Annie Leibovitz must pay back $24 mill today or lose all rights to her life’s work

wenn2467274
Famed celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz has been threatened with the prospect of losing all rights to her entire catalog if she fails to pay back a $24 million loan today. Leibovitz, 59, offered up the catalog and all her properties as collateral for the loan, which was required to settle multiple mounting debts. Basically Leibovitz bought a lot of real estate, failed to pay multiple vendors and tax obligations, and got in way over her financial head. The lender, Art Capital, says Leibovitz must pay up today or lose rights to all the photos she’s ever taken, along with all rights to all photos she’ll take for the rest of her life. Her work is easily the most well known among modern celebrity photographs and includes the iconic photo of a naked John Lennon snuggling with Yoko Ono for the cover of Rolling Stone and the naked photo of a pregnant Demi Moore for the cover of Vanity Fair. It is widely expected that Leibovitz will file for bankruptcy in a bid to keep her catalog. The Associated Press reports that the lender is calling in the loan because Leibovitz failed to work with them to license some photos and appraise her property:

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Art Capital Group, which consolidated all her loans in September 2008, charged in its lawsuit that Leibovitz breached the contract by refusing to allow real estate experts into her homes to appraise their value and by blocking ACG from selling her photographs.

[AP via The Huffington Post]

Lender Art Capital Group is a high end pawn shop that accepts art and valuables in exchange for loans. Owner Ian Peck says that they aim to “avoid defaulting at all costs. Given the trouble involved in a default, it’s better karma and business not to.” The AP reports that the owner’s assurances probably aren’t true at all. “Just like pawn shops, [Art Capital Group] is just as happy to see a default, according to art and money experts.” Do you think they looked for an excuse to latch on to Leibovitz’s valuable catalog? They did loan her $25 million, but are likely to see quite a profit if they’re successful in obtaining the rights to all her photos. She may try to thwart them with a bankruptcy claim, and this matter is likely to end up in the courts for years. It’s kind of mind boggling to see how super rich people can have such massive money problems.

Annie Leibovitz is shown on 6/18/09 at the opening of “Annie Leibovitz: a photographer life. 1990-2005” in Madrid. Credit: WENN.com

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

16 Responses to “Annie Leibovitz must pay back $24 mill today or lose all rights to her life’s work”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. clare says:

    The part about losing the rights to all the future pictures she takes for the rest of her life sounds wrong. How is that possible? But, the rest, it’s just plain sad she wasn’t smart enough to handle her money or have a good accountant/money manager to handle it for her.

  2. Jag says:

    Wow. Quite the spot she’s put herself in at the moment. On another note, how do I become a photo stylist? I’d love to make $386k for a photo shoot. lol

  3. Devries says:

    Who in the HELL gets a $24 million loan???

  4. Green Is Good says:

    Doesn’t she have an accountant and/or a business manager? She’s been working for 30-odd years!

  5. Jen says:

    Oh, boo-hoo…too bad, so sad. I don’t feel sorry for her in the least. There are terms & conditions on loans for a reason, and if you can’t pay the loan, you default based on the terms in the contract. If she was stupid enough to put up her life’s work – past, present, & future – that’s her own stupid fault.

    I don’t get what the big deal about her is, anyway. Her stuff’s not that great.

  6. Eileen Yover says:

    OMG-how could she take a loan on her life’s work!! That’s like taking a loan out on your baby! What an idiot!

  7. cjcooper says:

    Annie has a well deserved reputatation for seeking perfection in her art and consequently running up huge production costs on her shoots. HOWEVER, her financial problems were brought about by the huge estate taxes she became liable for after her partner, Susan Sontag, died. She is more a victim of anti-gay tax laws than her poor financial management.

  8. Popcorny says:

    Compared to other folk’s problems, I don’t feel bad for her.
    She took the millions and enjoyed them.
    So, at worst, she loses these pictures.
    Not a tragedy at all. She’s not exactly “unemployed” or “unemployable” -even in this economy. All she has to do is take some more pictures.

  9. hatsumomo says:

    Why didnt she get a 24 million loan from her best friend Tom Cruise? I loan money to my friends all the time and I’m sure that’s just change to him.

  10. Firestarter says:

    Oh please! Her bad financial decisions are her fault, not the result of the anti-gay movement. Who gets a 24 million dollar loan in this economy? I mean when she took out the loan, things were going bad in this country. Just because you are a perfectionist and want your art to reflect that, does not mean you should risk everything you have worked for, all in the name of having the perfext backdrops, props and settings.

    I am sure her vast array of high rolling friends will come to her rescue and if they don’t? Well she joins thousands of less fortunate Americans losing their lifes work. She has a life better than 90% of the people in this country, so I feel no sympathy for her. Great photographer, stupid business woman, plain and simple.

  11. barneslr says:

    “She is more a victim of anti-gay tax laws than her poor financial management.”

    What nonsense. She is a victim of her own bad judgement, plain and simple. I am sorry that she put herself in this spot, but that’s exactly what she did. I hope she can work it out, because it would be a shame for her to lose everything after such a brilliant career.

  12. Linda says:

    Trump will bail her out

  13. Mairead says:

    Like many creative types, it seems she has little concept of money. Others are just really bad at holding onto it, no matter how one actively tries not to. But to lose control over one’s life’s work over bills and taxes and comparatively few assets seems remarkable to even me.

    The point about the inheritance tax was interesting so I decided to check it – the New York Times reported in July that Sontag’s son stated Liebovitz only received sentimental items (which might have had significant monetary value) but did not inherit the bulk of her estate. But given that her father also died in 2005 also, perhaps some of the taxes relates to that as well? Difficult to say.

    I’d say she was often not cutting her cloth to suit her measure.

  14. L says:

    It is ironic to me that some of the most talented and respected artists spend so excessively and use such extravagant means to enhance their work. They are supposed to be the best and their talent can stand on it’s own…but the more well known they become and the more impressive their work becomes, the bigger the pressure to outdo themselves… and it seems with many their work becomes less about showcasing their talent and more about being the best by having the best tools, equipment, whatever.

  15. Bete says:

    Seems that the United States is the land of ‘living above one’s means’.

  16. Lita says:

    It’s like McCartney not owning the beatles catalogue – on this really base level it seems wrong; I feel that any artist should have control of their works. It is their soul etc. But realistically speaking these people could both have handled their situations to avoid it. It’s not like they didn’t have the money – they weren’t artists going hungry and so selling themselves off piecemeal for rent or a crust. As much as it seems fundamentaly wrong, they made their decisions at wittingly as anyone else.