More Vivian Maier

[16:9]

This would be a valid argument if she were here to express it. All else is projection into the void. She evidently had conflicted feelings about her work - expressing both a desire for self-promotion and self-effacement. She became a mentally ill recluse with poor judgment. However, that's all in the past. All of her that remains is her work, and I say 'let it live on', as she cannot.

 

[warden]

I can't think of a single thing I'd ask a lawyer about except an existing or potential legal problem...

It depends on the situation. If you hired a lawyer to fight a traffic citation, well I get it, there isn't much else to talk about aside from the narrow scope of your current issue. But there are legal services that go far beyond that especially in business, and in those cases there is an awful lot to discuss, including topics you didn't know to ask about.

 

[Pioneer]

What I got out of the Vivian Maier story a long time ago was to make sure my will gives the rights to my photography to my kids and grandkids.

That way they get to exploit it if there is anything worth exploiting.

 

[CMoore]

That was one of the things @awty was talking about - that she was a private person and did not necessarily want to be a famous or even recognized photographer. What did you get out of these pages? I've made other comments in this thread.
The last few comments have been saying all that matters is that the photos can be seen and appreciated. That is fine and dandy, but does it invalidate the concern that she might have wanted to keep the photos private or even destroyed upon her death? After all, a number of those photos were of children under her care, a number were of her personal papers (she took photos of cheques and so on), a number were self-portraits. She may or may not have wanted anyone else to see any of it. Is that not important?

She may or may not have.?
So which is it.?

Her negs were abandoned and sold shortly before she died.
Unless there is some legal dictate about what she does or does not want................. C'est La Vie

 

[Don_ih]

there are legal services that go far beyond that especially in business,

In other words, existing or potential legal problems.

She may or may not have.?
So which is it.?

There's no way of knowing. But that doesn't make the concern any less valid. People also feel free to refer to her as a mentally-ill recluse, which she may or may not have been (at least in her own estimation). Do we have the diagnoses she was given by medical professionals to say she was mentally ill? Were there any?

 

[MattKing]

In other words, existing or potential legal problems.

To give a contrary example, people incorporate companies to do business because they have a bunch of advantages that one can't enjoy doing business as a proprietor or partner.
Some of those advantages help prevent problems, but others, like indefinite life, are real advantages.
Experienced and knowledgeable lawyers give useful advice.
One of the most satisfying things about the practice of law was helping people create things.
And by the way, most of the problems with the Vivian Maier situation would have been avoided if she had just done a Will - even if she left everything to a home for wayward cats. And as a lawyer I would have been able to help her (if she had been in my jurisdiction).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

Well, since you'd be dead by then, does it matter? We all can have deathbed wishes we leave others. But are they compelled to follow them? Maybe she should have paid her storage bill if that was so important to her or removed the photos and negatives from the locker before defaulting on payments. Then again, maybe this was her secret and ego-less way of giving them to the public.

 

[warden]

In other words, existing or potential legal problems.

No.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In other words, existing or potential legal problems.



There's no way of knowing. But that doesn't make the concern any less valid. People also feel free to refer to her as a mentally-ill recluse, which she may or may not have been (at least in her own estimation). Do we have the diagnoses she was given by medical professionals to say she was mentally ill? Were there any?

At least she didn't cut her ear off like Van Gogh.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

She may or may not have wanted anyone else to see any of it. Is that not important?

This is an important ethical and moral question, and, as such, not that easily resolved. I'm reminded of Franz Kafka, who asked his friend Max Brod to destroy his unfinished works. Had Brod obeyed his wishes, we wouldn't have The Trial, The Castle or Amerika. Not an understatement to say that the history of 20th-Century literature would not have been the same.

Vivian Maier's work is not of the same magnitude, of course. Still, the moral and ethical dilemma is similar. Problem is, in her case, we just don't know what she would have wanted.

Points out also to the question of "worth". In this thread, it's almost always defined in financial terms. But, if we look at Kafka's case, the "worth" of the work has nothing to do with money. Again, we can't compare the cultural impact of Vivian Maier with that of Kafka, but still, the question as to whether or not it was necessary to publish these photos can only be answered after that of what their worth, as cultural artefacts, might be (or might become). At that can take time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is an important ethical and moral question, and, as such, not that easily resolved. I'm reminded of Franz Kafka, who asked his friend Max Brod to destroy his unfinished works. Had Brod obeyed his wishes, we wouldn't have The Trial, The Castle or Amerika. Not an understatement to say that the history of 20th-Century literature would not have been the same.

Vivian Maier's work is not of the same magnitude, of course. Still, the moral and ethical dilemma is similar. Problem is, in her case, we just don't know what she would have wanted.

Points out also to the question of "worth". In this thread, it's almost always defined in financial terms. But, if we look at Kafka's case, the "worth" of the work has nothing to do with money. Again, we can't compare the cultural impact of Vivian Maier with that of Kafka, but still, the question as to whether or not it was necessary to publish these photos can only be answered after that of what their worth, as cultural artefacts, might be (or might become). At that can take time.

Being responsible for death bed wishes strengthens the closer the individual is to the diseased. A close friend or relative may feel more compelled. But how far does that extend to the public especially when we really don't know the extent of her wishes?

PS Why didn't Kafka destroy his work himself?

 

[MattKing]

There is something Kafka-esque about a thread on Vivian Maier discussing Kafka.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

We all have a purpose in life even if we don't know what it is. Maybe her photos contributed to the world was hers, whether she knew it or not.

 

[Pieter12]

We all have a purpose in life even if we don't know what it is.

Yeah. Like taking up space and using resources. But do we have a purpose in death beyond returning some of those resources to the earth? Maybe as an inspiration or painful memory to others?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

PS Why didn't Kafka destroy his work himself?

He went to a sanatorium for treatment, expecting (or hoping) to get better, not to die. Of course, he did not take his works with him. Moreover, all three novels were unfinished, and we can assume that Kafka would eventually have got back to working on them. Kafka had published short stories, so we can also expect that he would have wanted the novel published had he be satisfied with their completed state.

Again, I'm not comparing to Maier. Kafka was a singular, exceptional literary voice, and it's hard to fault Brod for wanting it known to a large public. Maier's case is more ambiguous. We don't know what her wishes were. What one may think of the interest of individual photographs notwithstanding, we can find plenty reasons - cultural, social, psychological, aesthetic, etc. - why her work is worth publishing and worth discussing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

Well since I have already addressed that with my trust, I am not worried about that. In fact since my work is at least as good or better than hers, I would welcome the exposure and fame. Please have at it.

 

[MattKing]

What one may think of the interest of individual photographs notwithstanding, we can find plenty reasons - cultural, social, psychological, aesthetic, etc. - why her work is worth publishing and worth discussing.

I agree.
In addition, the story of how it came to our attention is also fascinating, in a much more mundane way.

 

[warden]

To give a contrary example, people incorporate companies to do business because they have a bunch of advantages that one can't enjoy doing business as a proprietor or partner.
Some of those advantages help prevent problems, but others, like indefinite life, are real advantages.
Experienced and knowledgeable lawyers give useful advice.
One of the most satisfying things about the practice of law was helping people create things.
And by the way, most of the problems with the Vivian Maier situation would have been avoided if she had just done a Will - even if she left everything to a home for wayward cats. And as a lawyer I would have been able to help her (if she had been in my jurisdiction).

The law firm that handles my patent work is worth twice what they charge because they are proactive. They are narrowly focused on exactly the products that I design, and have encyclopedic knowledge about everything that has been patented in the past twenty years, which I couldn't possibly know. So yes, they protect me from potential problems in a very litigious field (the bare minimum service), but far more importantly they share their expertise and analysis of my work, compare it to existing and prior published art, and make suggestions to improve the products from both functional and legal standpoints. Sometimes they really should be included on the patents.

 

[Pieter12]

What I got out of the Vivian Maier story a long time ago was to make sure my will gives the rights to my photography to my kids and grandkids.

That way they get to exploit it if there is anything worth exploiting.

They get the rights, no will needed.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

This would be a valid argument if she were here to express it. All else is projection into the void. She evidently had conflicted feelings about her work - expressing both a desire for self-promotion and self-effacement. She became a mentally ill recluse with poor judgment. However, that's all in the past. All of her that remains is her work, and I say 'let it live on', as she cannot.

In other words she's dead it's all up for grabs?

Personally i stopped reading her "story" because it took me little to figure there cannot be any way to prove any of it, but surely written to bring in cash, by building an aura of improbable outcome. In fact the " nanny" part is nothing but degrading in nature to nannies in general, as it squarely suggests: look what that nanny had done? This is one of the signs of exploiting a dead.

So in my view it is hard to believe how some easily move all the moral/ethical issues completely aside, just because images are appealing to them.

As for her photograpyy there is a lot more documentary value than artistic one, but this horse will stand up every time it is beaten to death anyways, and anyones' opinion is a valid one. I like the images, but not beyond more than a single book.

 

[MattKing]

They get the rights, no will needed.

Here at least their ability to actually benefit from the rights is greatly simplified if there is a Will naming an executor to handle the administration.

 

[Don_ih]

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. A society is based more fully on interpersonal trust than it is on legal edicts. She had no reason to assume that someone would show her photos to the world - that was something that had pretty much never happened before (and she likely would not be aware of it, if it had to a lesser extent - Disfarmer comes to mind). The vast majority of people had, throughout her life, next to no regard for the kinds of photos she took, and she didn't seem to have any dealings with people who did. Her photos were her personal possessions, not a record of artistic work, not a body of published work, not the product of commercial enterprise, not photos she took to sell to individuals, not something the public was meant to see.

What if she had not been a hoarder. What if she had no mental illness. What if she had close friends who just didn't know about the photos. Whittle away all the irrelevant excuses of why it's ok to make her photos public and see if it really is ok. Did she matter as an individual? Did she have any expectation of privacy? Did her wishes matter? You can say we don't know what her wishes were but we do know she kept the photos for herself, never gave any to anyone, barely let anyone else see them.

I'm not saying her photos should have been buried along with her. I'm saying there is an issue here that is more important than whether or not some few people made money from the images and whether or not they would have been sanctified had they employed lawyers.

@MattKing @warden -- yes, lawyers can give advice on lots of different things.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah. Like taking up space and using resources. But do we have a purpose in death beyond returning some of those resources to the earth? Maybe as an inspiration or painful memory to others?

Her being a nanny means that she could have been a wonderfully positive teacher to many children forming their personalities for the good. The photos are a bonus to the world, an extra gift for us.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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. A society is based more fully on interpersonal trust than it is on legal edicts. She had no reason to assume that someone would show her photos to the world - that was something that had pretty much never happened before (and she likely would not be aware of it, if it had to a lesser extent - Disfarmer comes to mind). The vast majority of people had, throughout her life, next to no regard for the kinds of photos she took, and she didn't seem to have any dealings with people who did. Her photos were her personal possessions, not a record of artistic work, not a body of published work, not the product of commercial enterprise, not photos she took to sell to individuals, not something the public was meant to see.

What if she had not been a hoarder. What if she had no mental illness. What if she had close friends who just didn't know about the photos. Whittle away all the irrelevant excuses of why it's ok to make her photos public and see if it really is ok. Did she matter as an individual? Did she have any expectation of privacy? Did her wishes matter? You can say we don't know what her wishes were but we do know she kept the photos for herself, never gave any to anyone, barely let anyone else see them.

I'm not saying her photos should have been buried along with her. I'm saying there is an issue here that is more important than whether or not some few people made money from the images and whether or not they would have been sanctified had they employed lawyers.

@MattKing @warden -- yes, lawyers can give advice on lots of different things.

Property has to go someone when you die. You can't take it with you. Since she didn't destroy it when she lived, she had to know that someone was going to get it, probably a stranger since she had no children and no husband and left no will.