Reproducing them advertises them so that more people can see it. Examples of how the meaning of an original can change when reproduced are when people see those originals through a "lens" of some sort. Like looking at the originals of the paintings we see in the youtube video. We see an reproduction of it but not the original; John Berger sees the original but not us. Cameras can also distort the view of an original because it can focus and zoom into different parts of an image and not the whole. We get a different "story" told to us and only a part of a bigger picture. When the whole image is seen, all the elements are shown simultaneously and nothing is distorted because we get the whole picture. There is no bias placed. Rythym and music playing in the background also distorts our view and understanding of an image. We get different sentiments depending on the mood of the music. Or when there is a narrative played with the viewing of an image we can get a different story behind the setting of the image. I think that originals/copies take on a new meaning from the point when something disrupts the person viewing that image. Even if someone is looking at an original if there is something around them to influence them to perceive the image differently, it becomes a copy of the original. In the video Berger talks about the catalogs kept to keep data on when paintings were painted, who painted it, the date when it was completed/started, who owned it, and the pedigrees of the owners. This was all done in order to show the fakes that they were fake. All of this data was kept and written for this purpose. This showed how important and precious originals were. Because cameras were being produced there was a small lost for the original paintings. This is why originals are so expensive; because it is able to be easily reproduced.