Legal dispute over ownership of Maier work

[ampguy]

Wait, there may be some bookstores closed in parts of the world. Is there an app for this?

 

[NY_Dan]

Read this interesting article. Including this part of the article which was interesting

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-photos-copyright-20140912-column.html#page=1

In 2007, two years before Maier died, Maloof acquired the first batch of her work from a liquidator who had purchased the contents of five of Maier's storage lockers. Maier had defaulted on payment on these lockers and their contents had been taken over by the storage house, which sold them to Roger Gunderson, who then sold them at auction to Maloof, a dealer named Jeffrey Goldstein and others.


The storage-house default means that the auctioned objects wouldn't be governed by estate laws, but by contractual laws within the state of Illinois. And with that, may ride the question of copyright ownership.

Daniel J. Voelker, of Voelker Litigation Group, is an attorney in Chicago who has worked on cases relating to trusts and estates for three decades. He says the status of Maier's copyright on these particular images may be tied up with the contract she signed with her storage company.

"Usually, you'll see language in those contracts that says that if you don't make your payment by a given date, the contents of that storage locker becomes the property of the storage house, and ... all rights, title and interest go to the storage company," he explains.

Did Maier sign away her "rights" when she signed the agreement with her storage company?

DON

Exactly -- what I've been saying all along! How you like dem apples Roger? 🙂 Release the cat photos!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Exactly -- what I've been saying all along! How you like dem apples Roger? 🙂 Release the cat photos!

And as I've been saying all along, that's why we have courts to decide the facts and apply the law. Different legal viewpoints have been hashed over more than enough. I'm happy to let the courts decide -- and I have to say that I am far more persuaded by the arguments of mdg137 than by yours or indeed those of Daniel J. Voelker, Esq. Note his careful phrasing:"may be tied up with the contract she signed with her storage company". The key word is may. On good legal grounds, mdg137 and I think he's wrong. In case you missed the point the first few times, that's why we have courts to decide the facts and apply the law. What alternative do you propose to the rule of law? Rule of pointless Internet polls about photography?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Read this interesting article. Including this part of the article which was interesting

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-photos-copyright-20140912-column.html#page=1

In 2007, two years before Maier died, Maloof acquired the first batch of her work from a liquidator who had purchased the contents of five of Maier's storage lockers. Maier had defaulted on payment on these lockers and their contents had been taken over by the storage house, which sold them to Roger Gunderson, who then sold them at auction to Maloof, a dealer named Jeffrey Goldstein and others.


The storage-house default means that the auctioned objects wouldn't be governed by estate laws, but by contractual laws within the state of Illinois. And with that, may ride the question of copyright ownership.

Daniel J. Voelker, of Voelker Litigation Group, is an attorney in Chicago who has worked on cases relating to trusts and estates for three decades. He says the status of Maier's copyright on these particular images may be tied up with the contract she signed with her storage company.

"Usually, you'll see language in those contracts that says that if you don't make your payment by a given date, the contents of that storage locker becomes the property of the storage house, and ... all rights, title and interest go to the storage company," he explains.

Did Maier sign away her "rights" when she signed the agreement with her storage company?

DON

... really! I'm so surprised, why did no one mention this earlier?

 

[Pioneer]

Cuz we ain't the experts!! 😀

 

[tunalegs]

Exactly -- what I've been saying all along! How you like dem apples Roger? 🙂 Release the cat photos!

Actually you've been saying Maloof should have the rights all along. This is saying that possibly - the real rights holder is the storage company.

The other issue is that some of the photos were acquired after Vivian's death and so would be governed by estate laws. So the proper heirs still need to be verified one way or the other.

 

[mdg137]

Actually you've been saying Maloof should have the rights all along. This is saying that possibly - the real rights holder is the storage company.

The other issue is that some of the photos were acquired after Vivian's death and so would be governed by estate laws. So the proper heirs still need to be verified one way or the other.

That is my thought at this point-- IF a judge ruled the storage contract included copyrights, unless those rights were specifically named in the auction contract, they still rest with the storage company.

Again, I still don't believe that would be the ruling, but if it were to come to that, transfer of copyright in the US must be in writing

It may be that the storage company ends up being a creditor to her estate

 

[Pherdinand]

i guess it is unacceptable here to comment that I don't really like VM's photos.
Her much famed and presented rolleiflex selfportrait is downright boring and pointless...it's on the level of a camera enthousiast "ow cool i just got a cool camera" (been there, done that)

 

[Highway 61]

i guess it is unacceptable here to comment that I don't really like VM's photos.
Her much famed and presented rolleiflex selfportrait is downright boring and pointless...it's on the level of a camera enthousiast "ow cool i just got a cool camera" (been there, done that)

You're already burning in the flames of Hell... 😀

 

[NY_Dan]

Actually you've been saying Maloof should have the rights all along. This is saying that possibly - the real rights holder is the storage company.

The other issue is that some of the photos were acquired after Vivian's death and so would be governed by estate laws. So the proper heirs still need to be verified one way or the other.

Not true. I also posted in the famous deleted thread. And I did point out numerous times that VM signed a contract with the storage company. Sadly, like happens to so many storage customers they fall on hard times and can't pay -- then their items sell on the cheap.

I do feel that if someone such as Maloof develops a resource they can profit from it. I could write more, but why bother? 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not true. I also posted in the famous deleted thread. And I did point out numerous times that VM signed a contract with the storage company. Sadly, like happens to so many storage customers they fall on hard times and can't pay -- then their items sell on the cheap.

I do feel that if someone such as Maloof develops a resource they can profit from it. I could write more, but why bother? 🙂

No. It's a legal argument in which you want to ignore the law.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That is my thought at this point-- IF a judge ruled the storage contract included copyrights, unless those rights were specifically named in the auction contract, they still rest with the storage company.

Again, I still don't believe that would be the ruling, but if it were to come to that, transfer of copyright in the US must be in writing

It may be that the storage company ends up being a creditor to her estate

Elegant argument -- but hey, neither facts nor the law appear to be at a premium on this thread.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pherdinand]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Copyright shmoppyright!

9/12/2014 Marge Simpson sighted in Soho, Manhattan, NYC -- Rolleifelx 2.8f.

thats the best VM shot i've seen so far.
Oh wait... 😛

 

[panerai]

That is my thought at this point-- IF a judge ruled the storage contract included copyrights, unless those rights were specifically named in the auction contract, they still rest with the storage company.

Don't believe that would be the case. When items are sold off. Auction house lose all rights along with the item. Same as when they retain all rights when they bought them.

They buy and then they want the items gone. Cash is their only motivation for sales. Not copyright laws etc. so not something they would add to a sales contract

DON

 

[mdg137]

Copyright is amazingly inflexible.

Which makes those of us with experience with it sound exactly that, inflexible!