If what you say is true, that no copyright or property right infringement exists for a cancelled stamp, then it would seem tha tphotographer has no copyright protection either.  Seems to me the original artist would have the copyright; whether or not hey choose to exercise a clain is somehting else.  Copyrights mean little if the originating artist does nothing to the infringer.   Unfortunately most artists and photographers have a difficult time keeping an eye on just how their image is being used.  Especially since most of their images can be used on a myiad of web sites where they can be grabbed by anyone.  Also, how many images are purchased without the Extended License but are resold as greeting cards, T-Shirts, calendar shots etc.

 Just a thought from a newbee.

Quote from: stock shooter on September 05, 2008, 22:10

You know your little sarcastic quips all over the different forums are getting old dude. You're not nearly as witty or in insightful as you think, just obnoxious.

how many times would that image (that I provided the link to in my previous post) have been downloaded on the micros? Not many I would think...You�re free to slave away to make Bruce a rich guy but don�t call me a sucker because I know there are other avenues for licensing imagery than iStock.

First I find Sean to be funny the majority of the time. Second, he wasn't calling you a sucker. He was calling the person that paid $8,000 for a tourist snapshot a sucker. Third, you're correct it wouldn't have been downloaded on the micros very often and it is highly likely that it would have been rejected by many of them as "not stock". Finally, Bruce sold iStock for $50 million a few years ago and is now a salary worker at Getty (which is now owned by a hedge fund), so Sean's sales aren't really making Bruce richer.