• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Vivian Maier @ HGG

Latest Gallery

Somewhere...

D
Somewhere...

  • 3
  • 1
  • 71
Iriana

H
Iriana

  • 6
  • 1
  • 137

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,745
Messages
2,844,978
Members
101,494
Latest member
FlyingDutchman
Recent bookmarks
0
Pioneer said:
The other question, what happens if the brother does not appear in 6 years? Does the government remain in possession of the copyrights?
Click to expand...

I'm sure I read somewhere that the US government cannot own copyrights. Is this the case?

EDIT: Here it is:

A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee" of the federal government "as part of that person's official duties.".[1] In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[2] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government

Looks like it only applies to works created by or for the government.


Steve.
 
cowanw said:
Matt, is the copyright validity different in different countries? Is it possible that, for the US, Vivian Maier prints may be like Cuban cigars, only in Canada, you say?
Click to expand...

Bill:

I expect that these sorts of issues would be covered by a combination of international treaties and the sorts of conflicts of laws principles that law professors love.

Essentially, my guess is that copyright is created by the creator of a work, and the laws that apply where that creation took place are honoured by other jurisdictions.

So if Vivian Maier holidayed in Toronto one year, the rules about copyright with respect to the photos she took may be according to Canadian law.
 
True Matt. I live in Quebec and the laws here basically favour the people depicted in the photographs maintain their copyright, unless specifically signed over. And signing over copyright also must include intent on use (say art vs porn vs advertising). But even this has no baring on ownership. I own any photograph I take. I may just have issues showing or selling them. It's a kick in the nads for street photography here.

I agree with what the layer is doing. It is something that should have been carried out before the materiel was initially sold. How that layer deals with the artwork showing vs sales should be up to the rightful owner, which does not seem to tracked down. It seems the layer is acting on principal, not greed. Something rare these days.
 
All I have to say is that lawyers must be different in Canada. They are obviously universally good guys with everyone's best interest at heart.

I understand the role of the Copyright Office.

I understand the role of Cook County and how the trustee plays into this. (Though I wasn't aware that the government had the right to make money from her work when no one else can.)

For the life of me I cannot understand how this lawyer contributed to anything? I guess he alerted Cook County to a pile of money that could be made by licensing the "rights" to Vivian Maier's work.

However, I do understand making money. And obviously it is not alright for John Maloof to make money, though he is the one who actually promoted the asset in such a way that made people interested in purchasing it. If you don't believe that to be true, remember for a moment how much these negatives originally sold for during auction. Now that has been done, it is time for liberals to step in and steal the cash.

Ah well. One of these days, when we have finally discouraged everyone from taking a risk to make some money, we will figure out there is nothing of any worth left to steal.

Such is life I guess.
 
Although an administrator or trustee may be entitled to charge reasonable fees for their work, outside of those fees (which are often related to the amount of income generated), they don't get to "keep" the monies they realize. Those monies are held in trust for the benefit of the heirs who are entitled to the money.

And with respect to Canadian lawyers, while I'd love to tell you that they are all perfect, and altruistic as well, I'm going to have to dissapoint you.

Canadian lawyers are generally interested in a number of things, including making money. But they also generally understand that you don't make a lot of money unless you have or build a good reputation, and have lots of satisfied clients (or one or two large, long term satisfied clients). Canadian lawyers deal with very strict rules and limitations with respect to contracts of retainer that include a "contingency" element (fee based on a percentage of recovery). Our court awards are far smaller than many in the US, and are almost exclusively purely compensatory - almost nothing is awarded for hurt feelings, or suffering, or as a penalty. And if as a lawyer you truly are an "ambulance chaser", you will be in no end of trouble with your Law Society and your insurer, so it is hardly worthwhile.

As I understand it, the environment for lawyers in the US varies a lot between the states, so I expect some states are more like here than others. And Canadian lawyers are generally strictly regulated with respect to the nature of their advertising, which I understand would most likely be unconstitutional in the US, so that probably makes a difference.

Mr. Deal may be in it for the bucks. Certainly Mr. Maloof and the other negative owners seem to be motivated by financial return. None of that bothers me. I just think Mr. Deal is instrumental in putting into motion what should have happened from the beginning.
 
Lawyers are lawyers and their attitude is generally the same. I have yet to meet one that wasn't assessing me as a revenue stream.

My comments were aimed at the general situation and not the actual the lawyer involved. The original seller should have actually found the rightful heir. This is the only real problem that should be rectified. Everything else is just how your legal system deals with it.

I found our laws totally screwed. I cannot find how anyone in public space be protected as if it were their private domain to be fair or even make sence. Are tourists expected to bring model releases every time they take a picture out in a public area? The law here says they do.


So all of this is there is clearly a procedure that Maloof didn't follow and he is now getting in trouble for it. Is this process unfair? Probably. He should have known better. He is lucky he didn't do it here as he would have to get the release for everyone in all the photos.
 
So when do Vivian Maier's copyrights expire? Weren't most of her shots taken in the '60s? Aren't the copyright's on these images almost over?
 
Steve Smith said:
Seventy (or is it fifty?) years after her death.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. In the US the copyright duration starts when the work was created. From Wikipedia: " In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. In the United States, the term for most existing works is a fixed number of years after the date of creation or publication."

From that article it appears that the duration of copyright is severely reduced because Vivian Maier never intended her work to be published. I can't tell exactly how long the copyright for her work would be, but it seems that anything before 1964 is in the public domain. This assumes that the article is up to date in 2014 which may not be true.
 
What happens to the people and the photos already bought by them? If it turns out that Maloof was wrong to sell them, do they have a right to keep them or do they owe money to the legal copyright owner? Or can they keep the photos and is Maloof responsible for reimbursing the legal copyright owner? Or does the trustee and courts make an arbitrary decision?
 
RattyMouse said:
I can't tell exactly how long the copyright for her work would be, but it seems that anything before 1964 is in the public domain. This assumes that the article is up to date in 2014 which may not be true.
Click to expand...

So that would cover quite a lot of her work which is being discussed then. Or is it only the post 1964 images which are being argued about?


Steve.
 
The US Copyright law has various ways to determine the length of the copyright, but in Ms Maier's case I think it is pretty safe to assume that the copyright will be in effect for 70 years after her death. Since she died in 2009 that means that anything she created is copyrighted under her name until 2079.

If she, or an heir, publishes any of her work in that time period the copyright on the published work extends for another 45 years.

If you are waiting for the copyright to expire it might take awhile. :D
 
Pioneer said:
The US Copyright law has various ways to determine the length of the copyright, but in Ms Maier's case I think it is pretty safe to assume that the copyright will be in effect for 70 years after her death. Since she died in 2009 that means that anything she created is copyrighted under her name until 2079.

If she, or an heir, publishes any of her work in that time period the copyright on the published work extends for another 45 years.

If you are waiting for the copyright to expire it might take awhile. :D
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. As already shown, US copyright begins on the date of creation, not the date of death of the creator.
 
303 . Duration of copyright: Works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978

(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302.

§ 302 . Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978

(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cowanw said:
303 . Duration of copyright: Works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 19785

(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302.

§ 302 . Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978

(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.
Click to expand...

Great we are covered before 1 January 19785! What a hoot! :laugh:
 
This is all fine and good... unless you try to apply it to Disney :smile:
 
If your entire, worldwide, multi-billion dollar, business enterprise revolved around a cartoon mouse, you would probably spend a couple of those dollars to try and protect that copyright as well. :smile:
 
True, and it's not Disney's fault that it is granted extensions, loopholes, and other considerations unavailable to the average person (regardless of whether the unavailability be influence, or simply enough revenue to re-protect something in a new guise).
 
Just a shame that the lawyers involved won't respect the departed and have her work displayed and disseminated without legal ramifications.
 
digital&film said:
Just a shame that the lawyers involved won't respect the departed and have her work displayed and disseminated without legal ramifications.
Click to expand...
This is interesting to me, because my reaction to how all the non-lawyers have dealt with this is "how dis-respectful to ignore the distant family, and the interest we all share in protecting copyright".

The exploitation of Viviain Maier's legacy has been delayed by someone insisting on things bekng done properly. The legacy itself will survive, and be displayed and disseminated in due course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom