Does anyone have information on National Geographic Reprints from 2007. I was unaware that any were reproduces after 1975. I had assumed that I had a complete 1964 set of "Red Bricks" but have just discovered that my Volume I, Numbers 2, 3, and 4 were all produced in 2007. This is an image of the bottom of the inside, back cover:
It appears that these reprints were only done for Volume I, but I cannot be sure. The website is no longer active (I tried it). Any information about these issues would be greatly appreciated.
Yours in Collecting,
. . . do you happen to recall an eBay seller "Senoron" ? There was a gentleman with a then-closed printing shop that was buying original reprints circa 2006, 2007 (from me, others) and then using them to create new, high-quality reprints. He was very up-front about them being new reprints . . .As far as I knew he only got as far as reprinting Vol. I, then quit the project.
A few months ago I tried my email to tell him something but the email bounced back undeliverable. His ebay store is closed as well. He was located somewhere in Washington state I want to say. He and I corresponded a fair bit. There's some others I know of that bought from him. His copies were excellent from what I was told, as well as the feedback on his ebay store I read and noted then.
Thanks for the info. The "look and feel" of these are superb. I would never have guessed that these were third party. Other than the line printed on the inside back cover you would never know. Even the map is top quality. I wonder how he got around the copyright laws. Maybe he was forced to cease and desist.
Correct me if I am wrong but if he did this for magazines published pre 1920, would they not be out of copyright? Or did he do reprints of the reprints (so to speak?) and hence would be copyrighted since they were published after 1920?
The original material is, of course pre-1920, but the reprints were produced in 1964. I am no lawyer and know little about copyright law. The Society does protect its property so, if this was a violation, they would certainly have sued. I just do not know enough about these re-reprints to say what really happened. I was talking off the top of my head when I mentioned copyrights to Scott.
I have the information about the seller who made the reprints. I will ask him about the copyright issue, if any, and if he ever received any communiques from the Society.
* assuming he is still well and 'with us', and willing to talk, that is.
If you can reach him, ask him how many of these he produced.