Legal dispute over ownership of Maier work

[Sparrow]

With all due respect, who gives a *** about "what was originally intended by the founding fathers of the US?

Copyright law has moved on since then, and is the (sometimes shaky) consensus of signatories to international conventions -- not (North American) state-by-state interpretations of vague declarations of intent. The first copyright law (as far as I am aware) was in 1710 -- http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html

Cheers,

R.

.. all very true, but where would you expect to find the most lawyers now?

 

[Roger Hicks]

In the U.S. work was only protected from the time it was published, not created. Which lead to all sorts of problems in enforcing copyrights internationally. It's why Gilbert and Sullivan had to arrange to debut Pirates of Penzance in New York instead of England - to secure copyright in the U.S. before the work could be "pirated" by imitators.

For full information about U.S. copyright terms, here's some official documentation: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

When V.M. took many of her photos, they would have needed to have been registered to be protected. But so far as I know (and I may be wrong) none of her photos were ever published anywhere during that era. The changes in U.S. copyright law in the 1970s offered some retroactive protection to unregistered works. And the current law is all works are protected from the date of their creation, up until 70 years after the author's death.

But works which were published but not registered in the era when registration was necessary can fall into the public domain, as is the case of movies like the original Night of the Living Dead or the American release of Atoll K.

Ah: I am almost 100% sure you are right (the remaining 0.0000001% is because I'm too lazy to look it up). Thanks for the reminder.

Then again, "published" is open to interpretation. Again I'm too lazy to look it up but I seem to recall there are cases that interpret "published" as meaning "made available to the public" or even "shown to anyone else", though with some of VM's stuff even these lax interpretations might not matter much.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

.. all very true, but where would you expect to find the most lawyers now?

I would be reasonably confident that there are far more lawyers in the rest of the world put together than there are in the United States, so when it comes to interpretations of international treaties such as the Berne Convention, I don't think American lawyers enjoy any preeminence.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

I would be reasonably confident that there are far more lawyers in the rest of the world put together than there are in the United States, so when it comes to interpretations of international treaties such as the Berne Convention, I don't think American lawyers enjoy any preeminence.

Cheers,

R.

ah! ... I should have said 'country per capita'

P. S. I recon Luxembourg myself

 

[Lauffray]

That's what the dispute is about: whether he is in fact acting legally or not.

Cheers,

R.

Some were pretty convinced, early on in the thread, that it was legal. I don't know the specifics of the law and I'm not too interested in what's barely legal, what I'm interested in is opinions.

 

[Pioneer]

Ok, though I fail to understand what opinion will prove, here is mine.

Opinion #1: His activities have been entirely legal since the material purchased had been contractually abandoned by the original owner and legally sold by the owner of the storage shed.

Opinion #2: I am very glad that Ms Maier took these pictures, regardless of whether she was driven to do so or not. I believe that she has demonstrated an eye for composition, and a technical ability to properly expose that composition, to produce photographs of rare beauty and humanity.

Opinion #3: I think we should all feel grateful that it was John Maloof who purchased, and recognized the value, of many of the negatives in the shed. First, he had the resources to take the necessary steps to publicize Ms Maier's work. Even if she had been so inclined I don't believe she could have financially done this. Second, Mr. Maloof not only had the resources, he had the necessary ingenuity, contacts, and personal drive to do this. Again, even had Ms. Maier wanted to publicize her own work I don't believe she had the want to push through a business of this sort. BTW, this is not uncommon. There are numerous stories of inventors who were able to create amazing things but had no head to run a business.

Opinion #4: I consider Mr. Deal to be one of those legal trolls that are always on the lookout for some condition where there is a chance to latch onto and profit from other's hard work.

Opinion #5: I believe that to question whether I believe that John Maloof has a "moral" right to profit from Ms. Maier's work is a true example of trolling in its own right. He has every right to profit from his investment, morally or otherwise.

 

[Scrambler]

Opinion #5: I believe that to question whether I believe that John Maloof has a "moral" right to profit from Ms. Maier's work is a true example of trolling in its own right. He has every right to profit from his investment, morally or otherwise.

i knew a guy who did some perfectly legal work for a friend and the friend paid him in cocaine. Was the worker now entitled to "profit from his investment, morally or otherwise?"

 

[NY_Dan]

Ok, though I fail to understand what opinion will prove, here is mine.

Opinion #1: His activities have been entirely legal since the material purchased had been contractually abandoned by the original owner and legally sold by the owner of the storage shed.

Opinion #2: I am very glad that Ms Maier took these pictures, regardless of whether she was driven to do so or not. I believe that she has demonstrated an eye for composition, and a technical ability to properly expose that composition, to produce photographs of rare beauty and humanity.

Opinion #3: I think we should all feel grateful that it was John Maloof who purchased, and recognized the value, of many of the negatives in the shed. First, he had the resources to take the necessary steps to publicize Ms Maier's work. Even if she had been so inclined I don't believe she could have financially done this. Second, Mr. Maloof not only had the resources, he had the necessary ingenuity, contacts, and personal drive to do this. Again, even had Ms. Maier wanted to publicize her own work I don't believe she had the want to push through a business of this sort. BTW, this is not uncommon. There are numerous stories of inventors who were able to create amazing things but had no head to run a business.

Opinion #4: I consider Mr. Deal to be one of those legal trolls that are always on the lookout for some condition where there is a chance to latch onto and profit from other's hard work.

Opinion #5: I believe that to question whether I believe that John Maloof has a "moral" right to profit from Ms. Maier's work is a true example of trolling in its own right. He has every right to profit from his investment, morally or otherwise.

A breath of sanity in a sea of envy. 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

It's really rather perverse to be paying a guy money for exploiting work he didn't make, when there are plenty of creators who could benefit from such attention while they're still alive.

So, how about all of the galleries that sell work from all well known photographers that are dead? Is that perverse? Is selling a Cartier-Bresson perverse?

These photographers sell because the work is great. Many people benefit off of artists...not just the artists. I would like to think that, while she did not get paid to do her work, she loved it and it was fulfilling for her. I'm sure she would have liked someone to see it. Just maybe not in the way it has been.

 

[Lauffray]

Opinion #5: I believe that to question whether I believe that John Maloof has a "moral" right to profit from Ms. Maier's work is a true example of trolling in its own right. He has every right to profit from his investment, morally or otherwise.

With all due respect I don't think that's trolling, we're simply discussing a current event.
Maloof certainly doesn't care about our opinions, no one here is trying to harass or provoke him, nor pass judgment.

 

[Lauffray]

So, how about all of the galleries that sell work from all well known photographers that are dead? Is that perverse? Is selling a Cartier-Bresson perverse?

These photographers sell because the work is great. Many people benefit off of artists...not just the artists. I would like to think that, while she did not get paid to do her work, she loved it and it was fulfilling for her. I'm sure she would have liked someone to see it. Just maybe not in the way it has been.

I hear you John, like I said earlier, surely Van Gogh would have liked a cut of the millions his paintings sell for today. To me the grey area is that from what we know about her life, it's unclear what her intentions were. She tried once to make postcards, but for the majority of her life was very protective of them.
Of course you can be more pragmatic and say, well she's dead, so what ?

A breath of sanity in a sea of envy. 🙂

That reminds me of one of the interviewees in the movie, I don't know if you saw it, he tells Maloof "Yeah, I wish I found those negatives instead of you"

 

[Pioneer]

i knew a guy who did some perfectly legal work for a friend and the friend paid him in cocaine. Was the worker now entitled to "profit from his investment, morally or otherwise?"

Sure. If the guy has the legal right to own and distribute cocaine. If not, then some other form of payment should have been arranged because IMHO accepting payment in that form changed the transaction from a legal one to an illegal one.

 

[Pioneer]

With all due respect I don't think that's trolling, we're simply discussing a current event.
Maloof certainly doesn't care about our opinions, no one here is trying to harass or provoke him, nor pass judgment.

You did ask for my opinion. You are certainly entitled to your own.

 

[Scrambler]

Sure. If the guy has the legal right to own and distribute cocaine. If not, then some other form of payment should have been arranged because IMHO accepting payment in that form changed the transaction from a legal one to an illegal one.

I agree. And the question as to whether Maloof's sale of prints is based on ownership of the intellectual property or not alters his behaviour from ordinary commerce to ordinary theft. We aren't in a position to determine whether the cousin who signed over the rights to him owned them: the courts will.

 

[Pioneer]

I agree. And the question as to whether Maloof's sale of prints is based on ownership of the intellectual property or not alters his behaviour from ordinary commerce to ordinary theft. We aren't in a position to determine whether the cousin who signed over the rights to him owned them: the courts will.

Truly.

But, in my opinion ownership of said property was abandoned by the owner, Ms Maier, when she failed to uphold the contract between her and the owner of the storage shed. At that point ownership transferred. Especially as it transferred prior to her own death.

Of course we are still in the arena of opinion. The legal resolution will obviously be reached by others, no matter our own opinions. As I have learned repeatedly, justice or "morality" has no place in our court system, or many other court systems I suspect. Rather it is in the interpretation by lawyers, of laws written by other lawyers. In any other endeavor this would be considered collusion, but in this situation I am sure (sarcasm alert) that these lawyers have our own benefit in mind.

😱

 

[tunalegs]

Opinion #1: His activities have been entirely legal since the material purchased had been contractually abandoned by the original owner and legally sold by the owner of the storage shed.

The entire problem is that she was storing negatives - not intellectual property.

This is not particularly difficult to understand. If I take a photo, put the negative in a box that says "free photo negative" - and somebody takes that negative - they have every right to that negative. But they have no right to the copyright just because they got the negative.

Not exactly rocket science. 🙂

It's just like if anybody here sold a print to somebody. You're selling that particular copy of the photo. You're not selling the right to make copies of that photo for profit. Maloof has every right to own the negatives he bought. He has every right to display or sell them however he wants. But that doesn't mean he has the right to make copies to sell. That's where one crosses over from "free enterprise" and into pirating. He knows this. He did after all make an attempt to find Vivian, and then make an attempt to find a living heir. He even made a deal with somebody who he believed to be the closest living relative.

Maloof is perfectly aware apparently, that there is a genuine issue regarding copyright here. He is smart enough to know that simply buying old photos and negs doesn't give one copyright. The only problem is - right now - nobody is entirely sure who actually inherited the copyrights.

Amusingly, according to some here in this thread, Maloof must hate free enterprise and the American way for even having any questions, instead of just making grabs for money at any cost and damn the ethics of it all.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A breath of sanity in a sea of envy. 🙂

This bizarre use of "envy" keeps coming up. What are we supposed to be "envying"?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

The entire problem is that she was storing negatives - not intellectual property.

This is not particularly difficult to understand. If I take a photo, put the negative in a box that says "free photo negative" - and somebody takes that negative - they have every right to that negative. But they have no right to the copyright just because they got the negative.

Not exactly rocket science. 🙂

It's just like if anybody here sold a print to somebody. You're selling that particular copy of the photo. You're not selling the right to make copies of that photo for profit. Maloof has every right to own the negatives he bought. He has every right to display or sell them however he wants. But that doesn't mean he has the right to make copies to sell. That's where one crosses over from "free enterprise" and into pirating. He knows this. He did after all make an attempt to find Vivian, and then make an attempt to find a living heir. He even made a deal with somebody who he believed to be the closest living relative.

Maloof is perfectly aware apparently, that there is a genuine issue regarding copyright here. He is smart enough to know that simply buying old photos and negs doesn't give one copyright. The only problem is - right now - nobody is entirely sure who actually inherited the copyrights.

Amusingly, according to some here in this thread, Maloof must hate free enterprise and the American way for even having any questions, instead of just making grabs for money at any cost and damn the ethics of it all.

... I feel confident that a contract lawyer's opinion would depend on the Terms and Conditions of the contract between the storage company and Ms Maier, and I bet that those T and C would almost certainly include intellectual rights in case of a breach of contract (none payment).

So Mr Deal will be challenging ownership under the US equivalent to Britain's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations is a £200 an hour sandpit for lawyers to play in

 

[Roger Hicks]

So, how about all of the galleries that sell work from all well known photographers that are dead? Is that perverse? Is selling a Cartier-Bresson perverse? . . .

Owning and selling copies is perfectly legal. Making copies isn't, unless you own the copyright. "Copyright" is literally the right to make copies.

To answer others' points, under present law it is almost certainly impossible to "abandon" intellectual property. You can give it away deliberately, but you can't abandon it.

As in the previous on-again, off-again thread about her work, there are grievous conflations going on here.

Yes, she was a good photographer, but this is at best tangentially relevant to the nature of celebrity and hype.

Yes, we are all more or less glad to have seen her pictures, but this is irrelevant to the ownership of copyright.

If Maloof were not making quite so much money out of it, quite so blatantly, he wouldn't be inviting other money-grubbers (especially lawyers) who want a share of that money. You can call this envy if you like, or you can more accurately call it a regard for the law; for intellectual property; and for common decency, where the cash nexus is not the basis for every single aspect of human interaction.

It's easy to be wise after the event, but if he'd set up a charitable VM Foundation, with himself as chief trustee and (well remunerated) director, and a reasonable wedge of the money going into (say) an annual prize for street photography, or some sort of not-for-profit publishing, it's unlikely there'd have been much trouble. In fact he'd probably have been hailed as a hero.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

... I feel confident that a contract lawyer's opinion would depend on the Terms and Conditions of the contract between the storage company and Ms Maier, and I bet that those T and C would almost certainly include intellectual rights in case of a breach of contract (none payment).

So Mr Deal will be challenging ownership under the US equivalent to Britain's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations is a £200 an hour sandpit for lawyers to play in

Dear Stewart,

I'd be surprised if they didn't in future, and I'd be even more surprised if they had in the past. What is the likelihood of anyone storing intellectual property in a mini-storage? In any case, it is more than arguable that she wasn't storing the intellectual property there. After all, what would that mean? You can store the physical evidence of that intellectual property, but you can't store the intellectual property itself, as it has no physical existence.

You needn't even rely on statute (though the one you quote would be fun). Common old equity would suffice. Quite honestly, I can't weep for Maloof's treatment at the hands of greedy lawyers, as from all I've seen, he's been pretty greedy himself; though of course I may be wrong, as I am not privy to the full details of what happened.

Cheers,

R.