« In Memoriam: Joe Saltzer | Main | [Mike Update 4: Notice!] »

Monday, 17 August 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Looks like you have to subscribe to read the story.

It looks like the Tribune article is already behind the paywall. But if you go in through Google News (search on "Vivian Maier"), as of a minute ago you can still access the article.

Thanks for sharing.

Sadly, the newspaper won't allow access to the article without payment. I guess the either the article was several days ago, or the paper is worse than most others in permitting free access to a limited number of articles per month to non-local readers.

I was able to read the article, very sad news regarding the latest legal battles. The person who deserves all the credit and money is the person who purchased the original storage unit. Where was the so called family when she was alive and photographing these works of art? Shame on the greedy!!!

I was happy to purchase all five books that have been released. It saddened me that the two main parties efforts to get her photography seen, have been stymied by others. One can only hope the future will bring out more publications. Alas, the courts tend to run very slow,

Well, the good news on the lost celebrity front is that Vivian could not care less about it. In fact, if she were still alive, she would run as fast as she could in the opposite direction.

Sadly, it doesn't look like the Google route works either.

Finally managed to read the piece. The main new thing is that brother Charles died in New Jersey in 1977. Also, the Chicago Tribune thinks that Sylvain is a woman's name.

This website also seems to have the story (or at least the gist of it): http://www.suffieldtimes.com/technology/hunt-for-acclaimed-photographer-vivian-maiers-long-lost-brother-heats-up/18796/

This story may also travel to the LA Times. Maybe. Then, again maybe, I can read it there.

Can't really blame the newspapers. We haven't done a very good job of supporting them. Then again the previous owners of the LA Times were a disaster for the paper.

This can all be laid on the altar of ambulance chaser David C. Deal. It seems like all concerned did "due diligence" associated with looking for direct heirs, without spending vast amount of unproductive time finding obscure relatives that probably had no direct contact with V.M during her lifetime. The lawyer in this case is trying to answer a question no one is asking, and his only reason for doing it is to get a payday he doesn't deserve. Even if he was doing this for absolutely nothing, it wouldn't be valid.

When I tried to access it, I had to "register" but not pay.

If you Google search "Vivian Maier" and go to the Chicago Tribune article from Google, it works.

You can read the article without payment. The page that asks for you to subscribe has a less obvious link that lets you simply register. You'll need to give your email address and set up a password, but no payment is involved. You may also have to watch a brief ad. Especially at a time when newspapers are struggling financially, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

For any UK readers, the article is accessible from here and well worth reading if, like me, you are fascinated by Vivian Maier and appalled by the legal and governmental nitwits who are preventing her work from being seen.

The ability of creators to make a living from their creativity should be protected. The ability of their relatives to parasitise that creativity should not.

Here is a copy of the article


Why cancel exhibits of the images? If they have them, show them.

I've been able to read the Tribune article; I looked at it again just now. Perhaps the paper doesn't bother with the pay wall if you are not in the USA. Either way, it is a convoluted tale and despite the paper's best efforts, there's not enough to go on at the moment. Time will tell.

Art plus politics equals politics.

Sigh.. Curators, editors and agents are usually regarded as glomming on the real creative talents of the world. Not loved but necessary. Necessary, therefore tolerated. The accounts of artists being ripped off by them are a cultural trope of sorts.

And now, according to mr. Reinhardt, a similar guy deserves a part of the fortune. Not for adding anything to the arts but by being - in the literal sense - a middle man. Whilst the legal beneficiaries (Vivan Maier's heirs), the only ones with a legitimate claim to the riches, are scoffed for wanting to exercise their hallowed copyrights, which they legally inherited.

I've said this before so feel free to call me a curmudgeon in this regard.. But please, artists-photographers of the world (or of this blog's commentariat), please recognize that this is the ultimate effect of "fighting for your copyrights, or against the theft of your work by those who did nothing to produce it". It's the same mechanism that protects you, and it's working completely as intended. This is no accident. It's what we want for ourselves. Why begrudge it Vivian Maier's heirs?

Here is a brief radio interview with John Malouf and Ann Marks from August 18.


The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007