She did not seem to have the personality to hustle, something quite necessary in the world of professional photography, be it art, photojournalism or commercial.
She did not seem to have the personality to hustle, something quite necessary in the world of professional photography, be it art, photojournalism or commercial.But hardly a break into the art world. That would have been seen as appropriate for someone with a hobby. All I was saying, though, is that it would have been an intimidating prospect for her at that time.
I don't know. She probably could have had a handheld meter but she had a habit of taking a lot of "selfies" and she does not appear to have one with her in those pictures. Most of her pictures appear to be taken during daylight so she was probably capable of reading shadow pretty well for exposure during daytime. For the indoor photos, of which there were some, she probably used a meter of some sort because her indoor photos appear to be pretty well exposed.How do you think she metered, day in and day out............some variation of Sunny 16.?
Or did she use a hand-held.?
I know... but there are literally millions of photographers (think every photographer before the invention of the Kodak camera...) who also used one. Even in the 20th century... Edward Weston, for one... Gordon Parks... Paul Strand... Berenice Abbot... Eugene Atget (and he used his with just one arm!), etc etc etc...But that is what Ansel Adams used.....
Everyone is speculating the way they want to, for either profit or for conscience. The truth has an ugly way of reaching to the surface, she only dies 12 years ago.That is ALL speculation.
I'm of those who believe Van Gogh lost his ear in a fight with his friend Paul Gauguin and lied about cutting it off himself so that Gauguin would not get into trouble with the Police. The man was a heavy drinker and had a notorious mercurial temper.Van Gogh cut off his ear. Now he had problems!
So If she had kept up the payments on her storage until she died, she still would be unknown. Unless her estate or storage unit contents were sold and possibly bought by someone who recognized there might be some value to them. If she had never made any attempts to promote herself up to the point when she forfeited her storage contents during her life, why would you think things would have turned out differntly for her?Everyone is speculating the way they want to, for either profit or for conscience. The truth has an ugly way of reaching to the surface, she only dies 12 years ago.
Wikipedia for what its worth is very vague on the circumstance, but the fact is she was still alive when she forfeited her belongings and was still alive while people were reselling her items. Maloof was a property speculator before changing to proprietor of history and art.
Discovery and recognition
In 2007, two years before she died, Maier failed to keep up payments on storage space she had rented on Chicago's North Side. As a result, her negatives, prints, audio recordings, and 8 mm film were auctioned. Three photo collectors bought parts of her work: John Maloof, Ron Slattery and Randy Prow.[21] Maier's photographs were first published on the internet in July 2008 by Slattery, but the work received little response.]
Would that make it more appealing than the fact that she was still alive when they took her stuff.So If she had kept up the payments on her storage until she died, she still would be unknown. Unless her estate or storage unit contents were sold and possibly bought by someone who recognized there might be some value to them. If she had never made any attempts to promote herself up to the point when she forfeited her storage contents during her life, why would you think things would have turned out differntly for her?
Your rights for privacy die when you cant pay the rent any more, apparently.There's no reason to think she took photos for any reason other than wanting to take photos. And there's no reason to think she left film undeveloped other than she didn't think, at the end of the roll, there was anything particularly interesting on it and so wasn't worth the expense. Anything else is more appropriate for Popular Psychology. The motivations of dead people, especially unknown dead people, get buried along with them.
Your rights for privacy die when you cant pay the rent any more, apparently.
I understand she forfeits her possessions, but does that mean she also forfeits her right of anonymity?Legally, she forfeited her claim to her goods when she failed to keep up payment on the storage locker. That allowed them to sell the contents and the buyer was then free to resell or use any of it. That meant any original prints were fair to sell without any compensation for her. Reproduction, as you already said, was subject to copyright law. But, yes, her right to keep that particular stuff private did blow away when she stopped paying. It's something she agreed to when she rented the place.
I understand she forfeits her possessions, but does that mean she also forfeits her right of anonymity?
Would that make it more appealing than the fact that she was still alive when they took her stuff.
She allegedly slipped on frozen concrete path and hit her head and died a few weeks afterwards from a brain hemorrhage. If she wasnt so depressed about losing all her stuff she might of not slipped on the concrete lived on and opened a Instagram account and had 100 thousand followers.
More importantly what would of happened if they tracked her down while she was still alive (wouldn't been hard they knew her name and new the storage place) and she told them to go to hell and give her stuff back. As far as Im aware they only tried to find her when they realized they needed copy right to reproduce her work.....but it makes everyone feel better to think of her as a feeble minded Mary Poppins character who secretly dreamed of one day being famous.....like we all do
The entire multi-year thread is interesting - excluding of course my posts about probate law and lawyers.
You know, she's dead and can't give a flying fk about any of this.
You know, she's dead and can't give a flying fk about any of this. The only ones upset are some distant, alienated relatives dug up by money grabbing lawyers to try to wring some cash from those who brought her work to market at their own expense and effort. Why any of you care is beyond me, it does not relate to anything in your world, does it? Got a storage unit full of undiscovered masterworks you've been planning to unleash on the world as dementia sets in?
It is hard to explain why I care a lot about this stuff, but I do.You know, she's dead and can't give a flying fk about any of this. The only ones upset are some distant, alienated relatives dug up by money grabbing lawyers to try to wring some cash from those who brought her work to market at their own expense and effort. Why any of you care is beyond me, it does not relate to anything in your world, does it? Got a storage unit full of undiscovered masterworks you've been planning to unleash on the world as dementia sets in?
The fact that Maier never tried to make any money from her street photos gives an indication that she did not value them (or the affiliated copyrights) monetarily during her lifetime. She was alienated or ignored by her distant family and her estate would have been valueless had not Maloof and others brought it to life. The violation of copyrights and intellectual property is much more despicable and harmful for artists who are living and value their work. What Maloof et al have done is nothing compared to, say, Robert Prince. Or Jeff Koons and the rights of photographers Art Rogers and Frank Davidovici.It is hard to explain why I care a lot about this stuff, but I do.
Copyright protection matters to me as a theoretical issue, which means that someone who appropriates the benefit of copyright that doesn't belong to them bothers me.
And copyright is one of the types of estate assets that is both potentially high in value, and definitely most complex.
Seeing how the copyright and estate rules were skirted in the Vivian Maier case by John Maloof and others bothers me like a piece of food stuck in my teeth bothers me.
IMHO.........it would be helpful if you would give us the high-lights of your opinion on this..
Seeing how the copyright and estate rules were skirted in the Vivian Maier case by John Maloof and others bothers me like a piece of food stuck in my teeth bothers me.
Nice friend he had. Oh wait. Gauguin was an artist too.I'm of those who believe Van Gogh lost his ear in a fight with his friend Paul Gauguin and lied about cutting it off himself so that Gauguin would not get into trouble with the Police. The man was a heavy drinker and had a notorious mercurial temper.
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?