Vivian Maier @ HGG

digital&film · Dec 19, 2014

It makes to sick to hear of the "photographer"/LAWYER who went out of his way to ruin the discovery of a great street shooter.

Anyway.. for a few days only.. ends Dec. 31'st.

http://www.howardgreenberg.com/#exhibitions/320

digital&film · Dec 19, 2014

Lawsuit info... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-vivian-maier-photos-court-met-20140908-story.html#page=1

MattKing · Dec 19, 2014

Seems to be an entirely appropriate lawsuit.

In my jurisdiction, a probate court would have been required to pronounce on whether there were any rightful heirs before the copyright could be dealt with. I've been surprised that there hasn't been a court decision so far.

Hope it doesn't get bogged down and overly delayed.

Pioneer · Dec 20, 2014

The Chicago Tribune wants me to sign up so I can see an article about another lawyer making money off someone else's effort.

No need.

Chrismat · Dec 20, 2014

It's also here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/arts/design/a-legal-battle-over-vivian-maiers-work.html?_r=0

blansky · Dec 20, 2014

I think street photography is one of the most fascinating aspects of photography. When viewed in the present it's often kind of mundane and ordinary but when viewed years later it takes on a nostalgic life of it's own. When added to the mix, is a competent photographer with a photojournalists eye, it becomes a mesmerizing look at the past and something of extraordinary value and interest.

I realize that the legal stuff has to be hammered out but I hope the work sees the light of day again soon.

digital&film · Dec 20, 2014

Why this lawyer felt the *need* to insert himself and look under rocks for relatives is simple greed.. typical lawyer shouldering up to the trough.

This woman had amazing skills.. her *keeper* rate was phenomenal!

blansky · Dec 20, 2014

digital&film said:
Why this lawyer felt the *need* to insert himself and look under rocks for relatives is simple greed.. typical lawyer shouldering up to the trough.

This woman had amazing skills.. her *keeper* rate was phenomenal!

But as someone who bought the box of negs, wasn't he protecting himself from future litigation if an heir presented themselves to him seeking compensation.

I don't know the law on this stuff. but if I bought an unknown Picasso from a storage sale after someone's death to cover the cost of the storage bill, doesn't that Picasso become mine, and not an heir's, even if an heir is later found.

Sirius Glass · Dec 20, 2014

Chrismat said:
It's also here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/arts/design/a-legal-battle-over-vivian-maiers-work.html?_r=0

Thank you I could not find the article.

Sirius Glass · Dec 20, 2014

blansky said:
But as someone who bought the box of negs, wasn't he protecting himself from future litigation if an heir presented themselves to him seeking compensation.

I don't know the law on this stuff. but if I bought an unknown Picasso from a storage sale after someone's death to cover the cost of the storage bill, doesn't that Picasso become mine, and not an heir's, even if an heir is later found.

I am not a lawyer but I believe that since the negatives were brought at an auction there is no recourse for the heir and the law suit would be expost facto which is specifically not allowed by the US Constitution except if Congress decides to raise taxes for the previous year. The last of which never made legal sense to me.

blansky · Dec 20, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
I am not a lawyer but I believe that since the negatives were brought at an auction there is no recourse for the heir and the law suit would be expost facto which is specifically not allowed by the US Constitution except if Congress decides to raise taxes for the previous year. The last of which never made legal sense to me.

I wonder of there is some obscure thing about you own the negs but future prints are the property of the heirs.

Pioneer · Dec 20, 2014

You can own both prints and negatives, but you cannot reproduce that work without copyright. If you do you are in violation of copyright law and can be sued by the heirs.

John Maloof believed he had resolved the copyright issue, but had not been issued legal copyright from the US Copyright Office, though that decision was, and still is, pending.

Of course, Mr. Deal, a lawyer, felt it was his sworn duty to step in and muck these works up by finding another potential heir and filing suit in Cook County in that person's name.

We in the United States LOVE our lawyers. It is so entertaining to watch them stir things up and make a mess. We even have TV shows which show this type of thing in action. Of course everyone knows that those shows are fake because people usually receive justice and live happily ever after. That would never happen in real life.

MattKing · Dec 20, 2014

I'm going to speak up for the photographer/lawyers here.

I don't practice any more, but when I did, there were times when I would encounter issues where I felt that a question was out there that was just begging for an answer.

And as I encountered the Vivian Maier story, including the John Maloof movie, I kept getting the same feeling - what about the copyright issues?

Mr. Deal may very well end up making some money out of his legal work on this - so what? Someone needs to do that work if the issue of copyright isn't decided authoritatively by a court with competent jurisdiction.

If Vivian Maier had lived and died in my jurisdiction, the rights would have been held up until they were satisfactorily determined, and most likely that determination would have been made by the BC Supreme Court, as part of its jurisdiction as a probate court.

Pioneer · Dec 20, 2014

MattKing said:
I'm going to speak up for the photographer/lawyers here.

I don't practice any more, but when I did, there were times when I would encounter issues where I felt that a question was out there that was just begging for an answer.

And as I encountered the Vivian Maier story, including the John Maloof movie, I kept getting the same feeling - what about the copyright issues?

Mr. Deal may very well end up making some money out of his legal work on this - so what? Someone needs to do that work if the issue of copyright isn't decided authoritatively by a court with competent jurisdiction.

If Vivian Maier had lived and died in my jurisdiction, the rights would have been held up until they were satisfactorily determined, and most likely that determination would have been made by the BC Supreme Court, as part of its jurisdiction as a probate court.

I have absolutely no problem with determining copyright.

Mr. Maloof had taken steps to identify an heir, come to an agreement, and had properly filed for copyright. The application was pending. At some point the copyright office would have said yes or no. But Mr. Deal was not satisfied to let that process work.

In my opinion Mr. Deal is an ambulance chaser, pure and simple. What he took advantage of has nothing to do with "copyright." It has to do with probate. If Ms Maier's estate was indeed worthless he could not have been bothered. But no, suddenly it has worth. Now it is worth chasing after that money. The copyright issue is really a red herring.

MattKing · Dec 20, 2014

I need to be careful because my knowlege is jurisdiction specific.

But assuming there are strong similarities between my jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction whose laws apply to Vivian Maier's estate, the issue of copyright is inextricably intertwined with the issues of probate. This is because the copyrights are the assets of yhe estate, and the probate court has jurisdiction over those assets.

If Mr. Maloof corectly identified the person or persons who are entitled to Ms. Maier's estate, then he may very well have settled the matter with the people who may eventually have authority to settle it. Except in my jurisdiction, when someone dies without a Will, as Ms. Maier apparently did, then no-one has that authority until the probate court grants that authority.

I have seen nothing that indicates that that has happened.

Even if it has happened, there remains in the court jurisdiction to later correct an error, if information should become available that indicates either that the person given authority (the administrator) ought to not have been appointed, or that any distribution of assets (such as copyrights) was unfair or incorrect.

There are a whole bunch of rules about what can be done if an error is discovered, but suffice it to say that the law only requires correction of what can fairly be required.

If Mr. Maloof found what he believed to be a single, entitled heir but did not protect himself by first having a probate court pronounce on the validity of that determination, he was unwise. Because he may have entered into an agreement with someone who has no legal authority to do so.

If there was a determination, and it turns out to be wrong, then the other rightful heir(s) surely have the same rights to participate as the distant relative that Mr. Maloof located.

The art world values authentication and provenance. A court application may be able to provide certainty where currently none exists.

By the way, the person to "blame" for this is none other than Vivian Maier. If she had executed a valid Will, none of these issues would have arrised.

Pioneer · Dec 20, 2014

Yes. A great story to reinforce the importance of having a will.

digital&film · Dec 21, 2014

"Mr. Deal may very well end up making some money out of his legal work on this - so what?"

That's what lawyers do.. and why I despise them.

MattKing · Dec 22, 2014

digital&film said:
"Mr. Deal may very well end up making some money out of his legal work on this - so what?"

That's what lawyers do.. and why I despise them.

You don't think lawyers who work hard, and make use of training, skill, experience and resources on behalf of their clients should be fairly compensated for the benefits they achieve for their clients?

Pioneer · Dec 22, 2014

I certainly believe that a lawyer, no different than a plumber or electrician, deserves to be paid when hired to do a certain job.

But that isn't exactly how this went down. Mr. Deal was not hired by a client to do a specific job. Instead he spotted a situation where he could make money. Then he went in search of a client and explained to this person that he could probably make him some money. And then he files suit in court. He carefully crafts description of the circumstances in terms that other people will feel sympathy towards. Voila...a case!

I still say Mr. Deal is an ambulance chaser. Someone else is making money and he intends to get his hands on some of it. He did not take the pictures. He did not buy the negatives. He did not print and promote the story. He didn't even know anything about the photographer. He is not a friend of the family. No one came to him and asked him to represent them. Most of all, he would not even have given this a single thought if very little money was being made.

Sorry Matt. I have no problem with honest lawyers who are doing a job they are hired to do. But in this case, if it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there is a darned good chance that its a duck.

MattKing · Dec 22, 2014

You may be right Dan, or you may be wrong.

We don't know about either the motivation of the lawyer, or the compensation he will receive.

We also know very little about Mr. Maloof's efforts with respect to the same issues. It is interesting to me that everyone seems to assume that the purported heir(s) that he has dealt with are the right people. What if they are charlatans themselves?

I do know that a lot of lawyers have righted a lot of wrongs because they came upon a problem, and on their own volition did something about it. Sometimes for money, sometimes on principle, and sometimes for a bit of both.

Law is both a business, and a profession. I have friends who are passionate advocates about a lot of different things. Some of them find it easy to make money from their work. Others are constantly trying to balance the demands of "paying" files with files that are both interesting and important, but not very remunerative.

Lots of lawyers leave law because of the difficulties involved in making money at it.

And yes, some lawyers take on risky cases in the hope that they will end up making lots of money on them.

I would have a different opinion on this if the ownership of the assets of Vivian Maeir's estate (primarily copyrights) in question was settled, and Mr. Deal was trying to upset that.

But in this case, I have seen nothing that indicates that that issue has been settled - most likely because Mr. Maloof and the other owners of the negatives didn't want to or could not afford to incur the cost of having it settled.

Mr. Deal may be a busy-body who hopes to make a buck. Or maybe he is telling the truth when he says to the New York Times:

Ive dramatically reduced the going rate for defending my client and Ive put a lot of my own money into this. If I came out on the other end of this issue breaking even, I would take it, because I think its likely to be the most interesting thing Im ever going to work on in my legal career.

I really, really do identify with him, however, when he says he was really bothered by the way things were being dealt with.

Steve Smith · Dec 22, 2014

blansky said:
but if I bought an unknown Picasso from a storage sale after someone's death to cover the cost of the storage bill, doesn't that Picasso become mine, and not an heir's, even if an heir is later found.

The actual item does, any copyright associated with it does not. Same with prints and negatives.

Steve.

blansky · Dec 22, 2014

Steve Smith said:
The actual item does, any copyright associated with it does not. Same with prints and negatives.

Steve.

That is interesting.

In Maier case, the guy who "owns" the negs (bought them at auction) is the only one who can make the prints but it's not legal for him to do so. Or I guess he can make them but just not sell them.

EdSawyer · Dec 22, 2014

don't feel bad for maloof or the other 2 people that own negs/prints. it's all about the money for them too, they are just dilettantes trying to make a buck of someone else's work that they happened to luck into. Not unlike what happened to Henry Darger.

Sirius Glass · Dec 22, 2014

Pioneer said:
I still say Mr. Deal is an ambulance chaser.

...

Sorry Matt. I have no problem with honest lawyers who are doing a job they are hired to do. But in this case, if it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there is a darned good chance that its a duck.

I agree.

brian steinberger · Dec 22, 2014

A thread I asked a few years ago. Similar topic:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Vivian Maier @ HGG

digital&film

digital&film

MattKing

Moderator

Pioneer

Chrismat

blansky

digital&film

blansky

Sirius Glass

Sirius Glass

blansky

Pioneer

MattKing

Moderator

Pioneer

MattKing

Moderator

Pioneer

digital&film

MattKing

Moderator

Pioneer

MattKing

Moderator

Steve Smith

blansky

EdSawyer

Sirius Glass

brian steinberger

Vivian Maier @ HGG

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency