In article , -
bonomi.com says...
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'.

Well, we could go round and round with legalisms, but my contention is
that by not stampiong the photos when that was required, the
photographer implicitly refused copyright. Now he, or his estate, has
been given the copyright. Refusing his refusal?

And I think we've beat this to death. If someone sues me for copying a
picture of myself or my kids, I'll let you all know :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever