Vivian Maier @ HGG

[CMoore]

Sad to see that she's known here more thru legal scandalizing than for her photos and the way she lived.

Yes indeed.......

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

The book is fascinating, but it is more of a reference and investigation than it is a "best seller".
And unlike just about everything else out there about Vivian Maier, it isn't centred around reproduced photographs.
There certainly are photographs in there, and many of them are excellent illustrations of the varieties of photography she engaged in, but they are equally as likely to be photographs of her ancestors and members of her distant family, or photographs of the parts of her memorabilia and photography collected by others.
I do like the fact that Professor Bannos sought and obtained permission from the Estate of Vivian Maier for the publication of each and every Vivian Maier photograph contained in the book.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Thanks for bringing this book to my attention, Matt. I'll have to see if it's at Coquitlam public library...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It's also here:

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

not either, sign up garbage again

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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?

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.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Seems like some defend Mr. Maloof here, perhaps I'm reading those posts wrong. Yet a lot of greed talk about the lawyer. To me Mr Maloof was at least aa greedy as any lawyer to ever sit on Vivian Maier's case. Over the years many have credited him for floating Maier's photography, but everything I've read that came from Mr. Maloof side, was little else than self promotion on the back of someone who did all the work, and was no longer around for either supporting or defending whatever Maloof came up with, in order to drive promotion, sales and all in support of his own sense of greed.

Maloof brags too much about his role in bringing the photographs out, yet he did it for one reason only, which had nothing to do with philanthropic undertones he wants everyone to believe. While he may be the one who put Maier's work out, he is not the one to make or deserves all the claims he's been trying for all these years.

All in all, it is a shame that Maier's work had not been published when she was still around, at least there would be nobody crediting himself for accomplishments he had zero to do with, and that is what Maloof has been at ever since that box of negatives wound up in his hands.

 

[CMoore]

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.?

 

[awty]

The only thing i know about Mr Maloof is that be bought a bunch of stuff...
.

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.

 

[DonJ]

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.?

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.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.
I hope the negatives will be yanked out of his hands and put into MOMA's or somebody where many would feel more comfortable for what they are.

To me, Maloof has gone so far publishing Maier already, he should not be allowed to pull back and rest on his laurels, unless he gives up what he bought by donating them all, retract all claims he's been making, and remain forgotten.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Vivians negatives are in good hands...

 

[jtk]

Sad to see that she's known here more thru legal scandalizing than for her photos and the way she lived.

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.

 

[CMoore]

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.

Who does own It/Them.?

 

[MattKing]

Who does own It/Them.?

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.
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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

There is some interesting discussion about that documentary in the book.

 

[MattKing]

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.

I won't argue this point here.
I will say that I know many, many lawyers. And I know how much they help people, how many of their clients are grateful for them, how difficult (and expensive!) it is to make a living as a lawyer and how few lawyers there are (amongst the many who practice) who become financially "rich" as a result of their practicing law.
A very tiny portion of lawyers actually work as litigators - it is a niche specialty that attracts a small number of practitioners and a skewed amount of interest and attention from the non-lawyer public.
I stopped practising several years ago. I don't miss the late night calls from people in trouble desperately seeking help.

 

[CMoore]

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.
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.

Hey Matt... Thank You

Like i said, i bought the book and look forward to reading it
Just for the sake of discussion here, and without having to wear-out your fingers and keyboard.....

1. Was that process, initially, (to verify heirs and estate) ever undertaken.

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. Do you or the book think he was pushing the boundaries of the law.

You get the gist of what i am asking. It would be interesting to hear your opinion.

Thanks Again

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[CMoore]

10-4..... Thank You

 

[jtk]

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.

Her legacy has become gossip about lawsuits.

 

[awty]

Her legacy has become gossip about lawsuits.

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 work would be far more powerful if it was presented in context to what type of person she really was instead of the "Mary Poppins" fantasy.

 

[MattKing]

She didnt give a "legacy", she forfeited her stuff because she couldn't keep up the payments.

The book talks about this too.
There is a very good chance that her account went into arrears because the ownership of the storage facility changed, along with its name, banking arrangements and contact information and her diminishing capabilities resulted in her not being able to understand that she needed to change her payment arrangements.

 

[awty]

Which is steeling, hope they can prove they tried to make contact and offered a payment plan. Thats far worse than breaching copyright.
Before she had the "accident" and died she was showing signs of deep depression which can affect your cognitive function, but doesnt necessarily mean she had dementia.
Its a pity the BBC documentary has gone as it was very insightful.
Think there's going to be a few more books come out in coming years.
I at first didn't have much appreciation of her pictures, but after watching the documentary I have a different view and would love to someday see them in a context of how she really was..

 

[Kino]

Like Orson Welles said, " Oh how they will love me when I am dead."

If you plan to be famous post-lifetime, have a good will and an institution lined-up to protect your work.

Not a problem I'll have to worry too much about, but others on here should heed the warning...

 

[MattKing]

Which is steeling, hope they can prove they tried to make contact and offered a payment plan. Thats far worse than breaching copyright.

I doubt it is stealing
If the law is anything like here, the onus is heavily on the tenant to make sure that payment is made. Those storage locker terms, and the responsibilities of the tenant are pretty clear. If the tenant doesn't respond to a contractually provided notice of a change in rate or payment method, then the "landlord" is entitled to take possession of the contents, send and publish notice of intention to auction off those contents and, if payment is not provided within the statutory notice period (30 days apparently in the Chicago area), then the landlord is entitled to proceed with the sale.