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.

'Actionable' I think, is the preferred term since the sort of
copying you intend would not rise to criminal conduct.

Your 'defense' is practical, rather than legal. That is to say
the 'wronged' party, even if still alive, most likely will remain
forever ignorant of the infringement. And if not, most likely
will not care.

--

FF