No-show on health.
Copyright imply permission to replication.

But generally it is better to ask OlguV, a lawyer and she understands better.

Yes, it is interesting to hear mnenine lawyer. If, for example, my work involved in the exhibition, which was printed catalog, which is The Draw products, it turns out that the right to print the catalog should have to give the heirs?

Meister,
It turns out so.

A display of paintings on the forum, such as Internet publishing?

Approximately the same reaction to the message.

We (Russian) do not know how to count money, applies to all trust, and always assume the good in people too, and it distinguishes us from the "underdeveloped" in principle. In this, if you will, the Russian soul.
We are doing everything "at random" believing that anything goes or that no one will take advantage of our trust and negligence.
A "less developed" long accustomed to thinking "this is mine, and if so, then we can sell, if anyone should. And the laws on property they have invented, and the copyright, too, and we, as always, lag behind. And if catching up, it turns out "as always" (quoted Chernomyrdin), like the law on import-export. Like your thing, but take - horseradish.

Knowledgeable people "mark out" their thing "copyright" or "watermark" (maslovka.org), while others, like me - at random.
Some sites on the art also use "watermark", guess who? :)

Display (publish) - yes.
Post (play) - no (except for informational materials).
The buyer is the owner of the picture is the picture, but no right to its reproduction (reproduction in any form), if not agreed with the holder of exclusive rights (by the author, relatives).

Rights may be exclusive and non-exclusive.
If you purchase the exclusive right - you can do whatever they want (replicated in any qty-vah), until the resale of the rights of third parties.
Non-exclusive - mean time, circulation, methods of reproduction, and can be sold to multiple publishers at the discretion of the holder exclusive rights.

If I - the artist sold the painting, it does not mean that you have the right to earn money for the printing of calendars, books, posters, etc. without my participation or consent.
The painting may be one boss, and her "image" - another. Museums, publishing works (postcards, etc.) within 50 (I think) years after his death, his heirs pay money for each publication. After this period, the product is publicly available. Harms can be printed just like that, because the heirs did not. Bulgakov is not published for several years - waiting for the expiry of rights.
Publishers, in contrast to the collectors, bought from the artist is the right to publish.

P.S. If an artist has sold the exclusive right to publish, for him is the right to publish his work in a publication dedicated to his work, without notice (new) owner of an exclusive right.

How's life interesting set up. Russian lawyers will have a lot of work, but they complain that law school graduates to seek employment nowhere:)

But their (sites) many of these, with the "water marks", but if you hinted at this, I'm here these signs that something is not seen.

In the case of already released a picture - at least in France - the rights holders can not prevent its publication by a third person, they can only seek monetary compensation, but we collect money for the benefit of authors and successors is a special organization, so that in principle, it is automatically (approximately every 2-3 years I receive checks for 18-20 euros, so that my future, as you know, guaranteed).
But if the work had never been shown, theoretically, holders may require the removal from the exhibition and its destruction, for example, its reproduction in the catalog of this exhibition, and I confess that when I wrote my message, I meant exactly that situation.