snookie wrote:Vikki wrote:snookie,
I'm afraid Heimatschuss beat you to it by posting that photo in this thread a while ago.
But since you like the photo so well
, I've merged your thread with this one instead of deleting or locking it for redundancy.
~Vikki
I actually own the photo as opposed to stealing it from eBay.
I liked it enough to purchase it.
snookie,
There is a point to be made there. Actually, at least a couple of them.
Speaking as "
Vikki the Moderator":
Images of photos for sale on EBAY, and most other auction sites, are not, as far as I know, legally protected against copying. Most such sites do not have published, much less legally binding, prohibition against copying their photos of an item. Therefore, noone who posts a photo from one of those auctions can be accused of "stealing" the photo, especially if they post a credit for the original source of the picture (as everyone is asked to do here).
Speaking as "
Vikki the Collector":
On the other hand, I agree with your sentiments both ethically and professionally.
I, and other collectors I know, have been hit with seeing photos of items they own posted here, and on other sites. Usually, these days, it's a reprint of the item in the seller's internet ad. Sometimes the poster "collected" the "image" a while ago; but I've personally seen photos of items I've bought show up here and elsewhere, literally between the time when I bought the item and before I received it in the mail. Right of ownership? No case, according to copyright lawyers I've talked to. Ethics? Well, that's another matter.....
Ethics.....That brings up another matter, and one that I'm sure "image collectors" and what I call "material culture collectors" will never agree on. "Image collectors" say that they are collecting the
information in the photo solely, and many defend their position by adding that if your and my houses burn down, they've saved for posterity the
information in the photos, "which" (according to them) "is the most important thing."
The problem with that defense is that the most important part of the information often isn't captured in the photo. In the Reichspost photos I posted above, the images captured by the photos alone show something about uniforms and employment of women. But without actually handling the photos themselves, and without seeing the information on the back of the picture, they don't tell the whole story: that the photos were "official" photographs, and therefore convey a carefully composed ideal of the subject matter. A simple photograph of one of the Luftnachrichtenhelferin caps I own wouldn't show the embroidered initials, doubtless painstakingly stitched into to lining by the woman herself. None of the sellers' photos of the other cloth women's items I own show the construction details, or the distinctively female tailoring. A copy posted on another site of one of my posts here, which showed a female Luftwaffe Flak patch, wound document, and wound badge, failed to even note the significance of
a woman having received a wound badge.
As a "material culture collector", I must say that "image collectors" miss the point.
There is no substitute for handling the piece itself---examining it, examining it at length, examining it at even more length, examining it until it has sparked your curiousity to exhaust every possible source and comparison you can find on it, both written and photographic---even smelling it (well, those of you who've done it will know what I mean
).
And all of the above are part of the reason that I, probably like you, snookie, am very hesitant to share more of my collection on the internet.
Best,
~Vikki
by Heimatschuss on 19 Feb 2007 22:38 
