On the other hand, anyone could have purchased the undeveloped film and unprinted negatives at auction (presumably part of the settling of her estate) and flushed them down the toilet with all the rights in the world. Tempest, meet teapot.
I think I know which I think is more "ethical". On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Bruce Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > "A close reading of US copyright law indicates that none of the > parties who acquired Maier’s negatives from the storage warehouse or > afterward -- and are publishing them now without her written > permission -- have a legal right to do so. None of the current > publishers hold copyright to her negatives; that right devolves to > Maier’s estate and heirs for at least 70 years from the date of her > death, as per US Code Title 17 [...] The disposition of Vivian > Maier’s estate, and specifically her photographic collection, raises > serious questions of legal and ethical practice on the part of those > who collect art, and of those who trade, publish and display it, > including in galleries and museums." -- Kevin Coffee > > https://www.academia.edu/6320666/Misplaced_Ethics_and_the_photographs_of_Vivian_Maier > > -- > -bmw > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
