Yes indeed.......
I ordered a used copy of this book, for not much money.
I had never heard mention of it before. Thanks for making it known.
Yes indeed.......Sad to see that she's known here more thru legal scandalizing than for her photos and the way she lived.
I ordered a used copy of this book, for not much money.When this thread started, very little was well known about the way she lived, and the photos which were known actually were a very small (and slightly misleading) subset of her photography.
Professor Bannos' book reveals so much more about her, and a lot of it makes John Maloof's efforts seem calculating in the extreme.
Bringing back to life this 5+ year quiet thread, I thought it appropriate to add a postscript.
I just finished reading a 2017 book by author and photography professor Pamela Bannos titled "Vivian Maier - A Photographer's Life and Afterlife".
It is absolutely fascinating.
Professor Bannos seems to have exhaustively researched information about Vivian Maier and her life and photography, along with the activities of Mr. Maloof, Jeffrey Goldstein and others who obtained so much of her photography.
If I understand correctly, it was as a result of Professor Bannos' research that the fate of Vivian Maier's brother was ascertained - he apparently pre-deceased Ms. Maier, having died while a resident of a psychiatric institution.
The original 5 storage lockers of her photography, documents and books were sold at auction for $260. The contents together weighed four tons!
Those contents were subsequently re-sold at auction, in various lots, the sale proceeds of which totaled to $20,000.00
The purchasers then set about spreading the contents into the hands of many, many people, including Mr. Maloof and Jeffrey Goldstein.
The historical information about Vivian Maier presents her as a much more accomplished and interesting person and photographer than Mr. Maloof's movie presents.
And it is unlikely that Mr. Maloof's choice of "heir" for the estate is the only heir.
not either, sign up garbage again
I hope you're not suggesting that $1,000 an hour is fair compensation, not $500 either. How many cases are out there where victim wound up collecting less than half of a settlement?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?
You should best read the book and then you will know there is far more to the story.The only thing i know about Mr Maloof is that be bought a bunch of stuff...
.
The only thing i know about Mr Maloof is that be bought a bunch of stuff, and then "promoted" some of that "stuff".
Did he do anything that could be called Wrong or Underhanded.?
I always felt like........ somebody forfeited their storage, he bought it legally, and in that storage was a winning lottery ticket.
If this were not a photo forum, would "You" feel untoward about Mr Maloof.?
If Maloof kept the box to himself, he would have the right to keep and/or sell it at whatever price. He instead decided to make a long term profit game out of this, while spinning Maier's life to fit his rhetoric.The only thing i know about Mr Maloof is that be bought a bunch of stuff, and then "promoted" some of that "stuff".
Did he do anything that could be called Wrong or Underhanded.?
I always felt like........ somebody forfeited their storage, he bought it legally, and in that storage was a winning lottery ticket.
If this were not a photo forum, would "You" feel untoward about Mr Maloof.?
Sad to see that she's known here more thru legal scandalizing than for her photos and the way she lived.
Who does own It/Them.?This being a photo forum, and the items in question being photographs and negatives, are exactly the issue. You can buy photos/negatives in a storage auction, but not the copyrights.
Her estate owns the copyrights. The benefit of those copyrights are currently held in trust for the benefit of her heirs - just like any other estate that hasn't been finalized.Who does own It/Them.?
There is some interesting discussion about that documentary in the book.You should best read the book and then you will know there is far more to the story.
There was an interesting BBC documentary, but that seems to have disappeared......like a lot of things to do with Maier.
I won't argue this point here.I hope you're not suggesting that $1,000 an hour is fair compensation, not $500 either. How many cases are out there where victim wound up collecting less than half of a settlement?
While existence of laws requires lawyers in principle, it is the lawyers who can only blame themselves for having reputation they have worked the hardest to achieve.
The small percentage of lawyers who are actually not morally corrupt and hardly heard the word greed are few and far between. And what once was this applicable to US market alone on such a vast scale, it is now the case virtually everywhere.
Hey Matt... Thank YouHer estate owns the copyrights. The benefit of those copyrights are currently held in trust for the benefit of her heirs - just like any other estate that hasn't been finalized.
It is difficult to finalize the estate, because the succession rights are complex, and because the assets have been both enhanced and depreciated by the intervening actions of many, many people.
1. Was that process, initially, (to verify heirs and estate) ever undertaken.
Not initially, or at least not to the necessary extent. The court action commenced by Mr. Deal on behalf of his client would have essentially forced such efforts.
2. Do you think Mr Maloof was aware of the law(s) or did anybody tell him not to pursue the printing of the negs and selling of the pictures.
Yes. The book includes discussion of early Facebook activity where he participated in public discussions that included appropriate advice.
Do you or the book think he was pushing the boundaries of the law.
I think that the estate's claim made against him (and others) that they disgorge profits earned from the use of copyrighted material where they were not entitled to those copyrights is at least a strong claim. For clarity, it is a civil claim, seeking compensation and injunctive relief, not a criminal law allegation.
Here's where she first surfaced for some. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12247395
Lawyers have fouled her legacy, turned her life into coin.
She didnt give a "legacy", she forfeited her stuff because she couldn't keep up the payments. There's is no indication she ever wanted to share her private works.Her legacy has become gossip about lawsuits.
The book talks about this too.She didnt give a "legacy", she forfeited her stuff because she couldn't keep up the payments.
I doubt it is stealingWhich is steeling, hope they can prove they tried to make contact and offered a payment plan. Thats far worse than breaching copyright.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?