Period 7 -- 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

Hannah Growney

4/12/2019 01:22:23 pm

This is an article about legal battles regarding Vivian Maier’s photographs. I have mixed feeling about sharing her work. On one hand i think that it is a violation of her privacy to share the images. This is because we don’t know if she wanted them to be shared. On the other hand, i think that the world deserves to see them because they are beautiful works of art.

I have a strong opinion about honoring wishes. I think that people’s wishes should always be honored after death. Especially if they are an artist. If the artist doesn’t want their images shared they shouldn’t be. They were taken for her and only her, and they don’t belong to anyone but the artist.

There is a limited number of people that i think should have access to do stuff with the photographs. I think family is definitely one of the groups that should have access to them. There is also a limited amount of friends that i think should have access. I think if anyone was really close to her, or knew her for a long time they should also have access.

I think that John Maloof violated her rights. I’m not sure who i think should have the copyright. I definitely don’t think that it’s ok that Maloof has it. I don’t think that just because he bought a box of her photos that gives his the right to show off her work. This is because he didn’t actually know her or what her wishes were.

Paul Borrego

4/12/2019 01:30:03 pm

Vivian Maeir was a great photographer but her fame didn’t come until after death. She was always private but since she never mentioned what would happen to her photographs I feel that they are fair game. She never said what would happen to the photos after her passing. Because of this I don’t think that she cared enough about her photos as she would have gotten rid of them or given them to someone if they mattered to her at the time.

I think that the artists wishes about their art matter after their passing. But she never stated any wishes about her art. Because she didn’t oppose the distribution of her art directly I don’t think it matters. If she stated that her art would stay private it would be a whole other matter but she didn’t.

I think that the person who found her artwork should get credit and ownership of it. He found it and made it big. Because of this I definitely think that he should have the copyright. I think this because no one else should hold the copyright and someone needs to hold it.

I definitely don’t think that the so called heir should receive it. The cousin isn’t even someone who was close to her while she lived. I believe that this level of family relationship is flimsy. The only reason they could recieve it was if Vivian wanted it passed on to a relative but she didn’t. She didn’t want anything out of the photos so I feel that finders keepers losers weepers.

Reagan

4/13/2019 01:23:20 pm

This article focus on the photographer Vivian Maier’s. She died on April 21, 2009. This article focuses on how people shared her unseen work after she died. People are saying it was wrong of them to sell and show it, because they didn’t have permission from the photographer.

Since the photographer never claimed weather she want her photos to be shown or not, it can cause conflict. The fact is people shared and sold her art without her permission. In some ways this is disrespecting her, but at the same time it isn’t. You should always respect the dead and their memory, but by sharing this photo it’s somewhat disrespectful. It would of been better is she had left a will regarding her photos.

I think her decadence should have the right to decide whether her photos should be shared. I don’t think John Maloof should have the right to share her photos. I think her family should of made that decision. I think the artist wishes mattered after she died. The only people who knew her wishes where her family and that right was taken why John Maloof shared her photos.

The main point is John Maloof took photos that weren’t his and shared them with the world. John Maloof has no legal rights to those photos. The family should of had the decision to share those photos. By John sharing the photos he disrespected her wishes. If I were the family I would press charges.

4/15/2019 01:00:44 pm

Anson Adamek

4/15/2019 01:06:08 pm

I don’t think her work should be shared because she obviously didn’t want to show her beautiful work so why would we want to go against someone that is deceased. I find that dishonorable and disrespectful, but it technically is the man’s property so he can do whatever he wants with it.

He can legally do anything he wants with the images but its a moral dilemma, personally I wouldn’t but If there were a sum of money then I probably would sell the images or do something of that sort. I would have trouble morally but I think over time I would sell them.

I think the man who owns the images has all the right to do whatever he wants with them, he could literally burn them all if he wanted to. He has all the right in the world. I think John maloof is in the right here and he should hold the federal copyright for it.

I don’t think the copyright resulting financial compensation from print sales should go to the heir produced by David C. Deal, he was just the lawyer, he’s just the middle man, nothing should go to him.

Campbell Streak-Jensen

4/15/2019 01:09:08 pm

I think that her work should be shown to the public after her death. She had no family so it doesn’t matter who it is given to. Because she has no family it would be better to let it be shown to the public. Because she hadn’t told anybody about her negatives, we have no proof that she did not want them to be shown.

I think that an artists wishes should be considered but that is different in the eye of the law. The law is that you have to have copyright on it if that is your wish. People can still take credit for it because the artist never copyrighted it, even if they wished for it to be known as theirs. So I believe that it should be considered but if a lawful standpoint it should be free to use.

I think that they are both heirs to her work. It is a very difficult thing to dispute due to the fact that we didn’t know that she had any family. This could all be made up, or it could all be truthful. But I think it should be shared.

If they both claim to be the heir they should have no problem with sharing it. They can both exhibit it. They should both share it though, because they are both heirs. Neither of them should copyright it, though. It should be free to use.

Eduardo Saucedo

4/15/2019 01:09:21 pm

This article is about Vivian Maier, a photographer. She died on April 21, 2009. This article talks about how people shared her work that we don’t know if she wanted them to be shared or not after she passed away. Some people say that it’s not ok for them to be selling photographs from the artist without her consent , especially if she is dead or if we don't know if she just wanted to keep those photos for herself.

This caused a big chaos because Vivian Maier never said weather she wanted her photos to be shown or not . if the artist made the phoos, then I think the people should just not publish the photographs without her permission. But at the same time, you can publish her work by citing the author and giving her credit for the photographs.

I think that her decision to share the photos or not should remain as a no because what if she didn't wanted them to be released and I don’t think John Maloof should not share her photos. If someone would need to make that decision, it would be her family or any relative that she has. This is because the only people that knew her was her family, they might have even known if she wanted to share this photographs or not.

The summary of this response is that people should consider that if something that belongs to an artist is found after she or her died, t needs to be the permission of er family and relatives to share those photos or not. Vivian Maier was an amazing photographer and the talent that she had was amazing and I can’t believe she passed away. Her legacy will go on because her family will make that life changing decision whether they will release the photographs or not.

Shayna Bolton

4/15/2019 01:18:52 pm

I think that usually her work should be shown to the public. However, she didn’t wish for her work to be shown to the public. I think that there was a reason that she hid them away without showing anyone. It seems that she purposefully kept her negatives in a old storage unit and leaving them there. So, because she didn’t want them shown I think that they shouldn’t be open to the public.

The artist’s wishes do matter and should be the decider of what happens. Their ideas and wants should be the primary effect of what happens to their work. Even after the artist has died, their art still belongs to them. And thus, what they say they want to do with their art should be what is followed. Even in this case, where it wasn’t directly specified, it should be assumed that she didn’t want her work shared.

I think that family members or friends should be deciding what happens to the artist’s work. But in the case of no other family members known, it should belong to who discovered it. Although, I don’t think John Maloof has the right to share these photos or make a profit with them. He should be the one who can keep them though. He should not hold the federal copyright of these photographs.

John Maloof should not own these federal copyrights because he did not make the art. He only discovered the art but that still doesn’t mean that it belongs to him. However, I don’t think that David C. Deal should own the copyright either. He has even less of a right to them than does Maloof. The only person who has a right to these federal copyrights is the original artist, Vivian Maier.

Sarah Guerra

4/15/2019 01:28:25 pm

This article is about the legal troubles with Vivian Maier’s. I believe the photos shouldn’t have been shown to the public without her permission. But we don’t know enough about if she wanted them shared with the world or not. Even though the photos are good it's still a violation of privacy. So I believe it's not fair to Vivian.

I believe if someone who passed should have their wishes honored. The credit should either go to the one who passed away or her family. Others should not have the right to their work. This art could possibly be special to the artist. This is not respecting the artist. I believe if the work wasn't shown in the first place then people shouldn't assume that the artist wants it shared.

Only people close to the artist should be able to have access to the art. Family and close friends should be the only people to see the work. Only people the artist trusts should see the work. This would be a good compromise. Overall anyone close to the artist should be have access.

I believe Vivian;s rights over her work were disrespected. John Maloof should never had shared the work. Just because he bout the photos one day doesn't mean he should make the photos famous. Also John had no connection at all to know what Vivian wanted to do with the photos. In conclusion Vivian’s photos should not have been shared without her permission.

Paolo Hernandez

4/15/2019 01:30:30 pm

This is about the issue of how John Maloof distributed Vivian Maier's photos after she died. It focuses on how people shared her work after she died. People are saying that it was wrong to sell them. But are saying that it was bad because they didn’t have permission from the photographer. I agree with the people.

There was confliction because the author never said if she wanted the photos to be shown. The thing is that people sold her work without her permission. This is very disrespectful. People should always respect other people’s work. It would have been better if she said what she wanted to happen to her photos.

She has the right to decide what happens to her photos. Other people don’t have the right to share it. Especially John Maloof. Her relatives and family have the right to choose what happens to the photos. The artist or the maker of the image gets to decide what happens to the art. The only people that knew the author’s will was her family and this will was taken away by John Maloof.

The argument I am making is that John Maloof took away the photos. This is not allowed without the permission of the author. John Maloof had no rights to steal these photos. The family are the only people that can have the photos. John disrespected the author. This is not right.

Hannah Barrow

4/15/2019 03:58:28 pm

Vivian Maier was a photographer in the late 20th century. She work as a nanny. She kept her artwork a secret from everyone. She dies in 2009 at the age of 83. Her images were lost until they her work (more than 100,000 negatives) was found in a storage locker at an auction and being sold by the people who had found them.

David C. Deal became interested in her and wanted to track down her heir. He was a photographer for 20 years and was now a lawyer. John Maloof owned a lot of Vivians work and promoted her art in galleries and museums. John hired genealogists to find Vivians heirs as well.

Vivian Maier's closest relative was Sylvain Jaussaud, “a first cousin once removed.” John Maloof had paid him a lot of money for the rights to Vivian’s artwork. David Deal had hired a genealogists as well to find relatives of Vivian’s and found a man named, Francis Baillie who was believed to be another “first cousin once removed.” Francis Baillie agreed to give the images to David Deal.

I think that her art should be showed, it is very good and will be appreciated. If Vivian didn’t want her art to be seen, she should have gotten some sort of legal document saying what she wanted people to do with them. I don't know who should have the say on who makes the decisions about where the images go. I think this is poor future planning on Vivian’s part. She should have probably told someone before she died and given them permission to do what they wanted with the images or give them to someone she trusts that would follow her wishes about what to do with them.

Joey

4/19/2019 12:30:24 pm

This is an article about legal cases of Vivian Maier’s photographs. I’ll say that I support both sides. This violation of privacy is illegal because we don’t know whether Maier wants her image to be shared or not. However, there is a good thing about sharing these images. This is because we can now see these beautiful art works.

I believe that artist’s wishes should matter even after he(or) died. In this way, artists and their works can be honored. According to the Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, artist’s wishes should be kept throughout his(or her) life and 50 years after the author has died. This was a special case because the author did not say anything about her works. Thus, we do not know author’s wishes.

I think the author’s family members should have the right to decide whether her photos should be shared. I don’t think John Maloof is the right person to share her photos. Her family should have the right to make final decisions. Her wishes do not ‘expire’ after she died. The only people who knew her wishes where her family and that right was taken why John Maloof shared her photos.

I don’t think the copyright should go to Maloof. It is because he is not the creator of these photos. David C. Deal should not own the copyright either. The only person who has a right to these federal copyrights is the original artist. Maier’s family can also has the copyrights.

Jack Waters

4/24/2019 10:41:27 am

Vivian Maeir was a photographer whose photos were not revealed to the public until after her death. She was a very private person and she never shared her photos but she didn’t ever say what she wanted to happen to the photos after her death so legally they are whoever found them. She never shared her photos with anyone and she was very private, therefore nobody knows what she would’ve wanted to have done with them

I think that the artists wishes matter after their passing. However she never sad what she wanted. She never said she didn’t want them seen so i think people are allowed to do what they wish with them. Had she wrote a will asking for them to be destroyed or something similar that would be the obvious course of action but she did no such thing

I think that the person who found her artwork should get ownership of it. He found it, legally, so it’s his. Under copyright law it’s his and I think it should stay that way. He has put in a lot of effort into developing the images and popularizing them. I think he should be able to get the rewards from that

I do not believe that the cousin should get it. If they actual cared about her they would’ve collected her stuff when she died but they are only caring now because of the money. I believe they have passed their chance to get the stuff and it should go to the guy who has them now.

Comments are closed.

Period 7 -- Critical Analysis #20

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home