Would you fork out this money for a reproduction?

[Michael HR]

I'm not sure the originals are still covered by copyright after all these years?

[grandduchess_42]

I'm not sure the originals are still covered by copyright after all these years?

i was going to say!
i mean.. the pictures must have gotten on the internet by somebody.. obviously didn't put one on there.

[Michael HR]

Well as most of us have huge amounts of photos and photoshop we could open up a new business between us all...

If printed on high quality and framed well I suppose people will buy them. In one way it is nice to know that people are still intrested in the family after all this time - besides us of course.

Michael

[amy]

I'm not sure the originals are still covered by copyright after all these years?

They originals may not be covered, if ever they were, but many (most) of the digitized Romanov images floating around originated from a copyrighted or ownership rights source.


Anyway, I think I got distracted in my original post. In answer to the original poster's question - No! I would not fork out that kind of money for a reproduction print. That's silly!

[ImperialHighness]

Well, I have thought about all that again and again and I think most of the photos and cards of the IF are owned by the Russian State or the museums at Russia. You can ask them to reproduce them for using them in a book, but you have to mention their copyright.
I do not think the copyright is not important after all those years.

To be true- I would fork out my money for a good reproduction if it s a very rare one and the original one too expensive, although I do spent a lot of money on the originals- Cabinet photos and so on.

I still think the user you are attacking is reliable in some ways- most of his offered goods are fine and of good quality. And you can t attack one by letting out the others- just make a search at ebay for Romanov and you ll find many more of those sellers. And there is even a professional one in the Netherlands offering whole sets of photos and they must be all from the museums and under copyright law. I can send you the link.

So I think the discussion is useless and it will lead to nothing.
Sorry, that s my opinion.

[Lanie]

When a person has been confronted with stealing my colored pictures, for example, they say oh no, a friend of mine did it, it's perfectly fine!

eBay refuses to do anything, so I refuse to have anything to do with eBay as people are making money off of my creative work (which is, I believe by copyright, MINE).

It's frustrating, but there's nothing one could do about it.

I've recognized my scans as printed 'reproductions,' too.  I don't think I have any legal reason to confront this person, though, considering it's pretty much public domain.

[Holly]

I was talking to someone about this who knows a lot about copyright with photographs and they said that it is not copyright infringement if the picture was taken after the 1920's and everyone that took a part in producing the picture is now deceased. Any pictures after 1920 are public domain as long as you state the date the picture was taken.

As in Lanie's case, although it may not be technically illegal, it is morally ethically wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Maybe you think this is useless, 'ImperialHighness', but you haven't had this effect you. (Like most of the threads in here are actually leading to something anyways??) I've had a colored picture by me on there and as you can imagine, I got the response that they colored it themselves even though I could see where they had taken out my name.

[rosieposie]

Imperial Highness I don't know how long you have been of AP but myself I have been on since 2005/6.   

I also love eBay and it is hurtful for us members who have found the time to look for these photos and/or colour them to only have some seller take these photos and reproduce these images without asking us or mentioning us in these images when they sell them.  They could right a caption such as "GrandDuchess Maria and Olga, taken from Alexander Palace .org,  reproduced on fine photo paper".

Like Tomhet (who as I have mentioned has taken to watermarking images which I think is ironic since they take pictures from us) mentions that their "friend" has the original prints and they reproduce these prints to sell to the public.

I'm trying make a discussion in wonder of if you would pay the high prices of such photos, given that Tomhet is reasonable with just $1.00 yet it is a bit distressing when you see your own coloured pictures or pictures you have found and scanned for others to enjoy on AP to be taken and sold.  Especially when it is sold at such a high price.

It is obvious that you haven't been on here long and quite possibly a teen, as I see in your attitude that you openly say that this discussion is
useless.  Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on you, but it is fair to say that you have never felt the disappointment on having your own pictures taken and being sold.     

[AnastasiaExpert]

Hey Rosie,

It seems like an interesting topic.  Myself personally I would NEVER buy a reproduction.