Period 4 -- Critical Analysis #17

4/5/2018

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

Catherine Clausewitz

4/5/2018 09:43:03 am

I think that her work should be able to be shown. Since she is dead, she doesn’t have to worry about the pressure and the attention if she doesn’t want it. It said in the movie from many of the kids that she worked with that she wouldn't have wanted the attention and she was a person that kept to herself. I don’t think she would have ever published her work while she was still alive. There isn’t a description of her images so it’s up to your own imagination.

Vivian is dead and no one really knew her wishes when she died. She didn’t tell anyone or write dow anywhere what she wanted to be done with her images. Since most of her images are out in the public already there is no point taking them all away. People enjoy seeing her work and interpreting her work. You have to try to figure out the story behind each image. That’s what people enjoy about images where artists are dead and they don’t know they story behind the image.

I think since technically John Maloof found her work and bought it that he should have the rights to it. He also paid to have her thousands of images processed and developed. John is the one who is responsible for making Vivian known as an artist. John is also the one who produced the documentary about Vivian. He should definitely have all rights to the images.

John is the one who discovered Vivian’s work because most people would have thrown away the films. John took the time to go through and organize all of her things. He developed all of her images and did research to find out who she was as well. John is the one who has put in the most time and effort to make her known and make her art known. He should be the one to get the copyright. She also doesn't have a will or any close family that would benefit from the money. Her family that she does have probably didn’t even know she existed let alone that she was a photographer. John is who is responsible for making her know so he should be the one to get the credit.

Leon Toursarkissian link

4/5/2018 09:53:41 am

I do think that Vivian Maier’s works should be displayed to the public after her death even though she wished them not to be. I personally feel that art can only truly be great if it is viewed by the general public. To have such fascinating and brilliant works of art locked away to appease the artist who is no longer with us in my opinion is not something that should be done. Maier’s works won’t be able to be acknowledged as truly great works if nobody sees them. Without having them displayed to the public, her work would never receive attention and get any publicity, they’d just be locked away for years upon end.

Personally, I do not feel that the wishes of artists matter after their death. If we were to appease the wishes of the diseased artists, there could be millions of wonderful and amazing works that would not be on display for all to see. If the artwork is great, it shouldn’t matter that the artist didn’t want them exposed to the world, because all great works of art are worthy of being seen. For all we know, some of history’s greatest works of art could be stored in a closet and left to rot because the artist may not have wanted them to be seen. An artist’s work must be seen if it is worthy of being seen, regardless of what the artist once thought.

I think that the works of Vivian Maier should remain in the hands of John Maloof. After all, Maloof is the one who really discovered her and her work. Without Maloof, her art may still be in their original containers, with nobody knowing of their content. He is the one that went on countless missions to expose her work to the world, and he has earned the right to keep her works. Maloof even made a documentary about her so that people could know about her works. Maloof deserved to keep her works because is the only way that Vivian Maier is known to the world as a great artist, and without him none of this would’ve happened.

Although David C. Deal did find a heir to Maier, I do not think that the works belong to him and Maier’s heir. Deal had nothing to do with how Maier’s works her introduced to the world, and therefore has no right to take the work. Maier’s heir did not even know who Vivian was or that they were even remotely related, so in no way should he get his work. Even though works of art of the dead usually go to heirs, in this case there is just too much against Deal to do that. Maloof is the reason Deal learned about Vivian Maier, and that’s why Maloof should keep the work.

Melody Umsted

4/5/2018 04:49:48 pm

I think that the work should be shown to the public, even after her death. She may not have wanted that when she was alive, but she did consider it for a time. I think that she wanted people to find her film and print them after she died. Vivian did not like attention, and if she showed her work during her lifetime she would have become very famous. This fame would probably hurt her, considering her mental state. Thus, she left them to be printed after she died so people could see her art and not bother her personally.

I think that John Maloof should hold the rights to reproduce and exhibit Maier’s work. He found the film in the storage locker and bought them. He did not know Vivian, but he has good intentions and a strong curiosity. I don’t think the heir should get the rights because he is also a stranger to Vivian. He did not know that she existed. So, what makes him more fit than John Maloof, who rightfully found the films and cared for them intently?

If the heir wanted to own the estate, then he can share with John Maloof. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. Honestly, I think that the heir just wants it for the money, not because he actually wants people to see the photographs. However, John Maloof thinks that the photographs deserve to be seen by the public and is not in it for the money, so I think he deserves the copyright. But, I do not think that sharing the estate is a crazy idea.

Vivian Maier was a strange character. She was simultaneously nice and cruel, and she was described at mysterious. It is for this reason that I think she intentionally left the films to be found and developed after she died. She left a trail of evidence, like the storage locker and the letter showing her interest in printing, for people to find after she died. Like I said before, she did not want the attention that displaying the photographs during her lifetime would bring her. So, she died knowing that her pictures would one day make it to the public eye and bring joy to all who see. It was not her intention to keep her images private and secret, like some believe.

Jessica Mims

4/5/2018 05:30:32 pm

Vivian Maier lived her life making photographs without others knowing. It is really unfortunate because she was a very talented photographer. After she died, John Maloof discovered her works. Everyone, including Maloof, did not know anything about Maier. She very few records and information about her, almost as if she lived in secret. Since she had very little documentation, Maloof wanted to figure out more about her, so he began researching.

Eventually, more information and photographs were found and Maloof wanted to use them to make her famous. Maier’s works began to be shown to the public through galleries, museums, books, and documentaries. As she has become more well known, this has become more of a problem. Because her photography skills were not known while she was still living, she did not have any known preferences on what to do with her work. I believe that since she did not have a preference, it is ok that her work is now public. However, if she voiced that she did not want her work shown at any point, I believe that her work should not be shown and they should uphold her wishes.

The question about who should hold the rights to Maier’s work is complicated. Not only because she has passed away with no say in her work, but also because she has no direct relatives. I believe that John Maloof should definitely hold a portion of the rights. He discovered her and helped to make her works known. He put a lot of time and effort into discovering someone he had no idea about. He became passionate enough to publish books, create a documentary, and get her work into galleries around the world. He should definitely be able to keep some of her works and rights to her works because of how much time he devoted to publicizing her.

I think the rights should also be shared with the heir who was discovered by David Deal, but not as big of a portion as Maloof will receive. The distant relative should receive some copyright and compensation because they are family to Maier. However, even though they are related, the relative had no idea that they were and has not done near as much work as Maloof in regards to Maier’s work. How to divide the rights is being determined in a court case, and was recently finalized but not yet disclosed. Eventually, we will know how the rights will end up dividing.

Julieta Vazquez Martinez

4/5/2018 06:14:04 pm

I think that her work should be shown. I don't think that she didn't want her work to be shown, otherwise why would she contact the printer in that little French town? In that letter she recognises herself as a good photographer and she did wanted to print them. Apart from debating if she did wanted to show them or not, these are simply too good not to be shown. These are beautifully taken pictures (not just coming from a student that had criticized pictures for only a little bit more than a school semester, but also from professional critics) that show not only a story by itself but also contributes to the historic data that we have from the time.

To be honest answering “Do the artist's wishes matter after the artist has died?” is tricky. First of all, it largely depends on the situation; if the artist left behind clear instructions of what she or he wanted to happen with her or his work, it could indeed be worked out. It wouldn't matter how big or small his or her demands were, they not only could but should be worked out. It's just like a person's last wish everybody would do their best to accomplish that. But then, when the artist doesn't leave a clear statement… things get complicated.

I strongly believe that John Maloof should have the federal copyrights. For a reason he was the one that found out about them and brought it out to the world. When he discovered the negatives he did not throw them away, instead, he took care of them. As a historian, he knew the importance and awesomeness that these pictures had and his main goal was to get the world to credit this amazing photographer, not profit off it. In the article it even says that after all these years of investing of his own money to the investigation only recently he started to profit from it. This shows that he is honestly committed to this artwork.

Not only because of all these reasons recently given, but also I believe that he is the one that deserves them the most out of all the interested. Vivian herself was a loner, this is clear and she barely showed interest in her family, so why would she want her work to go to a relative that she never intended to reach out for? In the last paragraph I explain how Mr. Maloof deserves to get all the rights of the work, what I don't is how there “heirs” don't. It is hard for me to see how these so called “heirs” could benefit from these artworks other than economically. The obvious is that both sides of the argument want to economically benefit from it, but there is a very fine line between the two of them. Mr. Maloof has this reason but it is only a factor, he wants (and has) shared this work with the world. The heirs seemed to only have selfish reasons to this, proof to this is that they never tried to reach out for Vivian until they knew how much her work was worth.

Kaitlyn Evans

4/5/2018 08:01:47 pm

I do agree that her artwork should be shown because it has made her a very successful woman. Her artwork was stunning and the places that would hold her artwork always had lines of people waiting to see all day long. Her photos were taken back a while ago so people who were photographed by her would go see themselves 10 or more years later which made people bring up memories and share them with their loved ones. Families also got to see their grandparents or cousins up in a famous museum which brought families closer together.
The purpose of her artwork was to take pictures of the world and show how people lived in the early 20th century. Now people can see a story from her pictures and landmarks and different groups of people. Even though she wouldn’t be able to handle the attention it’s good that someone like John Maloof is finally giving her the attention she deserves. She deserves to be recognised because beautiful photos like hers don’t deserve to be hidden away from the world.
The person that I believe should have the rights to her pictures is John Maloof because he helped people across the world understand who Vivian Maier is. He showed people the other side of her, the artistic side. He wanted people to see her more than just a nanny, he wanted to get her incredible photos out into the world. He truly loves her photos and isn’t doing it just for the money which most people would do with her pictures.
John Maloof should hold the copyrights to her photos because he has done so much for her career. He’s the one who truly found her story and her art. Vivian Maier was not very close to her family so I don’t believe someone who just found out that they were related to a legend should get the rights. John Maloof has spread her artwork across the country and has made her a huge success.

Adriana Vazquez

4/5/2018 08:42:33 pm

I think that exposing Vivian’s work is not a bad idea after her dead even if she would not want to. I think these pictures were taken not just to keep them a secret, all of these photographs are very well taken and deserve to be known. Showing the pictures might not have what she wanted to do, but if these pictures would have never been discovered they all have been gone to waste. If she would still live today, all of her pictures might have never been shown.

I don't think it's bad to be showing her art after her death because we do not truly know what her intentions were with the pictures. She might have had a bigger plan to show her pictures but she was not able to finish it because she passed away. Maybe she did want to show her photographs is just that she did not know how to or where to start. Or maybe she was just afraid to since she was considered a very private person. Because of this, we do not really know what her intentions were with the photographs.

I think John Maloof has the right to hold the rights of the picture because he was the one that started all of it. Without him, Vivian’s pictures would have never been discovered or published. Vivian did not say anything about her pictures when she died, she did not say if she wanted them to be posted or not. And so, I think that if she would have said anything then they should do as she says. But, she did not mention anything about the photographs so she might haven’t gotten mad if they were published.

I don't think that David C. Deal should have the copyrights to the pictures. He did not cared about Vivian as much as John Maloof does. John Maloof did investigation on her after her death without even knowing her. David C. Deal only has a heir on the photographs that were actually sold to John Maloof before they were exposed. David C. Deal should not hold the rights to the pictures because he did not really care about Vivian as a person even though he knew her before she passed away.

Andi Feik

4/6/2018 08:51:56 am

I believe that Vivian Maier did not really want her work to be shown to the public. Although, I think that John Malouf finding these photograph is a good thing. I think that if she wanted her work to be exposed she would have liked it to be shown after she passed away. In the documentary, it says that she would not have liked the attention. I think that that is true.

I believe that it is okay for her work to be out to the public even if that’s not what she might have wanted. If that was not what she wanted she could have found something to do with her work. Even though she did not really have any family she could have left it with someone. It’s hard to say who would have the say if these images should be showed or not.

I think since the images were just sitting in a storage unit and John Malouf found and bought most of the images that he should have the rights to the images. Vivian did not have any close family so I believe since John Malouf found and bought the images that they are his. If he were to recreate the images I think that it would be hard to do since it could potentially be copyright and they should not be recreated. However, I believe that he should put Vivian’s works in museums and be able to sell them.

David C. Deal did, however, find an heir to Vivian. The heir that they found did not no Vivian and they were not close at all. I believe that since the storage unit was in Vivian’s name and when she died they sold it that the person who bought the unit John Malouf should have all rights to the work in the storage unit. Even though there may some legal issues I think that John Malouf should have the rights to the image.

Pedro Mejido link

4/7/2018 10:19:07 pm

I think Vivian Maier’s work should be shown to the public after death. The reason why I think her work should be shown is because she was planning to showcase her photos in a little town in France. This also explains why she was so private because she didn’t want anyone to see her photos until she released them. Vivian didn’t take the pictures because she wanted to keep them but she wanted to show her work to the public. Evidence of this can be shown in her storage container where the negatives haven’t been converted to photos yet.

I think John Maloof should keep the money from Vivian’s work. The reason why I favor John and not the heir is because the first cousin didn’t know nor care about Vivian until he learned that a lot of money was involved. John went through the trouble to find anyone who knew of Vivian and make a documentary about her. I feel that John would really try to honor the memory of Vivian while the first cousin would probably not.

John Maloof also has the rights to Vivian’s work because he is the one who bought her negatives at the auction. Vivian’s first cousin wants whatever money John made off of Vivian’s work. This would probably leave John in a mountain of death which he can’t come back from. Because of this case, Vivian’s pictures might not be shown to the public anymore.

I think that John Maloof should have the rights to Vivian’s work because he bought the storage container which had her negatives. John Maloof actually cares about Vivian’s legacy and even invested in a documentary about her. Vivian’s first cousin didn’t even know Vivian even existed until he knew money was involved. If the case doesn’t get concluded then Vivian’s work may never be shown again. If Vivian’s cousin wins then John Maloof would be in millions of dollars in debt.

chase Blackwell

5/8/2018 07:27:59 am

Artists have long struggled with copyright laws, and Vivian maier's is no exception. The question of how ownership is determined is something that still troubles artists today. For example, in the medium of tattoos, there's a large argument over who owns the art. The artist who designs it, or the person who it’s created upon. This arises as athletes, in particular, are being moved into being characters in video games. The game companies want to create accurate models of the players, but inevitably can’t do that without coping the intellectual property of the tattoo artists.

The question of who owns vivian maier's work is another mystery. In my personal opinion, I believe that the US. Copyright Law, Like many of its laws, is stupid. The fact that owning the negative and owning the copyright itself. While this is probably a good idea for prints, as they can be replicated endlessly, I believe that owning a photographic negative is completely different.

By owning the negatives of a photograph, you essentially own the source from which it is made. I think that Mr. Maloof should not only own the negatives but the copyright as well. In my personal opinion, unless there is a will stating that ownership is to be transferred to a relative specifically, then purchasing the negatives comes with purchasing the copyright. I think that because Vivian Meyer chose to never do anything with her photos, then they are more material to be made into something than they are art. The are a medium that Maloof is working in.

I think that her work should still be shown to the public, as it’s maloof interpretation of her art that is being shown. The lawyer coming in and claiming a different heir seems honestly like a cash grab to me and unnecessary. Maloof had even found an heir and was going to bend over backwards for them, yet they wouldn’t relent.

this was last edited on April 22nd. I just never posted it.

Comments are closed.

Period 4 -- Critical Analysis #17

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home