Period 3 -- Critical Analysis #20

4/12/2019

For today's critical analysis, you will read an article about photographer Vivian Maier's work and the controversy surrounding who holds the copyright to reproduce, exhibit, and profit from her work. You will then respond to the article here. Here is the link to the New York Times article:
www.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/arts/design/a-legal-battle-over-vivian-maiers-work.html
Write a 4 paragraph response to the article above, giving your opinion on what you feel should happen to Vivian Maier's photographs. Consider these questions as you write:

Do you think that her work should be shown to the public after her death, even if she might not have wanted it shown when she was alive? Do the artist's wishes matter after the artist has died?
Who do you think should hold the rights to reproduce and exhibit Maier's work? Do you agree that John Maloof, who produced the documentary Finding Vivian Maier and is credited with "discovering" Maier's photographs, should hold the federal copyright? Or do you think that the copyright and resulting financial compensation from print sales should go to the heir produced by the lawyer named David C. Deal?

Be sure to post your response as a comment to the correct class period blog post. Your analyses will be graded on the following criteria:

meeting minimum length requirements
depth of organization
evaluation of the content
grammar/punctuation

If you do not finish in class, you must complete this for homework before class on Friday, 4/6/18!

If you are interested in reading more about the Vivian Maier case, here is a recent article about the settlement of Maier's estate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-vivian-maier-estate-court-settlement-met-20160510-story.html

EmmaKate Spies

4/12/2019 08:40:42 am

I think that her work should be shown to the public after her death to keep her memory alive. Artists memories are important because without dead artist’s work being shown in museums their memory would die completely because no one in the next generations would know the artist. Her work should have been shown in a small gallery close to where she lived so if people wanted to see her work then they would have to go to the gallery. The artists’ wishes are important to the public because they are the owner of the piece. If an artist died and didn’t want their art showcased then people should honor their wishes and not publicise their work. The artist has full ownership of their work dead or alive. If the artist decides to shut down their exhibit after they have died then the gallery or museum that their work is displayed in should be taken down.
I think that her living relatives should be the ones to hold the rights to reproduce and exhibit her work. I think this because her family should have the rights to do that if they want to. They don’t need to require other people to hold those rights if they don’t want to. I think that they should go to her vivian maier’s lawyer david deal because he had taken care of all of the things involving her will and should be the owner of the things. I also think that if she didn’t designate anyone to be the keeper of her artwork than the lawyer should take the artwork and keep it but not take it to any museum.

mariah podwika

4/12/2019 08:43:04 am

I think that, if she kept the photographs a secret when she was alive, she would have wanted them to stay a secret. She must have had a reason for keeping them a secret, and who knows what repercussions she thought there might have been if the images went public. The photographs might have been her release from all the things going on in her life. How would you feel if your journal got released for everyone in the world to see? Regardless if she is dead or not, those images could have been sacred for her, and so she kept them hidden because it was her thing. That thing wasn’t for anyone else’s eyes.

The artist’s wishes should be 100% upheld even though she is dead. You do that with every other part of a person’s life when they pass away. You don’t go around flaunting around your dead grandma’s journal or even yours. So why would you do that with someone’s secret photographs, that they made a point to keep secret? Also if the artist is dead her wishes of keeping the pictures private should not be thrown away, no matter how beautiful people may think the images are. If you’re going to break the wishes, don’t divulge it completely, at least leave some of the pictures private, just so her entire work revealed to the public.

I think that the heir should have the rights to reproduce the images, to a certain extent though. If the heir is reproducing the images and exploiting them to the public, against the dead’s wishes, then those rights should be revoked, and the photos should be owned by someone who won’t go against the requests. The heir that was provided by the lawyer should get the images and the means that come with them because it is their relative. As long as the heir upholds the wishes of the artist, they can keep their right. If they violate their preferences, they lose their rights.

Just because someone finds the images, it doesn’t mean that they own them. That’s like saying that someone who sees a computer at a Starbucks now owns that computer and can do with it what they please. That’s not how that works. A logically thinking person would find the person that the computer belongs to or at least someone related to or close to the owner. In my opinion, the same should apply to the pictures.

Samantha Meldner

4/12/2019 08:50:14 am

The story of Vivian Maier begins with her job as a nanny when she kept her photography a secret from everyone. She passed away in 2009 around the age of 83. She was poor and had no close family. The photographs she made were declared to be the most beautiful of the 20th century. A case of a potential heir to her imagery was filed in June by David C. Deal who has intentions of keeping from the world. The chief of the owners of her work is John Maloof, a former realtor, who directed commercial galleries, books, documentaries, and exhibitions of her work.

Mr. Baille had originally not known about his relation to Maier and because of this agreed to meet with Mr. Deal to be recognized as her legal heir. The case has now been set in motion to determine whether or not his claims are accurate in Chicago. The public administrator's office in Chicago oversaw the photographs sold for around $2,000 each. In addition, Maier began taking photos in 1950 while taking care of all of the children that belonged to wealthy families around that time period. The photos taken around 1950 went on to be sold in New York.

In the case that is being tried, most people are hoping for a positive outcome for John Maloof rather than the rightful “heir” because they hope to keep her work alive. Maloof states that he only began receiving a large income on her art this year. The “heir” believes that it isn’t right that people like Mr. Maloof make a profit off her work and that is why he plans to keep it out of the hands of the public.

Mr. Deal believes that the only goal of Mr. Baillie during this case is to gain a legal obligation to it. Many states that it will be hard to determine the winner of this case because Maier has already passed and at this point is just a struggle over money.“None of these guys have legal copyright, he has no interest in this other than being compensated in the way that he is legally obligated to be.” Mr. Deal added.

Sofia Galindo

4/12/2019 08:51:34 am

I think in this case it is okay to publish her work because even though she did pass away, she never told anyone not to publish her work. If she had died and told a loved one to not let anyone publish her work and her work was still published, that would have been wrong. The artist’s wishes still matter after their death because if they did not want their artwork published, it is wrong to go against their wishes and publish the artwork anyways, no matter how good it is. I think it would be a shame if Vivian Maier’s work couldn’t be seen by the public because of an unknown heir that is threatening to tie her legacy knots. However, if this person knew that Vivian did not want her artwork shown, I think it would be the right thing to do.

I believe that the heir should have the right to Vivian’s artwork. Just because John Maloof was credited with “discovering” Vivian’s work and made a documentary about her, doesn’t mean he should have the final decision about what happens to her art. He wouldn’t have known what Vivian wanted because he never knew her and isn’t tied to her in any way. However, if the heir got the artwork, he/she would at least be somewhat family to Vivian and Vivian’s artwork go to a random stranger.

I feel like Vivian would appreciate Maloof’s fascination with her and her artwork, but just because he found her art and dedicated a lot of time to her, doesn’t mean he should get her work. Her artwork is very unique, which is why it is so special and being “fought” over. She takes her big chunky camera and holds it instead of using a tripod. Her images are usually of her in a reflection from a window, for example. She gets herself in the photo and the background using reflection, which is a very innovative technique.

Overall, I do not think Maloof should end up with Vivian’s artwork, but Vivian’s heir should. Her artwork should be passed along her family, not in the hands of a total stranger. However, if her artwork was passed to her heir, the public might not see her work again. If the artwork was given to Maloof, the artwork would be public forever. I am nervous and excited for who will end up with the artwork.

Claire Rollwitz

4/12/2019 08:53:11 am

From the outside, Vivian Maier lived a normal life in Chicago. Little did the world know that Maier was an artist. It was only after she died when her secret was let out. Her amazing photograph prints were found in a storage locker and sold. Now the debate arises about what to do with her photographs.

Disturbed by the fact that Maier’s photographs were being sold, Attorney Mr. Deal decided to do something about it. Genealogists continually searched for an heir to Mrs. Maier to find a person to claim her work. Sylvain Jaussaud and Francis Baille were identified as her closest relatives. Mr. Baillie had no idea he was related to Maier. Attorneys are working through feuds and disagreements to figure out what to with her art.

Disputes arose from the ownership of her artwork. Critics of Mr. Maloof disagree that he should be getting profit from her work. Instead, people propose that her heirs should get the money. Baillie doesn’t want much to do with the case. Her artwork is at risk of being taken down.

I think that her artwork should be shown after her death. Her art should be able to be appreciated by the world. The artists wish matter after the artist dies. Maier was secret about her photographs, but never specifically said that her art could not be shown in public. I think Maloof and her heirs should both receive the profit from her work.

Clara Blume

4/12/2019 08:53:29 am

I think that her wishes concerning her work should be honoured, even after death. I believe it is a violation of her privacy to release her art to the public. Vivian Maier kept her art a secret for her entire life. I think that if she wanted to publish her art, she would have. She took over 100,000 pictures that she left in the negative.

I know I would be very upset with anybody who exposed my hobby that a very intentionally kept, quite literally, in the dark. I can understand friends and family processing the photos strictly out of curiosity, but to sell/release to the public is an entirely different matter. This makes it seem like the motive for releasing her photos is money. It also seems like there is a massive game of finders-keepers going on. Just because you found the photos doesn’t mean they are yours to do with them as you please.

I think the heir that lawyer David C. Deal found should receive the photos that she took. In my opinion, John Maloof violated her privacy and her work after her death to create his documentary and jump start his career. This may be a harsh judgement from a person who does not know his motives, but I feel that if she worked to keep all of her negatives a secret, they should be kept that way. Her art is a hobby that only she knew about. I do not think the photos should have found themselves in the hands of people who have no connection to Maier.

The article says that John Maloof promotes her work through commercial galleries and museum exhibits. This is not something that I believe she would want. The article makes it sound like Maloof paid off a potential heir to her works to receive the right to do with the photos as he pleases. I think that the temporary removal of the photos from museums and galleries while the trial is in progress is the best way to handle the situation for now. I do however, wonder what her motive for keeping her work a secret was and what she believed the consequences would be should they be released.

Matthew Sutherland

4/12/2019 08:59:47 am

This is an article about a legal battle over Vivian Maier’s works of photography. I think her work should be shown to the public. She might not have wanted to, but art and information should be spread. This is why I think her works should be spread.

I think the artist’s wishes should matter. I also think that art and information should be spread. I do think that information and art being spread is more important than the artist’s wishes though. This is another reason I think Maier’s works should be spread.

I think the holder of the rights should be Maier’s heir. It should that person because of heir laws. Another reason is because I believe that’s how inheritance should work, and those rights are part of inheritance in my opinion. This means the man who is discovered to be Maier’s true heir should inherit these rights.

I don’t think John Maloof should hold the copyright to Maier’s works of art. Just because he discovered her doesn’t mean he made the art or inherited it. This means he shouldn’t get the rights. I think the copyright should go to the true heir.

Farouk Ramzan

4/12/2019 04:22:55 pm

I don’t think it is morally correct to share her work to the world knowing that she would never want that. But morals account for nothing in the world of money and pop culture, and things will be discovered and shared. There is are upsides of sharing her work such as an exposure of the beauty of photography to the public, inspiration for young people, and the photos provide a deep understanding of the 20th century.

Vivian Maier created photos for her own enjoyment, not for the public, fame, or money, but purely for the craft itself. To me Vivian is the embodiment of a true artist and a genuine human being. Most people we study in history had the desire to be eternalized in textbooks. From philosophers to presidents, good or bad, these people were striving to be remembered by society. From Alexander the Great to Hitler, these are people we study because they worked to be glorified one way or the other. Vivian is a break in history as she provides society with a lesson on ego and learning to respect the craft. Vivian purposely tried to suppress her ego by making sure that nobody accessed her photographs keeping the hidden gems locked. I believe Vivian had too much respect for the art of photography. She believed that society would taint the beauty of the meditative act of photography by altering her motives for taking photos. Vivian feared that she would begin to photograph for the sake of other people but not for herself. Photography functioned as her purpose, exposing it to the world would take that away from her.

Now that she’s dead, is it alright for us to display her art to the world, the very thing she avoided for her whole life? That’s a risky question. I believe that if photography served as her life’s purpose and her secrecy was to keep that purpose secure, than it is alright to show the world her gems because she is not alive any more. There is no purpose to serve anymore for Vivian thus, it is okay. Also, once you die your possessions left on Earth are not yours, they belong to society. Any work that any artist creates becomes part of society once they are dead like the secret journals of civil war soldiers and the pyramids and Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night. 50 years from now the debate on Vivian’s images will wither away as her images will be viewed as historical pieces of art and will be exposed to society for everyone to view and learn for this amazing women’s life.

I think John Maloof deserves the rights to Vivian Maier’s images. John Maloof seems very dedicated to a goal that he’s invested much of his own money into. John is not chasing money and using art as an excuse, he’s genuinely in love with Vivian’s work. John Maloof was a freelance photographer himself in the past which tells me he knows how to appreciate Vivian’s work. John Maloof is not passionate about Vivian’s photograph, he feels a sense of purpose to keep her images alive. John even describes a sense of feeling “obsessed” with keeping Vivian’s work safe. I trust John because he has an absolute direction and love for Vivian’s photography.

Henry Cool link

4/12/2019 09:21:44 pm

Vivian Maier is a photographer who lived her life in secret. Her main Job was a nanny, but whenever she wondered around town she took pictures. With this she only developed a little bit of the negative, but most of her work was just undeveloped sitting in storage. Years later a man found these negatives with some of the most beautiful pictures. Even though Vivian was penniless her artwork is almost worth 1 million dollar. Now there is a big dispute on who actually gets to keep the images, the heir of Vivian or the man that bought all of her artwork.

One of the most distinctive things about Vivian Maier was she did not like to show her work to people. She even got her own room and made sure no one was able to com in. With this she also took the photos in secret, and many people question it even though they will never get the answer. Anyways I believe that it is a good thing that her artwork is now being shown to the world because it shows a history of street photography, and they were some of the most beautiful pictures taken. I believe it is right to follow an artist’s wishes, but I am happy that we were able to see the masterpieces she was able to create and how she was able to get close to the subjects.

Now after the discovery of the images there is a big fight over who should be able to keep the images. Some think it should go to Mr. Maloof who had found these images while others believe it should go to the closest person related to Vivian. Honestly, I believe the images should go to Maloof because he found them and bought them which makes it fair. Also he is one of the people who showed us these amazing pieces which should be open to the world to see. Plus what is the heir of Vivian going to do with the negatives anyway, and how would he get them back if they are already being sold around the world.

Anyways I believe that Vivian was a fantastic artist who was very shy with her work. She loved visiting the places not many people took pictures of, like rough neighborhoods, and showed those people lifes and what street art really meant. Although she did not want it spread I think that it is a piece of history and has great potential. I think that Maloof should be able to sell these pictures because he bought them, and he is also trying to spread these beautiful works while letting people admire them self and see the beauty. Finally I think that art is something that should be open for anyone to spread and sell unless it was stolen from the creator originally.

teresa lei

4/13/2019 12:54:36 am

Vivian Maier, a photographer lived through the 20th centuries, concealed a huge part of her identity behind the public and her close friends. She worked as a nanny, a job that seems totally different from her interest. She had a very private personality. Instead of searching for recognition and certification from others, she depicted the people and scene that moved her. Her work opened another perspective toward the life in 20th centuries, which is fascinating

But looking at the issue from the perspective of ownership, value and profit, it becomes more complicated and cumbersome. Vivian maier had no immediate family to inherit her fortune, and her closest relative was her cousin. Hoever he never really knew her before the photographs were discovered. John Maloof had no immediate relationship witg Vivian Maier, but what he had is the knowledge of how to value and protect the work. It got real complex at this point.

Whether who inherited the Maier's works, they should not be profited becasue of their ownership since none of them actually knew her nor participated in the artwork itself. They both had no copyright. I would tend to let John Maloof got the work since he knew about the area that these photographes are belong to. The problem is his intentions and his capability to handle things. Over all the possession of the art work is relativlely debatable.

Her artwork should be seen in the public. The first reason is tht if the art in kept in a secret. It's important to spread art around and letting people appreciated the world in a different way. Also, Maier may have made a decision to show if somebody tries to convince her. It‘s important is to spread the arts so that people can appreciate the world in different ways. In addition, maier doesn't completely ban outsiders from seeing her photos, and if anyone gets a chance to see them before then, it might even change her mind about not wanting to be shot. I think it is inevitable that valuable works will be disseminated in an information age, so I would not strongly disagree with the changes made in full compliance with maier's will

4/15/2019 08:46:10 am

1.The articles are about a monkey who wandered upon a mans camera and took a picture of itself creating a “monkey selfie”. The issue was they were unsure who should get the copyright and the money that comes from the picture. This copyright was fought over with a monkey(Naruto), PETA, and David J. Slater.

2. They filed a lawsuit against David Slater because the monkey pressed the shutter button and took the picture which makes them believe Naruto should get the revenue. They did it on behalf of the monkey Naruto.

3. The outcome was Mr.Slater got the rights to the photograph, but he said he would be donation the revenue to organizations who protect Naruto.

4. The litigation let Slater become more known to the public and allowed him to actually make money that he was unable to make before. He is profiting from the selfie, but he also is donating a quarter of the revenue to foundations that support Naruto and other monkeys.

5. Honestly I think the case is kind of stupid. I think that if they actually make it themselves they should get some money, but the owner of the camera or even the animal should also get money. I believe that since it was his camera he should own the rights to the photo, or the owner should own the rights. Because what if they had their own money what would they do with it? It is normally the people that own the supplies are the ones to support them.

6. If I were to say they should own the image I would say that the monkey did all the work in the photo, and should benefit from all of the revenue. This is because the monkey obviously meant to take the picture, and even posed for it. He should be able to live in his own little habitat with everything he wants from the revenue of the photo.

Hasan Ehsan

4/15/2019 11:38:44 am

Vivian Maier is a renowned photographer whose images gained popularity posthumously. The copyright issues after her death have become very tangled and complicated, but I believe that her images should not be publicized. If there’s evidence that Maier did not want her photographs disseminated, then the public should honor that. Maier has a permanent copyright over the work that she’s created, and what she says about her pictures should be followed until the end of time. An artist’s wishes for his or her own work should always be honored.

Giving John Maloof the ability to reproduce and profit off the images he found is problematic. It is true that he discovered them, but since they have recent historical backing, he simply is not the owner of them because family can be traced down. What Maloof is doing, if allowed to continue, sets a dangerous precedent for the future of what copyrighting means. Maloof’s mistake was that he assumed since he found it, he would have ownership of all photographs, which isn’t how the law works. Maloof only provides emotional, anecdotal evidence where he states that it’s only due to all of his effort that these photographs became famous and thus by this association he should have ownership.

In this case, I do believe that the heir, David C. Deal, is the rightful owner of Maier’s photographs. American law states that, if not otherwise verbalized, then the closest relative holds all the assets of somebody who has passed. It doesn’t matter how close or how aware one is of his or her relatedness. It’s the law. Although this case might open up future considerations to changing this law to avoid something like this from happening again, the standard currently placed by law should be followed.

The biggest issue if we were to let somebody like Maloof have his way is the precedent that would be set for future similar cases. If such actions continue, then the familial connection won’t matter in future discussions of assets. The problem with the standard that Maloof employs is that it’s not always so clear. What direction would we go in if two individuals had put in equal amounts of effort into recovering such assets. The reason that we use family is because it’s not subjective. There’s a mathematical way to calculate relatedness, and although it’s not always the most perfect solution, it’s the best we have until the law follows new guidelines.

Samnatha Meldner

4/18/2019 06:23:03 am

Vivian Maier’s work is absolutely beautiful and shares artistic value. She kept her entire photography a career a secret. Although her wishes were most likely that she never wanted people to see these images, I believe that it is a good thing that her images made it to the public. This way she enriched the world with the beauty of her work. She changed it for the better. Most artists find themselves being inspired by other artists that have come before them.

For many, this may have been Vivian Maier. Besides the importance of Vivian’s work in itself, there is also much debate on whether or not John Maloof should own federal copyrights to her work. I think that the next of kin to Maier should get the copyrights to her images because Vivian Maier definitely did not want her work to be shown to the public. Therefore, I think that she wouldn’t want its legal rights in the hands of a stranger. It is still being debated since she didn’t leave any instruction for her imagery.

Based on the work that I’ve seen I truly love the work that Vivian Maier did. She took images that she enjoyed making. You can tell through her work how dedicated she was to it. The work speaks for itself. Its beauty and careful touch are immeasurable.

I enjoy her work because she can really connect with her subjects. She was able to get people to allow her to see a different side of themselves in the image. Most of the time, photographers struggle to get people that they don’t have a connection with to open up. This forces most photographers to stay in their comfort zones.

Comments are closed.

Period 3 -- Critical Analysis #20

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home