NEW YORK - Annie Leibovitz's artsy, provocative portraits of celebrities regularly grace the covers of Vanity Fair and Vogue, images that have made her as famous as her subjects and earned her millions.
Now Leibovitz risks losing the copyright to the images — and her entire life's work — if she doesn't pay back a $24 million loan by Tuesday. Art Capital Group, a New York company that issues short-term loans against fine and decorative arts and real estate, sued her in late July for breach of contract.
"We have clear contractual rights and will protect them in any scenario," said ACG spokesman Montieth Illingworth on Friday. "Our preference is for this to be resolved."
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
Some experts say filing for bankruptcy reorganization could be the best option for Leibovitz, 59, who has put up as collateral her three historic Greenwich Village townhouses, an upstate property and work. She bought two of the townhouses in 2002, embarking on extensive renovations to combine them into one property. That spurred protests from historic preservationists and a $15 million lawsuit by a neighbor.
"Based on the magnitude of her obligations and the facts as they are publicly known, that would be the best option," said art lawyer Peter Stern.
Risks losing iconic images
Leibovitz's images of musicians, presidents and Hollywood glitterati are cultural touchstones. One of her earliest photos is of John Lennon curled up naked in a fetal position with Yoko Ono, taken just hours before he was assassinated in 1980.
So to many, her decision to gamble the rights to her work seems inexplicable. "Jaw-dropping," Stern said.
Her editorial agent, Contact Press Images, has declined to comment on the case, saying it is a private matter.
Her spokesman, Matthew Hiltzik, has accused ACG of harassment.
"There has been tension and dispute since the beginning ... For now, her attention remains on her photography and on continuing to organize her finances," Hiltzik said.
Bankruptcy filing would offer protection
A reorganization filing would suspend all litigation against Leibovitz and place her finances under the protection of a federal judge, said bankruptcy lawyer Paul Silverman, who works with Stern. Neither attorney is involved in the case.
Last year, Leibovitz put up her homes and the copyright to every picture she has ever taken — or will take — as collateral to secure the loan to pay off her mounting debt: unpaid bills, mortgage payments and tax liens, ACG said.
While no one has suggested publicly how Leibovitz got into such desperate financial straits, the mortgage debt on all her properties — including the townhouses in Greenwich Village and a sprawling estate in Rhinebeck, N.Y. — totaled about $15 million. This includes the $1.2 million loan she took out on two of the townhouses, and another $2.2 million three years later, according to New York magazine.
In addition to her mortgages, court records show that she piled up years of federal, state and city liens and judgments from vendors for unpaid bills — all presumably now satisfied with the $24 million she borrowed. Federal records show that Leibovitz owed a total of $2.1 million in unpaid taxes for tax years 2004, 2006 and 2007. She also had New York state tax liens of $247,980 for six years, including $135,915 in 2007. And she owed New York City several thousand dollars for three years.
Click for related content
Annie Leibovitz sued for breach of contract
As economy tanks, art works used for collateral
Vogue cover with LeBron stirs up controversy
In 2008, a design firm that did work on one of her Greenwich Village properties claimed that she owed it $51,000. Leibovitz was also accused that year of refusing to pay $386,000 to a photo stylist during a 2007 shoot Leibovitz did for the Disney Company in 2007.
Her spokesman, Hiltzik, declined Thursday to discuss her finances.
"Annie is working to resolve the situation so it would be inappropriate to comment," Hiltzik said.
Posted 9/6/2009 5:10 pm
It looks to me that she always operated under debt from day one back in the late sixties. She probably financed her first camera and photography school or whatever with debt and just kept running a slough of accounts since then. A lot of people live this way. She was able to cobble a whole life together this way, until the economy started to tank and the bills started coming due. And really what value do her works have? I mean in 25 years who will care about the Rolling Stones going on tour in 1972? Her works will always have some value but their overall valuation could be poised to tumble with the baby boomers slowly fading from the national stage...
It's not your job to question the validity of other peoples posts or threads. That's a slippery slope. Up to you of course but when people are posting to tell you to fuck off then posting again to insult you it won't be long before you're the targets of the *really* nasty bastards on here.
C'mon now, she's a competent professional photographer, but let's face it. Why did she get rich and famous in the first place? Because she photographed celebrities. I remember the first time I noticed her was in the Sept 1971 issue of Rolling STone magazine when she did a troublesome photoshoot with the Allman Brothers band. It was the same issue part 1 of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas appeared with Ralph Steadman's ink drawings.
Her career went on to document show biz America of the 70's and 80's. It made her famous and rich.
So what will happen when all those famous celebrities she photographed will become as famous and as relevant as the Pickford sisters and Robert Goulet and George Raft? When the generation that worshipped those pop gods is in the old folks home filling its diapers with poo and pee?
Should follow the same price trajectory as 60's muscle cars...
You obviously place money above art, and don't recognize genius when it is placed before you. Nothing I can do will change that, but it would make you appear less crass if you took an art class or two. You might even enjoy them.