Geoffreys Photographers

[cnosni]

Tasa wrote: cnosni wrote: Tasa wrote: cnosni wrote: Tasa wrote: One of my photos taken as a baby has a Jerome's stamp on the back. It says either 33 or 38 Boar Lane - the ink has smeared a little. I also have a Geoffrey's photo but it doesn't give the full address, just Boar Lane. Tasa, good to see you are still around. And Black Prince too. Thanks - I look at the forum most days but don't always have much to say! Oh Please say more.BTW what do you know about the Liddle collection at the Uni, assuming you still have a connection there. I hadn't heard of the Liddle Collection until you mentioned it above, but I've Googled it and it sounds interesting. Unfortunately I no longer have access to the library as I left the University almost two years ago! Ok Tasa, thanks anyway

[tilly]

Leodian wrote: tilly wrote: I you take an old photograph to get a copy you will have problems if the shop that printed it put there name on the back I once took a photograph to get a copy it was forty years old no shop would touch it because of the name on the back I managed to get one but i was told to stick a piece of paper to hide the name even though the shop had closed years ago. . Hi tilly. How very strange. I wonder why? Surely the name of the shop that originally printed the photo would not appear in a copy, so it should not be any problem with copyright of the shops name.     Hi Leodian I think the problem is the copyright reprinting the photograph without permission is i think against the law if anyone knows different i would love to know.This does not apply to photographs without a shops name on the back i hope someone on here can clear this up.    

[BillyBritvic]

Just had a rummage through a box of old pics and found this

[Leodian]

I liked that BillyBritvic. Wow, at only 2¼ by 3¼ (presumably inches) the basic-sized prints were small. Great old 5 digit Leeds telephone number 23792.