Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message

Regardless of how you do it, you will be doing it in violation of the
copyright unless the photographer died intesttate, or shiel alive or
in his will expressly (not implicitely, but expressly) put his work
into the public domain, or his heirs have done so, or you actually
can find his heirs to get their permission.

Just because you want to do something does not mean that it will be
legal for you to do that thing. Regrettably, this is true for
many 'things' where the prohibition is truly insensible.

--

FF


.Just because it is illegal, does not mean I'm not going to do it.
While I consider myself to be a law abiding citizen, there also has to be
some common sense. I'd not do it for commercial works, but for family
photos, the law just does not work under these circumstances.


I agree, even more strongly. The latest change in
copyright and patent law are contrary to the
original idea. Most of the changes seem to be
aimed, not at the artists, but at the producers,
e.g., record companies, recording studios,
computer programs etc. Extending the right well
beyond the the death of the originator is counter
productive to protecting the inventiveness of
artists and scientific progress. The original
patent and copyright laws were to the point
(artists and inventors) but the changes have
changed the focal point to salesmen and
distributors who contribute little.