Jeremy,

The quote that you mentioned is made up, if you look at the date "Evening Herald April 1, 2012", but I think the point is valid.

Jeremy, I think the shorter way of summing up your previous point is that ownership of an item (letters in this case) does not equate to ownership of copyright. (e.g. You can buy an original Ted Nasmith the next time you're at Moreton, but you're not buying the copyright for it..)

BH

This one's pretty funny! I'm almost tempted to buy one for my house (if it didn't have to be shipped from Australia). It'd be perfect for any home bar or game room - and in the long run, it will save you a lot of "Powder!"

http://cgi.ebay.com/J883B-LED-Sign-Sa ... 4154ea29c8#ht_3029wt_1132

Does not appear that ebay will be forced to deal with the fakes and frauds, at least not by the US Courts. No liability for ebay the ruling states.


http://www.antiquestradegazette.com:8 ... n=update&utm_content=ATG2

"A ruling in favour of Tiffany would have forced eBay to vet their listings, but two lower courts had previously sided with eBay, saying the online auctioneers couldn't be held liable unless they had specific knowledge that particular items might be counterfeit. But in a July 2008 ruling, a U.S. District Court said that ultimately it was the responsibility of the trademark holder to monitor instances of trademark infringement."

So, it looks as though it's up to the Estate to police this sort of thing. Or is it? Doesn't always come back to the old maxim, 'Buyer beware?'