Reproductions For Sale Honestly Described By Seller - Shows That There Are Collectors Who Buy Such

Some US Companies produced facsimile FDCs of classic and expensive US FDC for collectors usually with a text description on the reverse. They were somewhat popular and still show up from time to time. An example would be a cover with three US Zeppelin stamps, C13, C14 and C15 as well as the later C18.


A seller from Spain with ebay ID "*slau*" is very clear in labeling the items as not original. While I am not commenting on the prices it is nice for once that the seller points out they are not real in both the listing photo and listing title. No text on the back.

USA 1893 COMPLETE SET OF 16 VALUES COLUMBIAN STAMP ON COVER USED REPRODUCTION





GERMAN EAST AFRICA MAFIA ISLAND 1915 FISCAL STAMP USED POST USED REPRODUCTION





This open and honest seller is showing that yes, folks will purchase items knowing they are not original.

Currently seller has 11 listed items, all reproductions and also 11 items, all reproductions in the 90 day sold list.

To be fair, this sort of thing has been going on for decades.

Spiro was making his 'reproductions' for collectors so they could fill spaces in their albums that would otherwise remain empty, probably forever.

It is certainly refreshing to see honesty front and centre. The Columbians are quite nicely done in my opinion.

I wonder if the seller received permission from Siegel to reproduce their images.

That Columbian cover is gorgeous. Do these pieces look like they are newly created by the seller as they sell, or were they created a long time ago? I'm not sure what would be involved in creating pieces like that, but it does seem like it would be an awful lot of work, and for a pretty modest return. Also I wonder what stamps they are using. Are they cheap laser printer replicas or something higher quality?

There is much duplication between what has sold and what is for sale. Thus the seller seems to have multiple copies of the items offered. Quite unlikely these are from an old holding of facsimile items.

The seller isn't creating anything. He is copying auction catalog images. See the following link from Siegel for the Columbian cover (Sale 1205 held in 2019, Lot 2057):

https://siegelauctions.com/lot_grd....emailflag=on

The Mafia Island cover is from Siegel sale 1143 in 2016, Lot 3332:

https://siegelauctions.com/lot_grd....emailflag=on

Can't just say that is a Siegel photograph. It would be for the copyright owner to prove with step one being proving that is the photograph the purported copyright owner took. The underlying piece exists and can be photographed more than once by any number of folks. Siegel is not the only entity that can own and operate a camera.

Edit: Added missing "c" to one word.

The seller printed the Siegel image. Look at the edges of the Columbian "copy". It is not an exact image of the genuine piece. It has been lazily trimmed with sharp lines etc. after it was printed. Look at the top left corner, the right side and obviously the bottom. The seller could not get the nuances of the shape down by using an Exacto knife and being the Picasso that he could have been.

If anybody wants to argue that this seller could have maybe possibly stolen the image from somewhere other than Siegel it seems like a dog that don't hunt but anything is possible, I suppose. LOL I cannot understand the point of that argument. That it was "borrowed" from another source and that makes it "different" and OK or betterer?

Don't quite understand the goodness of this. Seller copies auction catalog images and sells them for $30 a pop. He states that they are "copies". Copies of someone else's work.

Also copyrights issue to such holders in the USA are not valid in all countries of the world. If the copyrighted photo is thus manipulated and changed in such a country, it no longer is what was copyrighted making the effort much more difficult to successfully enforce a copyright. Likewise fair use can be claimed by the creator of the new or altered image. The seller can be using such fair use copies that the seller purchased from another creator.

I doubt there is much interest spending the money to enforce such a copyright claim internationally.

Likewise nothing is stopping anyone from selling copies of copyrighted images which they own, old auction catalogs are sold regularly.

Agreed. At least we both know that he is using someone else's images to turn a buck. Not the first time nor the last.

PPG … nothing in your prior post is legally correct, except that there is no economic case for enforcement, and the seller can legally sell an original physical page cut from an auction catalog, if that is what they are doing.

US-origin copyrights are enforceable overseas under the Berne Convention in 179 countries. Fair use does not apply if the seller is selling a digital image made from the original. Far more transformation is needed than we see here to avoid a derivative works claim and come within the holding of Perfect 10 v. Google.

The listing is deceptive. At least some buyers will think they are buying a physical cover, only to receive a paper cutout from a catalog.

I'm just bemused by people's interest in buying these things. I understand buying auction catalogues, both as sources of information and attractive images. I understand buying a Spiro or other forgery. But why would you want a printed copy of an auction catalogue image of some stamps on piece? Do the buyers stick them in albums?

And why pay twenty quid?

Morning all,

Back in the B.C. era, before computers et al, and especially earlier, images of stamps were hard to come by. Reproductions filled this gap allowing collectors to see what a stamp looks like to their eyes. Properly marketed, they provided needed information.

This topic comes up regularly and it always divides into those who think it's harmless and want to leave people alone to collect what they want, and those I call "moralists" who find fault and want it to stop. They say the image is from an auction catalogue by which they mean the seller is not allowed to copy that image. The item should never be sold because it's not real -- even if that is pointed out by the seller and/or marked on the stamp itself. No one should profit from recognizable copies or "fakes". Or it's harmful to the hobby. And so on.

Many people hang up copies of famous paintings. They might even frame them. Do you think people wonder if that really is a Van Gogh in my bathroom? If it makes you feel any better, I'll mark "copy" on the back of it.

I don't find most of these criticisms very convincing. Fakes or copies have been around since the beginning of stamp collecting. Some were created to deceive (those must have been the really good fakes), but a lot of copies were just a money-making way to help collectors fill their albums. Even in the 19th c, many stamps were far too expensive for most collectors to afford. Solution: Buy copies to put in your album. Who is harmed by this? I imagine some were sold as genuine. That is a problem. But if it's a bad copy, few will mistake it for the real stamp. Or the seller might put "fake" or "faux" on the back. If not, the collector should do that! A lot of these old copies are now collected -- by actual stamp collectors who find them interesting. What if I find modern copies interesting? Am I allowed to collect them?

In Japan in the late 19th c, it was common for copies (fakes) of many current stamps to be printed and mounted on large sheets or in small albums for sale to tourists as souvenirs. These were called "tourist sheets" and I've got one. These stamps are still collectable and still studied. In fact, the first four stamps Japan issued exist far more often as copies than as real stamps. The ISJP published an entire volume about this which shows how to tell them apart. It's not that hard.

Copying photographs that are copyrighted is illegal in your own country, but not necessarily elsewhere. Or maybe auction houses don't care? Or auction houses don't pursue the problem legally because they have better things to do? Or maybe it's just not a big deal? You might ask yourself who is harmed by this?

I've bought a few copies of stamps. Some stamps I just can't afford to own. I have no problem doing this. And if they're not marked as copies, I write "copy'" on them. Some are fairly good copies, but some don't even look like real stamps. Perforating with a sewing machine isn't likely to make stamps look genuine. I have a few copies of early British stamps perforated this way. They look kind of silly. Believe me, no one is going to think they're real. Or they have no perforations when they should. Or the color is off. Or the image is very weak. Or there are other differences like different paper. It's actually pretty rare for copies of stamps to be indistinguishable from the genuine article. Even the many more than century-old copies of Swiss stamps I've seen are easy to tell from real. No, really, just look at them carefully.

I don't think this harms the hobby, and I don't think anyone who intentionally buys copies of stamps they'd otherwise not have is doing anything wrong. It seems a bit silly to trot out all the criticism every time someone posts about copies of stamps or covers. Don't buy them. Problem solved.

Pot calling the kettle black IMO with the only difference being the "moralist" in the above quote argues the other side.

No matter how one tries to justify it, copies are in many cases theft of someone else's work. An auction catalog image or a Gucci handbag and everything in between (see China counterfeiting discussions) counts as the same thing just at different levels. If it is protected and yet used/copied by an entity without approval it is wrong.

From Siegel website: