Vivian Maier @ HGG

Pioneer · Dec 22, 2014

MattKing said:
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.

This is an interesting situation and to be truthful, I don't know any of the people involved other than through their own statements or what they have personally done. As is usually the case they are probably all of them good people.

But I'm afraid that my own attitude toward lawyers in general is nowhere near as benign as your own. I'm sure that is pretty evident.

I have known a few, very few I am afraid, who actually try to help the little guy. I have personally seen case after case won by the big money lawyers regardless of the real facts of the case. Occasionally you see a Hollywood production where the little guy wins, or justice is truly served. John Grisham has made a pretty good living writing books with this theme, but that is exceedingly rare in real life, at least from my experience.

However, in this case, I do hope that things turn out different and we are able to continue to enjoy the amazing work that Ms Maier was able to do.

Two23 · Dec 22, 2014

MattKing said:
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?

Burglars work hard and have a lot of skill too. So does Al Sharpton.

Kent in SD

MattKing · Dec 23, 2014

Two23 said:
Burglars work hard and have a lot of skill too. So does Al Sharpton.

Kent in SD

I guess I must have fooled all those clients I helped over 24 years of practice - the ones who referred their friends and relatives to me, who are happy to greet me when I encounter them in my community, who are disappointed when I tell them I am no longer practising.

Steve Smith · Dec 23, 2014

MattKing said:
who are disappointed when I tell them I am no longer practising.

Well, practice makes perfect!

Steve.

blansky · Dec 23, 2014

MattKing said:
I guess I must have fooled all those clients I helped over 24 years of practice - the ones who referred their friends and relatives to me, who are happy to greet me when I encounter them in my community, who are disappointed when I tell them I am no longer practising.

Yeah everyone hates lawyers....until they need one.

Sirius Glass · Dec 23, 2014

MattKing said:
I guess I must have fooled all those clients I helped over 24 years of practice - the ones who referred their friends and relatives to me, who are happy to greet me when I encounter them in my community, who are disappointed when I tell them I am no longer practising.

Would you have done better to do law rather than practice law?

blansky · Dec 23, 2014

Sirius Glass said:
Would you have done better to do law rather than practice law?

That perhaps could be answered better by someone who practices medicine or psychology.

digital&film · Dec 23, 2014

blansky said:
Yeah everyone hates lawyers....until they need one.

Usually because someone sics a lawyer on you..

Why didn't the Great White Shark spare the life of the Lawyer?

Answer? Professional Courtesy.

What do you have if three lawyers are buried up to their necks in cement?
Answer? Not enough cement.

John Koehrer · Dec 23, 2014

term above also applies to works created before 1978 that were not yet published or registered prior to 1978, with the exception that such copyrights would not expire before 2003. Prior to 1978, works had to be published or registered to receive copyright protection.

This suggests to me that stuff made prior to '78 had to be registered to be protected, but wouldn't expire before 2003.

Pioneer · Dec 23, 2014

blansky said:
Yeah everyone hates lawyers....until they need one.

That is another one of those nice cliche's.

If I need a lawyer I typically hire someone local, and I ask friends to get recommendations. I bet that is how most people do it.

But I do not hire a lawyer who may have walked up to me following an accident or some other misfortune. I do not trust their motivation. I certainly can't say but I doubt that Matt practiced law that way.

And to say that I 'hate' lawyers is probably not true. I think it is fair to say that I do not trust them. And the reasons for that are far more complex than can be explained in a simple sound bit on a photography forum.

Suffice it to say that my distrust of Mr. Deal relates more to my own biases, while Matt's likely relate to his own experience and bias.

MattKing · Dec 23, 2014

I'll repeat my earlier comment - none of this would have been a problem if Vivian Maier had executed a valid Will.

Situations like this aren't common, but they do happen, and when they do, they are particularly vexing.

You have something of value, but no clear indication of who has authority over them, or an entitlement to their benefit.

And unless you can determine that, they cannot be legally or properly used (and sometimes protected).

So you either do nothing (and waste most of their benefit), attempt to make use of them without properly or legally establishing entitlement, or take the potentially difficult, expensive and incredibly time consuming steps necessary to resolve the issues.

With estates where there is no Will and no obvious heir(s), unless someone does step forward and try to find those heirs, they are often either left in limbo, or fought over by people who are not legally entitled.

Mr. Maloof (and the other holders of negatives) are almost in the same position as Mr. Deal. They are just interested in Vivian Maier and her legacy - they have no legal entitlement to benefit from the copyrights, unless they acquire the copyrights.

If Mr. Deal was a photographic historian, would you have the same reaction?

Two23 · Dec 23, 2014

MattKing said:
I guess I must have fooled all those clients I helped over 24 years of practice - the ones who referred their friends and relatives to me, who are happy to greet me when I encounter them in my community, who are disappointed when I tell them I am no longer practising.

I see a difference between a lawyer who is hired to help someone with a problem, vs. a lawyer who is helping himself by creating a problem.

Kent in SD

Pioneer · Dec 23, 2014

MattKing said:
I'll repeat my earlier comment - none of this would have been a problem if Vivian Maier had executed a valid Will.

Situations like this aren't common, but they do happen, and when they do, they are particularly vexing.

You have something of value, but no clear indication of who has authority over them, or an entitlement to their benefit.

And unless you can determine that, they cannot be legally or properly used (and sometimes protected).

So you either do nothing (and waste most of their benefit), attempt to make use of them without properly or legally establishing entitlement, or take the potentially difficult, expensive and incredibly time consuming steps necessary to resolve the issues.

With estates where there is no Will and no obvious heir(s), unless someone does step forward and try to find those heirs, they are often either left in limbo, or fought over by people who are not legally entitled.

Mr. Maloof (and the other holders of negatives) are almost in the same position as Mr. Deal. They are just interested in Vivian Maier and her legacy - they have no legal entitlement to benefit from the copyrights, unless they acquire the copyrights.

If Mr. Deal was a photographic historian, would you have the same reaction?

As before, I do agree that a valid Will would have been nice. That much we can agree on.

As for Ms Maier's legacy, in my humble opinion Mr. Maloof and the others have done far more to ensure her legacy survives. Once that legacy was established Mr. Deal steps in. I am still not real clear what his contribution has been, or will be once all is said and done.

bdial · Dec 23, 2014

As I understand it, Mr Maloof made a legitimate effort to find an heir. So, it would seem that if Mr. Deal was solely interested in finding a rightful heir, he may well have chosen to assist Maloof in that effort.
Instead he apparently struck off on his own with, presumably, his own motives.

Certainly, there are many more good lawyers than the self-serving jerks that get a lot of attention. I find it hard to determine just what side of that line Mr Deal lands. On the surface, it certainly seems like he lands on the "jerk" side.

MattKing · Dec 23, 2014

FWIW, in my jurisdiction a court action would be necessary in order to determine the estate issues (and therefore the identity of who was entitled to inherit the copyright rights). Without that court action, no realizable entitlement exists.

If Mr. Maloof or the other negative owners had started that action, he/they would have been required to prove in a public forum that the results of his investigations were persuasive.

The probate courts here do not require that there be in existence a dispute between parties. Probate essentially means prove - you need to prove your entitlement before you are authorized to deal with a deceased person's "stuff" or get something that once belonged to a deceased person.

So from my perspective, Mr. Maloof and the other negative owners are just trying to avoid the legal responsibility (probably to avoid costs) of getting appropriate legal authority to deal with copyrights. Essentially they appear to be trying to avoid that the inconvenient requirements of estate law. As a lawyer (as I once was) and a photographer interested in the protection of copyright, I too would have been tempted to become involved. Not for money, but because it matters.

Why is it that people participating in a website that is focused on photography don't support someone challenging the apparent avoidance of the parts of the law that protect the copyright interests of deceased photographers?

FWIW, I think Mr. Maloof and the other owners of the negatives deserve to be both thanked and rewarded for much of what they have done. But not for how they have dealt with the legal issues.

I wonder if any of these problems arise from considerations of Estate Tax. In my jurisdiction, the only true Estate Tax is approximately 1.4%, So a $10,000,000.00 estate only brings rise to a $140,000.00 bill (due up front, of course). It may be in Chicago the numbers are way more.

cowanw · Dec 23, 2014

After Matt, there is another Canadian connection here.
http://www.streetshootr.com/toronto...ins-entire-collection-vivian-maier-negatives/
Turns out Cook County is claiming them pictures.

MattKing · Dec 23, 2014

cowanw said:
After Matt, there is another Canadian connection here.
http://www.streetshootr.com/toronto...ins-entire-collection-vivian-maier-negatives/
Turns out Cook County is claiming them pictures.

Cook County is probably required to hold them as a trustee on behalf of the rightful heirs of the estate.

Assuming the rules of intestate inheritance are the same there as here (and they could very well be fundamentally different) then the brother would inherit everything if he survived Vivian Maier. In which case the cousin located by Mr. Maloof would get nothing.

In any case, it is certain that no-one so far heard from has a clear claim on the matter at this time.

At least with a trustee legally in place, anyone dealing with the trustee can rely on the trustee's dealings with any copyright issues. Not so with respect to the negative owners.

Thanks for posting that link. It was very informative.

Alan Klein · Dec 23, 2014

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

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that would be the case. A supposed impasse. Maloof cannot make prints without infringing copyrights. Of course the heir cannot make prints because they don't have the negatives.

So a deal will be struck between the legitimate heir(s) and Maloof so both sides can make money. Probably an agreed arrangement of a fee or percentage of the profits for the prints sold by Maloof going to the heir. And the lawyers on both sides will collect their legal fees as well.

Seems like a nice arrangement for everyone. Copyrights are protected. And we get to see and legally buy the beautiful results.

Alan Klein · Dec 23, 2014

Regarding lawyer Deal in it for the money, well he's got a family to feed too. Anyway, consider the alternative. If Maloof's "heir" is not the rightful heir, then without Deal the true heir is getting screwed out of his inheritance. How is that "fair"?

Which reminds me of a story. Thirty years ago, long before the internet and its search engines, there was this old guy I knew. God, he must have been 85 years old. He had a little office in a high rise office building down the hall from my office. When you went into his office, you couldn't get in to far because it was cluttered from floor to ceiling with newspapers from around the country, bank and insurance notifications of "lost" accounts that had money in them but they didn't know where the owners or beneficiaries of the accounts lived. This old guy's profession was to go through all this old paper, and then track down and contact the people who owned this money. Of course, he made a deal with them for a fee before telling them where they could collect their inheritance. It seemed to me that he was providing a good service. After all, why should the bank and insurance companies keep what was not theirs?

It's a good thing he was so old. He wouldn't have survived the internet and Google when it came along.

Steve Smith · Dec 24, 2014

Alan Klein said:
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that would be the case. A supposed impasse. Maloof cannot make prints without infringing copyrights. Of course the heir cannot make prints because they don't have the negatives.

So a deal will be struck between the legitimate heir(s) and Maloof so both sides can make money.

Absolutely. The copyright is of no benefit to the heir without the physical negatives. Whilst Maloof could make prints and sell them, he would be unwise to do so without an agreement.

Steve.

digital&film · Dec 24, 2014

Cook County has determined that both David Deal and John Maloof are wrong. The say Charles Maier is the one true heir and the law provides him 6 years to make a claim. In the meantime, Cook County has set up an estate and I assume they would like to generate some income from the estate by licensing rights to use the images because they say they control the copyright. They have asked Jeffrey and John for all of the digital files so that they could start licensing the work out.

I have not been involved with these discussions, but it appears that Cook County is trying to make all decisions and just give John and Jeffrey a small percentage of whatever revenues would be generated. However you look at it this is going to be tied up for years.

And now the gummint is stepping in.. cha-ching, cha-ching. They smell $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

MattKing · Dec 24, 2014

Two interesting articles: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ed_ethics_and_the_photographs_of_Vivian_Maier and Dead Link Removed

I hadn't understood that Maloof and the others acquired those negatives while Vivian Maire was still alive.

Pioneer · Dec 24, 2014

Yes. My understanding is that by the time they had located her she had died.

Another odd thing. I believe there were a lot of papers, personal and otherwise, included in the storage lockers. She was reputed to be a bit of a packrat. You have to wonder if there is any information regarding her missing brother in those papers, or any in her personal effects.

The other question, what happens if the brother does not appear in 6 years? Does the government remain in possession of the copyrights?

MattKing · Dec 24, 2014

Pioneer said:
Yes. My understanding is that by the time they had located her she had died.

Another odd thing. I believe there were a lot of papers, personal and otherwise, included in the storage lockers. She was reputed to be a bit of a packrat. You have to wonder if there is any information regarding her missing brother in those papers, or any in her personal effects.

The other question, what happens if the brother does not appear in 6 years? Does the government remain in possession of the copyrights?

Based on my reading of the links I recently posted, it appears that an office of the "government" has indeed been appointed as official administrator (trustee) for the estate, pending determination of who the rightful heirs are. Their duties will be to protect the assets of the estate and the heir(s) entitled to it.

There appears as well to be at least a small chance that there remains an arguable issue as to whether or not the copyrights may have gone with the films and negatives themselves (turns on the wording of the contracts of storage).

Most jurisdictions have procedures for dealing with missing intestate heirs. Those procedures would need to be followed. Unfortunately, those procedures can be very long, and quite expensive.

It would be unlikely that the estate would go (escheat) to the state. That generally happens only when no surviving potential intestate heirs can be identified. Again, however, you need to refer to the specific applicable law - the rules in each state of the USA are different (as they are in each province of Canada). There are, however, strong similarities amongst many jurisdictions.

And as to the post above about governments wanting to get their hands on some money, the monies involved are, most likely, the Estate taxes that would normally be legally due even if there had been a valid Will, and possibly some administration fees due as compensation for the work performed by the official administrator.

RattyMouse · Dec 25, 2014

Apologies if this has already been scene, but in this link you can hear from the lawyer involved.

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

Vivian Maier @ HGG

Pioneer

Two23

MattKing

Moderator

Steve Smith

blansky

Sirius Glass

blansky

digital&film

John Koehrer

Pioneer

MattKing

Moderator

Two23

Pioneer

bdial

MattKing

Moderator

cowanw

MattKing

Moderator

Alan Klein

Alan Klein

Steve Smith

digital&film

MattKing

Moderator

Pioneer

MattKing

Moderator

RattyMouse

Vivian Maier @ HGG

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency