More Vivian Maier

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Exactly the point. I posted a photograph on APUG around 2007 as an example of humor and for the APUG users to view. In less than 24 hours, the website showed that it had been downloaded hundreds of times. Who downloaded them without my permission? What did they do with the photograph without my permission? That cost me sales of my own work. The only way to protect myself is to never post any of my work on the internet even if posting would help another photographer solve a problem. The problem is not the law; it is the people.

 

[removed account4]

Been there, done that.

Next.

was the work unregistered and did you get compensated ?

 

[Duceman]

Was Maier's work ever registered?

Searching the Copyright Office's online database is quite easy. Here is the result when searching "Maier, Vivian" as the author:

Link: https://i.ibb.co/Fb7h63D/Maier.jpg

Was it protected?

Yes, it was protected at the time of creation (i.e., when she hit the shutter button).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Exactly the point. I posted a photograph on APUG around 2007 as an example of humor and for the APUG users to view. In less than 24 hours, the website showed that it had been downloaded hundreds of times. Who downloaded them without my permission? What did they do with the photograph without my permission? That cost me sales of my own work. The only way to protect myself is to never post any of my work on the internet even if posting would help another photographer solve a problem. The problem is not the law; it is the people.

Since it was within 24 hours at least I was able to remove the photograph from the website before more damage was done.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Since it was within 24 hours at least I was able to remove the photograph from the website before more damage was done.

Maybe you could post it again so we can see what was so good about it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe you could post it again so we can see what was so good about it.

Figure that out all by yourself, did you?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Figure that out all by yourself, did you?

I'm sorry if my post came out that way. I'm sure what happened hurt you a lot. It's a lesson learned for all of us.

 

[Duceman]

was the work unregistered and did you get compensated ?

As I said before, you don't know what you're talking about. For example, in this instance, you clearly think that "protected" equals "compensation." However, being awarded damages or attorney's fees is just one of the remedies available under the law. If one chooses not to register their work prior to its infringement, there are essentially only two remedies available: (1) an injunction (i.e., court ordering the infringing party to stop its infringing use), or (2) awarding of actual damages. In connection with actual damages, it is up to the plaintiff to prove these, which isn't always easy (or cheap). In that regard, realistically speaking, the only remedy available to one who chose not to register their work prior to its infringement is an injunction. In other words, don't expect to be "compensated."

On the other hand, if one is diligent in protecting their rights, and chooses to register their work(s), there are additional available remedies that greatly favor the copyright holder. For example, if a registered work is infringed, attorney's fees and statutory damages are available as remedies. A plaintiff need not prove how much it was actually damaged, and can elect to receive statutory damages instead. Statutory damages can range from $750 and $30,000, and if the court finds that infringement was willful, this can be kicked up to $150,000. Per incident. Thus, the law favors those that take the proper steps to secure their rights.

 

[CMoore]

There is "The Law"....and then there is what society sees as Justice and Right and Wrong.

Depending on where you live, if a maniac breaks into your home, steels your wallet and punches your wife in the face, and you grab your gun, chance him down the stairs, and shoot him in the back at your front door, You MIGHT be in A LOT of trouble.!
You should not be, IMHO, but a similar scenario has happened many times.

I think what some of our members are saying is.........."Right or Wrong" Mr Maloof, knowingly or not, seems to have violtaed the law at some level at least.
The good that he did, or his intentions and the wonderful photos and story of Vivian Maier are a separate issue.

 

[removed account4]

As I said before, bla bla bla. .

I am well aware of how the system works, without registration the maker is left holding the bag.

registering the work at the copyright office using the VA Registration Form is painless and quick
offers the maker full protection https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/

please stop suggesting otherwise

 

[Duceman]

I am well aware of how the system works, without registration the maker is left holding the bag.

Only if you're expecting some big pay-day just because someone stole your picture; that's not necessarily how the law is set up, though. Don't like it; change the law.

registering the work at the copyright office using the VA Registration Form is painless and quick
offers the maker full protection https://www.copyright.gov/registration/visual-arts/

That's essentially what I just said.

please stop suggesting otherwise

I suggested nothing of the such.

Enjoy "ignore" status.

 

[Don_ih]

Like everything else where civil law is involved, the person with the bigger budget wields the greater amount of power. Copy @Sirius Glass's photo, make some money from it, you get to keep the money - he likely does not have the resources to chase you down and stop you, even if he has registered the photo (who is going to register every photo they take?) with the copyright office (and assuming he even knows who you are).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Like everything else where civil law is involved, the person with the bigger budget wields the greater amount of power. Copy @Sirius Glass's photo, make some money from it, you get to keep the money - he likely does not have the resources to chase you down and stop you, even if he has registered the photo (who is going to register every photo they take?) with the copyright office (and assuming he even knows who you are).

Even if I had registered every photograph with the copyright office, chasing down each downloader is too expensive. Putting a line across the image or watermarking is not worth the effort. My solution is to very rarely post anything on the internet.

 

[removed account4]

 

[MattKing]

By the way, Duceman is likely correct about registration and the additional and very practical remedies it affords the registrant. But the statutory remedies aren't the only ones.
And with respect to Vivian Maier, an action for breach of copyright may not even be the right one.
An action in conversion (civil theft) is probably more appropriate, because someone who doesn't own the copyright of Vivian Maier's work but represents that they do isn't improperly copying it, they are pretending to own it.
Be that as it may, a properly appointed administrator would have the legal right to register copyright. Any attempt by someone like John Maloof to do so would be easily challenged.
All this talk about the legalities and practicalities is fascinating.

Why is nobody interested in her photography?

I think many are.
I'd support a thread that attempted to limit itself to that topic.

 

[MattKing]

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?

As I posted earlier - to do it properly one probably needed to have deeper pockets than I think he did.
Some things are very difficult to do both profitably and properly. That is an unfortunate fact of life. But that doesn't mean that one should ignore what the rules are.
If it had been up to me, I would have tried to interest a university or historical society in the project.

 

[removed account4]

... about registration

Good luck Matt - following his advice (not registering images at the US Copyright Office). ... advice given to me by 3 IP lawyers and the ASMP : register your work that has commercial value, and do not listen to people who suggest otherwise . Call me a dope but I'd take the advice given by Intellectual Property Lawyers and ASMP anyday over random guy who just cuts and pasts excerpts from the copyright office website ( and claims the ASMP has no idea what they are talking about). Then again what do they know, they just advice commercial photographers on these matters every day and have been for decades. >>. YMMV
=
none of this really matters when it comes to the manufacture of Art, the author is dead after all. Someone can take one of your images and turn it into a meme ... copyright is a moot point. Been that way for a long time ... look at Richard Prince's Marlboro Man, or other people's selfies from Instagram he enlarged and then sold in a NYC gallery as his own work, look at Sherrie Levine's reprinting of Walker Evan's Negatives .. Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q., Bataille's Le Rire and even in the architectural world when HH Richardson designed the Trinity Church in Boston ( its tower was stolen/copied from an Italian Romanesque church he liked ).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As I posted earlier - to do it properly one probably needed to have deeper pockets than I think he did.
Some things are very difficult to do both profitably and properly. That is an unfortunate fact of life. But that doesn't mean that one should ignore what the rules are.
If it had been up to me, I would have tried to interest a university or historical society in the project.

But Maloof did make an attempt to find relatives and could find only one who he made a deal and paid them $5000. So he did his "due diligence" although everyone can have their opinion of how much that should be. After Maier gained fame, her other relatives came out of the woodwork to make their claim along with their ambulance-chasing lawyers. Well, you know that was going to happen. I'm sure Maloof figure on it too.

Who's to say how much time and energy and expenses should be spent to do research "properly". What do you mean by properly anyway? Was Maloof suppose to search all of Europe for some lost relative? (see the article below) Remember, he;'s taking a chance too. He spent a lot of money developing, printing, publishing, promoting, and selling. So if and when a relative showed up, he would be legally challenged and have to deal with the chance he would get nothing. Apparently, the probate court has given Maloof a percentage of all profits holding the balance for the estate. That seems like a fair arrangement.

I just did a search and found this. I wonder how much it cost the lawyers to do this search in 2018 and make a 300-page filing?

(read the whole article to see just how complicated and expensive this thing became. Of course, whatever profits leftover for the estate and the relatives that Maloof doesn't get, will be claimed first by the lawyers of the relatives for their expenses. By the time the lawyers are done, there won't be enough cheese left for a mouse to get a tooth in.)

Genealogical investigation uncovers 10 heirs of famed Chicago street photographer Vivian Maier
Among the enduring mysteries surrounding celebrated Chicago street photographer Vivian Maier was whether any viable heirs would ever come forward to claim a piece of the former nanny’s lucrative estate.

Now, after an exhaustive genealogical investigation, lawyers representing potential heirs have filed a lengthy report in Cook County Probate Court that for the first time puts the entire Maier family tree into focus.

The 300-page filing made public this week identifies 10 cousins of Maier who were still living at the time of her death in 2009, possibly putting them in line under Illinois probate law to inherit a portion of an estate believed to be worth millions of dollars.

A team of genealogists pored over Maier’s complicated lineage for more than three years, traveling to France, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and elsewhere to research old church records, baptisms, marriage certificates, census information, and birth and death records involving scores of family members.
While Maier’s mother’s side in France was fairly easy to unravel, her father’s family — with its roots in Austria and Slovakia — posed a greater challenge. Many of the records were so old that they contained language and spelling variations or other issues that complicated the search, according to the filing.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...apher-vivian-maier-estate-20180625-story.html

 

[choiliefan]

Interesting listen this morning on NPR:
Don Gonyea speaks with author Ann Marks about her biography documenting Vivian Maier's life as a street photographer who didn't gain notoriety until she after she died in 2009: "vivian maier developed"
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/12/1063...photographer-was-unknown-until-her-death-in-2

 

[Arthurwg]

Why is nobody interested in her photography?

If I understand your post correctly, you make the most important point. It's really all about the pictures. We should be glad we have them. The rest is just talk, and talk is cheap.

 

[Arthurwg]

Like privacy and truth, copyright has become an obsolete concept. This has evolved over many decades, including the "fair use" principle and "artistic" borrowings and appropriations like the Pretty Baby photo and Marlboro cigarette advertising. Get used to it.

 

[BrianShaw]

Like privacy and truth, copyright has become an obsolete concept. This has evolved over many decades, including the "fair use" principle and "artistic" borrowings and appropriations like the Pretty Baby photo and Marlboro cigarette advertising. Get used to it.

By “artistic borrowings and appropriations” I assume you refer to derivative works. While I personally value the concept of copyright, derivative is so variable that I have a difficult time with it… but, as you say, “get used to it”.

 

[removed account4]

By “artistic borrowings and appropriations” I assume you refer to derivative works. While I personally value the concept of copyright, derivative is so variable that I have a difficult time with it… but, as you say, “get used to it”.

Richard Prince's and Sherrie Levine 's works were not derivative, they were just taken ...
we are living in a post truth post privacy post copyright world... ( I like that Arthurwg! thanks )

 

[BrianShaw]

Richard Prince's and Sherrie Levine 's works were not derivative, they were just taken ...
we are living in a post truth post privacy post copyright world... ( I like that Arthurwg! thanks )

I don't know much about Levine, but it seems that the courts decided that Prince's attempt at creating derivative works was not. There seems to me to be a lot of personal opinion in what is derivative and what is plagiarism but if a court determined and there was no overturn in appeal... I'd agree that it was plagiarism.

 

[removed account4]

I don't know much about Levine, but it seems that the courts decided that Prince's attempt at creating derivative works was not. There seems to me to be a lot of personal opinion in what is derivative and what is plagiarism but if a court determined and there was no overturn in appeal... I'd agree that it was plagiarism.

here you go.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/267214
its not plagiarism .. or personal opinion. its art history + critical theory

but since you mentioned plagerism ....
is it plagiarism when someone finds someone else's tripod holes and retakes their photographs?
or when someone asks how a print was made so they can do it themselves?