In article ,
lgb wrote:
In article ,
says...
Sorry,

But current copyright law applies to ALL photographs, and to all other
copyright material, regardless of when produced.

I'm not disputing that. I just think that in cases like the one I
posted, that law is ridiculous.

*MOST* laws are 'ridiculous' with regard to _some_ of the situations to which
they apply.

And again I ask, aren't "ex post facto" laws unconstitutional?

Yes, *BUT*... grin

"Ex post facto" does _not_ include making something which "was allowed"
to now be "not allowed".

"Ex post facto" means making it a crime *now*, to _have_done_a_thing_ that
it was legal to do when it was done.

If, for example, one had made copies of an old photograph that lacked any
copyright claim, *before* the 'Berne Convention' copyright statute revisions,
that action would be legal, and those copies _would_ be "legal" copies.
*IF* the copyright law changes had attempted to make one liable for
copyright violation _now_, for the act committed *then*, THAT would be
an unconstitutional 'ex post facto' situation.

Declaring that, 'from the date of enactment of the new law, and thereafter'
that one can _no_longer_ make copies of that photograph without infringing
on the copyright rights of the photographer is _not_ 'ex post facto'.

Acts done _prior_ to the enactment of the new law are unaffected.

Acts done _after_ the enactment of the new law are governed by the new law.