold off her iconic photographic catalog.
reading about her situation might help shed light on your similar situation.
https://www.gawker.com/5339375/inside-the-financial-collapse-of-annie-leibovitz
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/ann...brity-photographer-lose-home/story?id=8549463

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I understand what you are saying.
Most anybody would think the same. On the face of things.....It is not an intuitive law.
Somebody abandons their junk, you buy their junk, but they still own the rights to it.?

I assume it dates back to a much earlier time when photographers (like a lot of people) were REALLY taken advantage of by Publishers.
Like when Charlie Parker or Robert Johnson would be payed 50 bux, by a record company to record a song and then the record company would make Thousands from selling the records.

You said it better than I said it.

 

[BrianShaw]

Intellectual and artistic property are really unique in the eyes of the law... and in the eyes of the creators. Look at Taylor Swift, for instance; she signed some bad agreements and inadvertently gave away rights to her own work to someone else. Now to profit from her own artistic vision/performance she is re-recording in order to legally use her own artistic creations.

It's interesting that the copyright law is one of our oldest laws: "United States copyright law traces its lineage back to the British Statute of Anne, which influenced the first U.S. federal copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790."

 

[removed account4]

Intellectual and artistic property are really unique in the eyes of the law... and in the eyes of the creators. Look at Taylor Swift, for instance; she signed some bad agreements and inadvertently gave away rights to her own work to someone else. Now to profit from her own artistic vision/performance she is re-recording in order to legally use her own artistic creations.

It's interesting that the copyright law is one of our oldest laws: "United States copyright law traces its lineage back to the British Statute of Anne, which influenced the first U.S. federal copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790."

the 80s band Gang of Four had to re-release / re-record their catalog from their first IDK 4-5 albums because the record company claimed ownership of all their work... lot of grifters out there!

 

[BrianShaw]

the 80s band Gang of Four had to re-release / re-record their catalog from their first IDK 4-5 albums because the record company claimed ownership of all their work... lot of grifters out there!

I didn’t know about that. And there might be even many more examples of buying music and rights the correct way than the deals gone bad. Id assume it’s the same with photographic art.

 

[Pieter12]

It is not just prints from negatives when you don't own the copyright. The artist Jeff Koons lost a number of lawsuits for copyright infringement when he based some (terrible) sculptures on photographs that he did not own the copyright to, or even ask permission from the copyright holder. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-jeff-koons-8-puppies-lawsuit-changed-artists-copy

 

[BrianShaw]

… so there are things called “derivative works” but there seems to be a bit of “eye of the beholder” issues between derivative and illegal copy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

LOL… understand… apparently not, and if so it seems you seem to simply not like the way that law is written.

Well then if I do not like a law, I am going to just ignore it.

 

[Pieter12]

Well then if I do not like a law, I am going to just ignore it.

There was a high-ranking politician who seems to agree with you.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.

 

[BrianShaw]

Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.

I hear you but it’s only an issue when using other people’s pictures.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I hear you but it’s only an issue when using other people’s pictures.

Well it;s also an issue when you sell your photos and handle your negatives. You have to make sure all the proper documentation is used to protect yourself.

When I ran my non-photographic business, I don't recall one instance where I used a lawyer to draw up an agreement, proposal, or contract? I did use them when others gave me their agreement to check the small print. But even then, I used to rely on my own review and negotiate changes personally. I don't recall ever having a problem as a seller or buyer. Now with photos, subject releases, etc., in the photo industry, it seems much more complicated.

 

[BrianShaw]

True.. important if you sell. But that makes one a professional and professionals should know their business. Copyright, licensing and usage rights are part of the business.

In all of my professional life lawyers have been involved. A cost of doing business without getting in a pickle. Sometimes a real pain-in-the-@$$ because they are so risk averse. But that’s business.

 

[Pieter12]

Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.

Only when you sell one. Not too much of an issue for me at this point.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

True.. important if you sell. But that makes one a professional and professionals should know their business. Copyright, licensing and usage rights are part of the business.

In all of my professional life lawyers have been involved. A cost of doing business without getting in a pickle. Sometimes a real pain-in-the-@$$ because they are so risk averse. But that’s business.

What's the expression? When you want to kill a deal, get a lawyer involved.

 

[MattKing]

What's the expression? When you want to kill a deal, get a lawyer involved.

When you want to find yourself in hot water, start doing business without first getting experienced advice - particularly legal, insurance and marketing advice .
I totally understand why it seems strange that if you own negatives you don't necessarily have the rights to publish or otherwise commercialize the pictures you can make from them.
But there are lots of situations out there in the world of commerce where the rights to commercialize things are handled separately from the physical artifacts that are used to create or prepare those things.
The rules about photography are most similar to the performing arts.

 

[removed account4]

Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.

you don't have to study law but you have to be informed. its no fun getting ripped off.

When I ran my non-photographic business, I don't recall one instance where I used a lawyer to draw up an agreement, proposal, or contract? I

me too but I wish I did for 1 job. a well known real estate developer from out of state asked me to be on their staff and do work for them. they were renovating a large mill complex, and needed someone with my experience. I had been doing photo stuff for nearly 20 years professionally and thought I would be OK ( and they came highly recommended by people I had worked with years before too) ... but .. I know better now. should have had a mechanic's lien put on them. turns out I found out years later I wasn't alone, they ripped off 100s of local people ( some put mechanics liens on them and eventually got paid, they had a lawyer help them out .. ) ... hindsight is 20 20.

The rules about photography are most similar to the performing arts.

I’m glad they know what photography is because philosophers have been trying to figure out what it is for at least five or six decades…and photography doesn’t know what it is either…
I guess performing arts because it is recording something and there are releases involved ?

 

[Don_ih]

When I ran my non-photographic business, I don't recall one instance where I used a lawyer to draw up an agreement, proposal, or contract

That means you were honest and honoured your agreements, as were the people you did business with.

 

[Arthurwg]

Something's wrong when you have to study law to shoot a picture.

Try street photography in France, where everyone has an absolute right to their own image. People have jumped into a news photo of a crime scene so they can sue on publication.