NYT: Legal Battle Over Vivian Maier’s Work

[David Karp]

An interesting article about an alleged heir claiming rights to Vivian Maier's photographs: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/ar...work.html?_r=0

[Peter Lewin]

I'm afraid I'm a little too cynical to believe that David Deal, the lawyer who tracked down the "second heir" and triggered the law suit, is doing this simply because he finds it to be an interesting case. Too soon to predict whether the outcome will make Ms. Maier's work more appreciated, or if it will drop out of sight due to forced "inactivity."

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm afraid I'm a little too cynical to believe that David Deal, the lawyer who tracked down the "second heir" and triggered the law suit, is doing this simply because he finds it to be an interesting case. Too soon to predict whether the outcome will make Ms. Maier's work more appreciated, or if it will drop out of sight due to forced "inactivity."

You think?

[David Karp]

Yes. It is hard to believe that he hired a genealogist and hunted for a descendant out of curiosity alone.

[chuckcars]

David Deal got the ball rolling. Good for him and his sense of knowing right from wrong. What I find interesting about this is the very high importance of the intellectual property rights ownership. Copyright is so very, very, meaningful. Watch this case.

[cyrus]

Well naturally the lawyer probably did not do so out of a sense of charity nor should anyone expect that, since that's not how our system works like it or not.

The substance of the dispute is more interesting than the lawyer's motivations though. Apart from arguing over who is a closer relative, I suppose it could be argued that the work was abandoned? But that would be very hard to prove, since the defense would have to prove an "intent" to abandon the work plus an "overt act" that shows that intent. I think she just simply passed away without making any arrangements for her work.

The sad thing is that now her work will not be shown anymore, maybe never, and other found artwork by dead people that deserve more attention, will not be promoted for fear that some guy in France may end up being the artist's fourth-cousin twice removed who had never even heard of the artist but sees a chance to make a buck by suing anyone who actually makes the effort to promote the work. Would Maeir have wanted some distant relative benefiting from her efforts, or would she have preferred it to be disseminated as widely as possible?


The real problem here is the WAYYY too lengthy period of copyright protection, thanks to lobbying by corporations like Disney who want to protect Mickey Mouse as an income source for as long as possible. If I ran the world, the cousin in France would have a legal obligation to actively seek out and assert his rights to the artwork with a certain period after the artist's death or else it becomes public domain, instead of him simply benefiting from a windfall decades later. After all this isn't "just" property like a piece of land or a car that should have gone to a living descendant - intellectual property laws are also supposed to protect society's interest in the free exchange of ideas too not just the creator's heir's property interests.

[jcoldslabs]

This part intrigues me:

"Under federal copyright law, owning a photograph’s negative or a print is distinct from owning the copyright itself. The copyright owner controls whether images can be reproduced and sold."

If I understand this correctly, copyright grants Maier's heirs the right to reproduce and profit from her images but does not grant them ownership of the negatives themselves. Does this mean that, in theory, the people who own the negatives could destroy them with impunity if they wanted to? It seems to me the copyright owners and the negative owners need to come to an agreement or both will be stuck in some kind of permanent stalemate.

Jonathan

[richardman]

Well yes, Maloof and the others own the negatives, that's not the issue. Just another ambulance chaser. Too bad. Since these relatives do not own the negatives, they can never make any prints.

Worse for most of us though, is that even the status of the books could be in question.

BTW, if you have not seen the Maloof film, do it. It's quite a good story already, without this addition twist.

[muihlinn]

Since the " found star " story popped out the news all of it looked like an attempt of making as much money as they could more than bringing to light a great work. This had to happen sooner or later. And is not the only case.

[EdSawyer]

About time someone put a stop to maloof and the other carpetbagging dilletante profiteers and their endless money grubbing. The gaucheness of d-bag maloof attempting to gain copyright is galling. Smacks of the money grubbing surrounding Henry Darger's work, by his landlords.