{"id":1523,"date":"2009-09-15T23:43:04","date_gmt":"2009-09-16T03:43:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/?p=1523"},"modified":"2009-09-15T23:43:04","modified_gmt":"2009-09-16T03:43:04","slug":"polaroid-collection-urgent-photographer-alert-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/2009\/09\/15\/polaroid-collection-urgent-photographer-alert-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Polaroid Collection: Urgent Photographer Alert #2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rays of Hope<\/strong><\/p>\n

Once again, I say to you: If you have work in either the U.S. or European Polaroid Collections, want to prevent the destruction of this world-famous archive via sale of its individual works at auction, and want to establish your claim to ownership of works you deposited in that collection on long-term loan or assert ongoing rights to access them, the time to act is now. Please read on, as there’s new cause for hope in this situation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"U.S.<\/a>

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Seal<\/p><\/div>\n

In “Guest Post 5: Federal Judge Sam Joyner on Polaroid,”<\/a> just posted today (September 15, 2009), U.S. Magistrate Judge Sam A. Joyner provides a cogent and extremely timely analysis of the court decisions from 2002 (Delaware) and 2009 (Minnesota). He concludes that both decisions constituted miscarriages of justice, and he recommends a particular course of action to rectify this wrong.<\/p>\n

I won’t try to synopsize Judge Joyner’s argument here; his exposition is clear, and free enough of legal jargon that lay persons like myself and this blog’s readers can understand it. I urge you to read it after finishing this quick note from me. I want to thank Judge Joyner for taking the trouble to draft this analysis for Photocritic International<\/em>, and for producing such a lucid and helpful summary of the situation and recommendation for its resolution.<\/p>\n

Based on his considered conclusion that many if not all of the photographers and their estates represented in the Polaroid Collection have ongoing and inalienable rights to those works that two state courts have inappropriately voided, Judge Joyner suggest the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The identification of parties with standing in this case is imperative.<\/strong> To have standing, and become a plaintiff, such a party must have work in the collection or officially represent the estate of a photographer with work in the collection. You can determine if you or someone you represent has standing by going to Exhibit B in this PDF file.<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. If you have standing (or if you can prove that you have work in the Polaroid Collection but your name does not appear in Exhibit B), gather whatever documentation you have in relation to the sale, barter, donation, or long-term loan of your work to the collection.<\/strong> This includes correspondence, invoices, letters of agreement, contracts, purchase orders, receipts, etc. Click here for a PDF file with samples of such documentation.<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. It will be necessary to file a Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration of the Minnesota Bankruptcy Court’s August 28 order allowing Sotheby’s to move forward toward a spring 2010 auction of the entire collection.<\/strong> This should be done by a Minnesota lawyer, preferably a bankruptcy lawyer. We have some breathing room here, since such a motion can be filed “within ‘a reasonable time,’ extended in some situations up to one year,” according to Judge Joyner.<\/li>\n
  4. It may prove possible to find a Minnesota lawyer willing to tackle this task pro bono<\/em>.<\/strong> I have feelers out on this, but obviously welcome any suggestions from my readers. Volunteer attorneys would receive the thanks of a grateful photo community, of course. I will try to get an estimate of legal fees for this filing. If a pro bono<\/em> attorney can’t be found, the photographers with standing will have to decide how to handle the legal expense of such a motion.<\/li>\n
  5. Such a motion could force the Minnesota bankruptcy Court to review and rescind its order approving the dispersal of the collection at auction.<\/strong> Possible outcomes: return to the photographers or their estates of of any works not owned outright by the collection according to the contracts; transfer of the encumbered part of the collection, in toto, to a repository that would accept it while committing itself to respect the contractual rights still held by the photographers.<\/li>\n
  6. \n
  7. Let me know if you have standing in this case (per 1 and 2, above), have documentation of that fact, and would consider becoming a plaintiff in a Motion for Rehearing.<\/strong> You can simply send me an email with that statement and your contact information: adc [AT] photocritic [DOT] com. I’ll maintain a list and make it available to an appropriate attorney when we locate one.<\/li>\n
  8. Please spread the word.<\/strong> You can forward this post, tell your friends about it via email, and otherwise help notify the art and photography community that all’s not lost.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    That’s it for now. Once again, I advise you to read Judge Joyner’s commentary on the case<\/a>, which I think you’ll find heartening; I certainly do. It truly ain’t over till it’s over. So stay tuned. (For which read: Subscribe.<\/a>)<\/p>\n

    \u2022<\/p>\n

    For an index of links to all posts related to this story,\u00a0click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Once again, I say to you: If you have work in either the U.S. or European Polaroid Collections, want to prevent the destruction of this world-famous archive via sale of its individual works at auction, and want to establish your claim to ownership of works you deposited in that collection on long-term loan or assert ongoing rights to access them, the time to act is now. Please read on, as there’s new cause for hope in this situation. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[127,238,429,430,467],"class_list":["post-1523","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-commentary","tag-corporate-support","tag-intellectual-property","tag-polaroid","tag-polaroid-collection","tag-sam-joyner","odd"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1523","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1523\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}