Legal dispute over ownership of Maier work

[Sparrow]

... I had a quick read through a couple of storage company terms and conditions, and in the event of none payment both said the company would acquire 'all rights' to the goods.

So there is an argument to be had about the meaning of the term 'all rights' I expect ... the Brooklyn bridge however has been out of copyright for many years

 

[tunalegs]

... I had a quick read through a couple of storage company terms and conditions, and in the event of none payment both said the company would acquire 'all rights' to the goods.

Something tells me if it were so simple to just get the rights from the storage company, Maloof would have done so in the first place. I'd imagine this wording has its limits at physical and tangible rights. Just as it would have its limits in the event the stored property were stolen etc.

 

[NY_Dan]

Dear Dan,

Steer clear of legal opinions.

If you steal my car, even if I don't immediately know it's gone and even if the police don't catch you, it's still a theft.

If you damage my crops, even if I don't discover the damage until weeks later, the damage is still a tort and I can go after you for damages.

And what you call "the copyright office" is irrelevant: this is a civil matter, a tort.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, you have offended my honor (what little of it I have). Therefore in open court (RFF) I challenge you to a Photo-Off (a nerdy duel). In a separate thread, we will each submit our 10 favorite photos (made within the past 4 years) -- there will be a poll -- and members can vote on a winner. The looser will be barred (voluntarily of course because the "punishment" should be as enforceable as Deal's hollow warnings) from weighing in (posting) to threads regarding VM copyright and over-rated threads.

Sir do you accept? You have been challenged to put your camera where your mouth is! Good-day, I said Good-day sir! (couldn't resist a Gene Wilder Willy Wonka closing line). 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_TYom5_gDk

By the way your analogies really aren't very good -- a car one has title to, crops -- one has title to the land and paid for the seed -- both titles are registered and clear. Two possible distant relatives do not have a registered or unchallenged copyright to VM's photos -- one has signed an agreement with Maloof - in legalease: ipso facto delicatessen! -- that relative may be a closer lineage than the other. If one's car or crops are stolen the sheriff will make an arrest. No arrest can be made in VM's case because there is no judgement or proof of ownership. So until such occurs, no crime has been committed. Now lets get on with the challenge and pony up your 10 photos!

 

[mdg137]

... I had a quick read through a couple of storage company terms and conditions, and in the event of none payment both said the company would acquire 'all rights' to the goods.

So there is an argument to be had about the meaning of the term 'all rights' I expect ... the Brooklyn bridge however has been out of copyright for many years

I would think, the legal interpretation of "all rights" would be rights to the physical objects-- I did a quick search and I don't see any case law directly on point, but I'm pretty certain that would be the ruling on that issue-- if it came to worst case scenario, I think a court would, simply for public policy reasons limit the rights to ownership of the physical object.

 

[Sparrow]

Something tells me if it were so simple to just get the rights from the storage company, Maloof would have done so in the first place. I'd imagine this wording has its limits at physical and tangible rights. Just as it would have its limits in the event the stored property were stolen etc.

... well, no. All rights is just what it says it is, one can put anything in a contract and it's binding, so all rights is just that, all rights.

The question is whether that clause (the all rights bit) is fair under the US version of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Theft is a completely different thing, theft is a crime, copyright infringement is a civil legal liability.

 

[mdg137]

... well, no. All rights is just what it says it is, one can put anything in a contract and it's binding, so all rights is just that, all rights.

Well, that isnt exactly true either- a contract can be voided for any number of reasons, including vagueness of a term, or illegality.

By your reasoning, if I rent a storage unit, and stuff it with prints (actual film reels) of motion pictures, patented products, etc-- and then default, the storage company would the acquire the right to produce ipods complete with apple trademarks, (or actually, to prevent others from producing), to start running duplicate prints of Pulp Fiction and distributing them, etc.

That just isnt the case. The meaning of the clause would be addressed, and divined.

Ive done enough trials where the judge very specifically looked beyond the simple wording of the contract to the intent therein.

Again, WORST case scenario, a court would limit that clause simply as a matter of public policy.

One could posit that the clause addresses only those rights held by the individual bound by the contract, but that isnt what you are arguing-- which is a strict adherence to the text.

 

[Sparrow]

Well, that isnt exactly true either- a contract can be voided for any number of reasons, including vagueness of a term, or illegality.

By your reasoning, if I rent a storage unit, and stuff it with prints (actual film reels) of motion pictures, patented products, etc-- and then default, the storage company would the acquire the right to produce ipods complete with apple trademarks, (or actually, to prevent others from producing), to start running duplicate prints of Pulp Fiction and distributing them, etc.

That just isnt the case. The meaning of the clause would be addressed, and divined.

Ive done enough trials where the judge very specifically looked beyond the simple wording of the contract to the intent therein.

Again, WORST case scenario, a court would limit that clause simply as a matter of public policy.

One could posit that the clause addresses only those rights held by the individual bound by the contract, but that isnt what you are arguing-- which is a strict adherence to the text.

In general terms yes I agree, and I realise copyright is more complex in the US ... but in this case where the contract was signed by the legitimate holder of the copyright? ... and efforts had been made to find said holder or heir? I would still say unfair T and C would be the way to go

Clearly the storage company could only acquire such rights as their customer possessed

 

[tunalegs]

In general terms yes I agree, and I realise copyright is more complex in the US ... but in this case where the contract was signed by the legitimate holder of the copyright? ... and efforts had been made to find said holder or heir? I would still say unfair T and C would be the way to go

Clearly the storage company could only acquire such rights as their customer possessed

I would wonder how, practically, they could acquire intellectual property or transfer it to another owner, if no tangible document of its existence existed.

It's not as though - say - she made some drawings for a patent she was planning to file, and somebody acquired those drawings and then filed the patent themselves.

If it were so simple, Maloof, Deal, et. al. wouldn't be playing games investigating heirs.

 

[MrFujicaman]

I just wonder how many other "cousins" are going to be found by other lawyers.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, you have offended my honor (what little of it I have). Therefore in open court (RFF) I challenge you to a Photo-Off (a nerdy duel). In a separate thread, we will each submit our 10 favorite photos (made within the past 4 years) -- there will be a poll -- and members can vote on a winner. The looser will be barred (voluntarily of course because the "punishment" should be as enforceable as Deal's hollow warnings) from weighing in (posting) to threads regarding VM copyright and over-rated threads.

Sir do you accept? You have been challenged to put your camera where your mouth is! Good-day, I said Good-day sir! (couldn't resist a Gene Wilder Willy Wonka closing line). 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_TYom5_gDk

By the way your analogies really aren't very good -- a car one has title to, crops -- one has title to the land and paid for the seed -- both titles are registered and clear. Two possible distant relatives do not have a registered or unchallenged copyright to VM's photos -- one has signed an agreement with Maloof - in legalease: ipso facto delicatessen! -- that relative may be a closer lineage than the other. If one's car or crops are stolen the sheriff will make an arrest. No arrest can be made in VM's case because there is no judgement or proof of ownership. So until such occurs, no crime has been committed. Now lets get on with the challenge and pony up your 10 photos!

Dear Dan,

I am sorry to have offended your honour, but really, you are STILL missing the point on the law -- and you've introduced some more misunderstandings, red herrings and complete nonsense. NO registration of copyright is needed and I specifically chose a civil wrong -- damage to crops (not theft, if you read what I wrote) -- which need not be a criminal affair. That's what "tort" means: a civil wrong. If you don't like the example of a car, choose an heirloom such as a set of silver forks, to which there is no such thing as a registered title. As I said, steer clear of legal argument.

And no, I won't accept your challenge. Our photographic skills are irrelevant to the argument, and in any case, anyone who wants to judge my photography can simply go to my web-site. I really don't care if I'm "better" or "worse" than you, in your opinion or in the opinion of those who can be bothered to vote on a pointless poll.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aizan]

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.

exactly. i think maloof and goldstein should have merged their collections and set up a non-profit foundation from the start.

the obvious profit-making motivation behind their efforts is distorting how maier's work is presented, and the sooner that is removed the better.

 

[tarullifoto]

Roger and Dan: May I propose an alternate form of duel? http://youtu.be/LkipjCxzXUU

 

[Paddy C]

It doubt very much that the storage company can claim absolutely all rights. All rights to physical ownership of the property yes. Copyright, not a chance.

Maloof claims to have only recently started making money. I don't doubt it. No matter the publicity, black and white photography, some exhibitions and making a documentary are not a get-rich-quick scheme. Until proven otherwise, I will give him the benefit of doubt.

In terms of the law, acquiring a box of negatives does not give you copyright. That should be understood by all. But, though it may be legally right, a dirt-bag lawyer digging up an obscure relative in order to make money for himself and claiming some moral high ground in the process, doesn't have to be accepted by anyone as a "good thing."

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger and Dan: May I propose an alternate form of duel? http://youtu.be/LkipjCxzXUU

No, sorry, I don't do FaceTube or YouBook either.

Trial by battle -- trying to resolve a question regardless of the merit of the legal or rational arguments -- is a nasty modern innovation introduced by the Normans and has met with mixed but unfavourable reactions twice in the last 200 or so years: Ashford v Thornton (1818) 106 ER 149 and a more recent case at Bury St. Edmunds magistrates' court in 2002. I don't think it was ever in with a chance in American law.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It doubt very much that the storage company can claim absolutely all rights. All rights to physical ownership of the property yes. Copyright, not a chance.

Maloof claims to have only recently started making money. I don't doubt it. No matter the publicity, black and white photography, some exhibitions and making a documentary are not a get-rich-quick scheme. Until proven otherwise, I will give him the benefit of doubt.

In terms of the law, acquiring a box of negatives does not give you copyright. That should be understood by all. But, though it may be legally right, a dirt-bag lawyer digging up an obscure relative in order to make money for himself and claiming some moral high ground in the process, doesn't have to be accepted by anyone as a "good thing."

Dear Paddy,

No one except perhaps NY_Dan would dream of arguing with a word of this -- except perhaps to distance themselves from "dirt-bag lawyer" which may or may not be the case. This is, after all, why we have courts of law: to establish the facts, and then apply the relevant law. Unfortunately some people on this forum seem singularly unconcerned with either facts or law.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pioneer]

No, it doesn't work that way. Your misunderstanding is so great that it is probably impossible to explain. At the very simplest, you don't "break" one copyright with another. It's all the one copyright: it's a question of who LEGALLY owns it.

And, honestly, your opinion is worthless insofar as it is not based on an understanding of the law. You may not like the law; you may disagree with it; but the legal point here is very simple. It is whether Maloof has, in fact, acquired the copyright.

No-one "deserves" to own the copyright: another meaningless question on your part. It's a (relatively) simple matter: did the person whom he paid own the copyright? In other words, was he/she able to sell it? If not, Maloof doesn't own it. It may be that the lawyer is a greedy bar steward who is simply chasing some money. I hold no brief (as it were) for him. It may be that in law, Maloof's attempts to find the heir were all that anyone could reasonably do, though the fact that the lawyer has found another heir casts doubt on this.

Instead of considering VM's pictures, think about someone selling the Brooklyn bridge...

Cheers,

R.

Thanks Roger. I appreciate your willingness to attempt correcting my complete lack of understanding. I will cease and desist from expressing my opinions and wait dutifully for the courts to weigh the evidence and make their decision, or for Maloof to settle with Deal, et al.

Meanwhile I will read with great interest the many learned opinions expressed by the various legal beagles on this forum as they struggle mightily to unravel this confusing turn of events.

As for the Brooklyn Bridge...no one has tried to sell it to me recently. But I do have a small chunk of virgin Nevada desert... 🙂

 

[mdg137]

Maloof does not own the copyright.
Maloof is trying to secure it from the owner.
Maloof has no way to know for sure who that will be -- that is the rub.

Maloof owns the negatives.
Someday the copyright will be in the public domain.

The ending? Who knows?

Allow me to fix this for you:


Maloof does not own the copyright.
Maloof is trying to secure it from the owner.
Maloof has no way to know for sure who that will be -- that is the rub.

Maloof owns the negatives.
Someday the copyright will be in the public domain.

Sometime after that, the Sun will expand to a size that encompasses the orbit of the earth, rendering everything we know cinder dust.

 

[mdg137]

Yes that sums it up perfectly. Only 13 posts?

13 posts in about 10.5 years...

If most of my clients exercised such restraint, I'd be out of a job....

 

[mdg137]

13 posts in about 10.5 years...

If most of my clients exercised such restraint, I'd be out of a job....

Make that 9.5 years.
I dodged math as an undergrad by taking Logic.

 

[Pioneer]

Allow me to fix this for you:


Maloof does not own the copyright.
Maloof is trying to secure it from the owner.
Maloof has no way to know for sure who that will be -- that is the rub.

Maloof owns the negatives.
Someday the copyright will be in the public domain.

Sometime after that, the Sun will expand to a size that encompasses the orbit of the earth, rendering everything we know cinder dust.

That is a nice summary. Thanks

Obviously I am very dense, but I still have a question if you don't mind.

I understood that John Maloof paid a 1st or 2nd cousin (closest relative I guess) for the right to do what he is currently doing. If he doesn't "own" the copyright has he secured a right to conduct his business through that supposed heir, or whatever that cousin is considered, in the way of a limited transfer or something similar?