Annie Leibovitz pawns copyright to life's work to pay debts


Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 8, 2005
195
0
0
37
Singapore
www.facebook.com
#1
#3
Annie Leibovitz, the renowned New York photographer who has taken portraits of the Queen, has pawned the rights to her life's work in order to raise nearly £11 million to pay off her debts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...wns-copyright-to-lifes-work-to-pay-debts.html


Would love hear ClubSnappers' thoughts on this.
It's not a creative issue here. I think she is a really talented photographer. It's her lifestyle issue that is the focus. That's her problem to solve. She would not be the first celebrity or well paid talent to lose their shirt and she would not be the last...either they mismanaged it or they trusted someone too much to do it for them.

If her works are worth alot more in the future, she will not see a dime of it if she does not buy them back later and hopefully not at too high a price.
 

agape01

Senior Member
Feb 13, 2003
2,574
0
36
Somewhere Out There
Visit site
#8
For someone like Annie Leibovitz to own that much value to the rights to her own images, it shows simply that she can easily earn from others that she's being sought after.

Vanity Fair, Vogue and other mags would not hesitate one bit to hire her professional talent to produce the kind of creativity that she's so well known for.

To me, I think at some point of time, its time to cash in on the value.
 

#9
For someone like Annie Leibovitz to own that much value to the rights to her own images, it shows simply that she can easily earn from others that she's being sought after.

Vanity Fair, Vogue and other mags would not hesitate one bit to hire her professional talent to produce the kind of creativity that she's so well known for.

To me, I think at some point of time, its time to cash in on the value.
Problem here is...the value that is mentioned £11 million? That is only a speculated worth of returns on them being used as in licensed out by publishers, ad agencies....etc. That means, they could be worth alot less or nothing in the worst case scenario down the road. She is hoping to borrow against that fact of her reputation and what would be perceived as worth paying for in royalty and licencing fees or if someone love the photo she took enough to want to buy the rights to them. It's art, you can not put a value to it. So whether she can get £11 million worth or more is still not known. I hope she makes it out not too badly. Given the tough economic situation trying to get your money's worth is hard. We have to also know that NOT ALL people with financial problem is due to the present crisis. It just made it worst at this time. Wrong Place, Wrong Time. She can still get hired to do projects by magazine and commissioned by big organisations and celebrities to do their shoot to earn her daily "bread" but am sure there will be some fee reduction in these tough times. The question now is...how much she can make now...can it cover the bleeding?
 

kandinsky

Moderator
Staff member
Apr 26, 2008
3,013
24
38
#10
What surprised me was the signing away of rights to her FUTURE work as well, which means every single click on the shutter that she'll ever make.
I don't care what she says, that qualifies for desperation in my books :)
 

JacePhoto

Senior Member
Oct 1, 2007
6,476
9
38
New York City
www.flickr.com
#11
What surprised me was the signing away of rights to her FUTURE work as well, which means every single click on the shutter that she'll ever make.
I don't care what she says, that qualifies for desperation in my books :)
Yeah... agree that it may be a desperate attempt. But what can a photographer really 'do' in a time like this? For any other photographers, if they were to try a similar attempt, they probably get a kick that sends them out the door! haha....
 

Jun 5, 2008
1,089
0
0
PenguinVille.
#12
Problem here is...the value that is mentioned £11 million? That is only a speculated worth of returns on them being used as in licensed out by publishers, ad agencies....etc. That means, they could be worth alot less or nothing in the worst case scenario down the road. She is hoping to borrow against that fact of her reputation and what would be perceived as worth paying for in royalty and licencing fees or if someone love the photo she took enough to want to buy the rights to them. It's art, you can not put a value to it. So whether she can get £11 million worth or more is still not known. I hope she makes it out not too badly. Given the tough economic situation trying to get your money's worth is hard. We have to also know that NOT ALL people with financial problem is due to the present crisis. It just made it worst at this time. Wrong Place, Wrong Time. She can still get hired to do projects by magazine and commissioned by big organisations and celebrities to do their shoot to earn her daily "bread" but am sure there will be some fee reduction in these tough times. The question now is...how much she can make now...can it cover the bleeding?
even then...wtf was she spending on?!
 

Jun 5, 2008
1,089
0
0
PenguinVille.
#13
What surprised me was the signing away of rights to her FUTURE work as well, which means every single click on the shutter that she'll ever make.
I don't care what she says, that qualifies for desperation in my books :)
lol she can siam by "retiring":bsmilie:
 

#14
well if you read it properly, she did not "pawn" nor "sell" all her works, past, present and future.

she merely put them up as collateral to secure a loan. so she still owns them all unless she defaults on the loan. it's pretty much like doing a reverse mortgage on your house and using it as collateral to secure a loan to start a business or something.
 

wangyl

New Member
May 11, 2008
42
0
0
#15
I quote the artical:
"Art Capital issues loans of $500,000 or more at interest rates from six per cent to 16 per cent."
"Art lenders typically lend up to 40 per cent of what they believe the works to be worth, and usually take posession of the works."

6 to 16 percent interest. That's daylight robbery. They lend up to 40% of the value of the work, and take the artwork away while the loan is being serviced. If you default, you lose 100% of the artwork, for a loan that's only 40% of it's value. Again, ridiculous. You might as well sell off the art for 100% of it's value instead of giving these people 60% of it.
 

mattlock

Senior Member
Feb 28, 2004
1,871
0
0
www.superhyperreal.com
#17
one of the issues here is with the townhouse she bought
she got into some trouble with that, it's abit of a scandal in New York.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.