Vivian Maier’s Work in Question



It’s an area that most artists don’t understand and is almost as confusing as knowing your rights as a photographer.

Very good article from the New York Times:

“Under federal copyright law, owning a photograph’s negative or a print is distinct from owning the copyright itself. The copyright owner controls whether images can be reproduced and sold.” – From the New York Times, Sept 5, 2014

Another interesting article on the financial reality of being an artist today:

Viva la Revolution- Stephen


5 thoughts on “Vivian Maier’s Work in Question

  1. Even a bigger issue here is probate. Nobody but lawyers know anything about it. My wife and I are in the process of forced learning. The only people who benefit from probate fights are lawyers. ALWAYS HAVE A WILL or at least some form of instructions.

  2. Yes, good article
    But I can’t understand, why a outsider is doing this. I don’t believe the ‘good samaritan’ story in the article.
    It’s public knowledge, that John Maloof made a arangement with a relative of Vivian Maier. So.. Why does Mr. Deal do this. If, Mr. Deal made a good deal, it would make a little more sense. Or, maybe there’s a larger problem between these gentlemen, that we don’t know about.
    I wish it was more about the fantastic work of Vivian Maier, and not about the money involved.

  3. The lawyer who convinced the supposed last remaining heir is the same as a patent troll. I think that you will find it is about the potential money that he can make. Nothing more. The case should be thrown out of court

  4. Copyright laws exist to protect all of our interests. Our heirs need the same protection Vivian’s heirs get. And the heirs of artists all over the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s