More Vivian Maier

[greg zinselmeier]

I never really thought of myself as " a being" that had "something" to copyright, that in a strick sense made me unique. But I guess there are people out there who. . . . . . . . . . . ( fill in the blank as you see fit)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never really thought of myself as " a being" that had "something" to copyright, that in a strick sense made me unique. But I guess there are people out there who. . . . . . . . . . . ( fill in the blank as you see fit)

Back to the drawing board.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

thanks,

Serious/seriously/sirius glass. I am literally at the chalk board diagraming my own chart of success ( smiley FACE). PREPARING for the future of infinite success as a film photographer!!! In big large letters on the Marquee. .. YOU"LL BE FAMOUS WHEN YOUR DEAD


o.k. . . .. . jokes aside. ... . Everything about the OP is all about people creating value from dead peoples' toil (ostensively there is a "limited" stock !!! Ha ha ) and monopolizing greed. that practice has been going on since the beginning of time. The Law, at least American Law, has codified this economic/social/ political device: it is deeply ingrained in our culture. No one would buy a VIVIAN MARR photograph if she was alive!!!! DUH!!!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

thanks,

Serious/seriously/sirius glass. I am literally at the chalk board diagraming my own chart of success ( smiley FACE). PREPARING for the future of infinite success as a film photographer!!! In big large letters on the Marquee. .. YOU"LL BE FAMOUS WHEN YOUR DEAD


o.k. . . .. . jokes aside. ... . Everything about the OP is all about people creating value from dead peoples' toil (ostensively there is a "limited" stock !!! Ha ha ) and monopolizing greed. that practice has been going on since the beginning of time. The Law, at least American Law, has codified this economic/social/ political device: it is deeply ingrained in our culture. No one would buy a VIVIAN MARR photograph if she was alive!!!! DUH!!!

Apparently, you have a better chance of getting rich if you die first.

 

[CMoore]

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

That guy is a very interesting story.
I saw a video about him, he was in it, on Youtube.
Fascinating person. Made his own cameras and lenses.!

So if someone dies intestate with no relative and no heirs, then the state gets ownership of the copyrights?

I suppose the question is........who else would or could it go to.?
If "The State" had inherited Vivian's Negs and Photos, i do not imagine we ever would have seen them. It is possible, but we will never know.

I was shocked this thread was still going.
There certainly has been a lot of interesting info posted.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That guy is a very interesting story.
I saw a video about him, he was in it, on Youtube.
Fascinating person. Made his own cameras and lenses.!


I suppose the question is........who else would or could it go to.?
If "The State" had inherited Vivian's Negs and Photos, i do not imagine we ever would have seen them. It is possible, but we will never know.

I was shocked this thread was still going.
There certainly has been a lot of interesting info posted.

I suppose the state could auction the rights to the copyrights if there were no heirs? So a Maloof may have gotten them anyway just as he bought the photos and negatives at an auction.

 

[removed account4]

That guy is a very interesting story.
I saw a video about him, he was in it, on Youtube.
Fascinating person. Made his own cameras and lenses.!.

yes, and my point was that he was virtually unknown and gallery people found him ( like VM )
they saw his work and marketed the hell out of it and sold it and made a book of it and he gave a tour of his
small apartment / home in videos and he enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame. ( unlike VM ) and the gallery people and publishers got $$ ( like with VM ) ..
he seems to have taken his fame well, didn't seem changed by much of it. Unlike a lot of content providers / profiteers of today
they seem to be suffering from their fame-base having short attention spans... so they have to do one outrageous thing after another to keep on top of the heap..
at least they are keeping Dr Phil busy.

without gallery people would know nothing of him and his work &c (like VM ).. the world is a richer place because of these discoveries.

Besides, nowadays. people aren't making photographs in obscurity like they were 10 or 30 years ago, the world is a'glut in interesting imagery

the whole 15 pages of commentary about how Maloof's a scoundrel and a rat for buying the storage bin, saving the negatives from the trash heap, paying for the copyright and letting the world know what a great photographer VM was. .. is a bit much. Im happy she is getting her well deserved fame. Its just like photographers to complain incessantly about someone else being recognized.

 

[MattKing]

paying for the copyright

If only he had paid the person/entity who actually owned the copyrights!
I have said this numerous times - the work that Maloof did to bring attention to the photography is (mostly) laudable.
And I acknowledge that he may not have achieved what he has achieved if he had dealt with the copyrights properly.
But he didn't. And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.

 

[BrianShaw]

If only he had paid the person/entity who actually owned the copyrights!
I have said this numerous times - the work that Maloof did to bring attention to the photography is (mostly) laudable.
And I acknowledge that he may not have achieved what he has achieved if he had dealt with the copyrights properly.
But he didn't. And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.

Amen.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If only he had paid the person/entity who actually owned the copyrights!
I have said this numerous times - the work that Maloof did to bring attention to the photography is (mostly) laudable.
And I acknowledge that he may not have achieved what he has achieved if he had dealt with the copyrights properly.
But he didn't. And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.

He may have accomplished the opposite. After all, people now know that you better settle these things or you just might wind up in court as Maloof did. On the other hand, he would have had to go before a court to settle these things anyway. Or, without his action, there would not have been a lawsuit to begin with. There has to be a disgruntled party to bring a lawsuit. What should he have done that he didn;t do?

 

[jtk]

Why is nobody interested in her photography?

 

[Sirius Glass]

If only he had paid the person/entity who actually owned the copyrights!
I have said this numerous times - the work that Maloof did to bring attention to the photography is (mostly) laudable.
And I acknowledge that he may not have achieved what he has achieved if he had dealt with the copyrights properly.
But he didn't. And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.

Maloof did bring Vivian Maier's work to the public. I am not sure I see that he devalued the system, because no laws where changed in the process. Everything stayed the same. Just the public is more aware of the laws, maybe.

 

[removed account4]

And by doing so, he helped devalue the entire system of copyright protection for photography.

Most likely her work was not registered with the American Copyright Office so how is it that he devalued the copyright system if they were not part of the system you suggest was devalued ? Did her family she was not in touch with or you suggest owned the copyright register the images? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think anyone registered the images.

In the USA. work has to actually be REGISTERED with the Copyright Office to be protected. Making exposures and being in possession of negatives or files have nothing to do with owning the Copyright. It has never been like this. Putting " © " next to an image on the internet or in print, does not mean its registered or protected either. Photographers are constantly and consistently misinformed about these things. VM's work was not copyright protected unless she completed and mailed in the Copyright for Visual Arts Application to the US Copyright Office, so ... , chances are you might be incorrect.

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/

 

[MattKing]

There has to be a disgruntled party to bring a lawsuit. What should he have done that he didn;t do?

No, there doesn't have to be a disgruntled party.
The court's equitable jurisdiction in Probate is a regulatory jurisdiction, designed to handle the mechanics of the administration of estates, and to protect the interests ("equities") of those who are otherwise unrepresented. It is only when a dispute arises that the court's legal jurisdiction comes into play - the jurisdiction that is there to deal with disputes.
An proceeding in Probate is intended to determine assets and liabilities and confirm interests in them. It is also the mechanism used to ensure payment of liabilities and to see to the appropriate transfer of assets from the name of the Deceased to the name(s) of those determined to be entitled to them. As that process takes time, the Probate Court also supervises the actions of those charged with administering the estate. In the case of Vivian Maier's estate, that might mean the court overseeing the administrator's actions in maximizing the value of the copyrights for the benefit of the estate. And that may very well mean approving the plans of John Maloof.
Only a very, very tiny percentage of Probate court proceedings involve settlement of disputes.
Most Probate proceedings are more like performance audits.
Vivian Maier's estate is complicated because of the lack of a Will and her complex family. And because the estate's assets are copyrights to the wonderful photography she did. Intellectual property rights are way more complex than cars, homes and bank accounts.

 

[Don_ih]

The internet has done far more damage to copyright protection than the Vivian Maier situation ever could. Visible photos are considered public property by most people.

In the USA. work has to actually be REGISTERED with the Copyright Office to be protected.

"In the United States, creative work is automatically protected by copyright as long as it is both:
a) original - ie independently created and not copied from someone else’s work.
b) fixed in a tangible form - ie easy to see, reproduce or communicate over a long period of time. "
from https://assets.publishing.service.g...achment_data/file/456368/IP_rights_in_USA.pdf

So, no, it does not need to be registered.

 

[removed account4]

The internet has done far more damage to copyright protection than the Vivian Maier situation ever could. Visible photos are considered public property by most people.



"In the United States, creative work is automatically protected by copyright as long as it is both:
a) original - ie independently created and not copied from someone else’s work.
b) fixed in a tangible form - ie easy to see, reproduce or communicate over a long period of time. "
from https://assets.publishing.service.g...achment_data/file/456368/IP_rights_in_USA.pdf

So, no, it does not need to be registered.

Not so sure about that Don. If you have had a copyright case before a judge in the past 20 years ... chances are the judge won't even see the case if the person who claims they own the copyright does not have the registration form. It is not cut and dry. And a lawyer doesn't want to deal with a client who claims they have ownership of the copyright and doesn't have the registration.

 

[Duceman]

In the USA. work has to actually be REGISTERED with the Copyright Office to be protected.

False.

Copyright arises at the moment of creation. See below, taken directly from the U.S. Copyright Office website >>here<<:

When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Granted, if you need court intervention, in order to have any standing to sue you'll at least need to have filed for copyright registration. However, if the alleged copyright infringement occurred prior to the filing for copyright registration and/or outside of 3 months from the work having been published, your remedies will be limited and you will have to prove actual damages.

 

[removed account4]

False.

Copyright arises at the moment of creation. See below, taken directly from the U.S. Copyright Office website >>here<<:



Granted, if you need court intervention, in order to have any standing to sue you'll at least need to have filed for copyright protection. However, if the alleged copyright infringement occurred prior to the filing for copyright protection and/or outside of 3 months from the work having been published, your remedies will be limited and you will have to prove actual damages.

not really, I hope you don't have a case anytime soon and don't have the registration, if you do, good luck with that.. cause chances are no lawyer will help you and you won't have your day in court.

 

[Duceman]

not really,

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, there doesn't have to be a disgruntled party.
The court's equitable jurisdiction in Probate is a regulatory jurisdiction, designed to handle the mechanics of the administration of estates, and to protect the interests ("equities") of those who are otherwise unrepresented. It is only when a dispute arises that the court's legal jurisdiction comes into play - the jurisdiction that is there to deal with disputes.
An proceeding in Probate is intended to determine assets and liabilities and confirm interests in them. It is also the mechanism used to ensure payment of liabilities and to see to the appropriate transfer of assets from the name of the Deceased to the name(s) of those determined to be entitled to them. As that process takes time, the Probate Court also supervises the actions of those charged with administering the estate. In the case of Vivian Maier's estate, that might mean the court overseeing the administrator's actions in maximizing the value of the copyrights for the benefit of the estate. And that may very well mean approving the plans of John Maloof.
Only a very, very tiny percentage of Probate court proceedings involve settlement of disputes.
Most Probate proceedings are more like performance audits.
Vivian Maier's estate is complicated because of the lack of a Will and her complex family. And because the estate's assets are copyrights to the wonderful photography she did. Intellectual property rights are way more complex than cars, homes and bank accounts.

Let's say you were Maloof. How much would you be willing to spend to hire a lawyer to deal with probate and the court system? Remember, before he did what he did, there were no estimates of the real value of her work. It was just a bunch of pictures sitting in a box. So you make a small attempt to find relatives and come up with nothing. Then what do you do? Do you start to publish the work figuring you have the rights too and if anyone shows up claiming they are a relative, well, then you'll deal with that then as he has? If that's not the right approach, what do you do? What approach would you consider doing?

 

[removed account4]

You don't know what you're talking about.

If you say so ... maybe you should talk to a lawyer familiar with the intricacies of American Copyright Law, and have to sue a client for publishing work without consent...

Granted, if you need court intervention, in order to have any standing to sue you'll at least need to have filed for copyright registration. However, if the alleged copyright infringement occurred prior to the filing for copyright registration and/or outside of 3 months from the work having been published, your remedies will be limited and you will have to prove actual damages

As I said it has to be REGISTERED

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Was Maier's work ever registered? Was it protected? Did any relatives ever get money for them?

 

[removed account4]

Was Maier's work ever registered? Was it protected?

Most likely the answer is no.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Most likely the answer is no.

The key question was did her relatives ever get any money for them even though the copyrights were unregistered?

 

[Duceman]

If you say so ... maybe you should talk to a lawyer familiar with the intricacies of American Copyright Law, and have to sue a client for publishing work without consent...

Been there, done that.

Next.