Yes, NASA has put so much of their material from that time online that you could probably find all of these for free and at high resolution. The article keeps referring to "vintage prints" so it might mean actual prints from that time and while they could have historic value printed photos love to degrade over time. Especially color ones from decades ago can fade a lot. One of the examples look like it was signed, obviously depending who that was could add value.

Long story short it's a shit article and who knows what they're actually selling. If it's just prints of old photos made today it's a rip off, if it's prints from decades ago maybe signed they might have more value but don't expect them to look all that great and they'll probably get worse in the future.

An original photographic print (meaning one printed directly off of the film used to take the picture, not a copy) is the photography equivalent of an original painting.

With analog processes, half the creative work is in the printing process. If any post work was done, these prints would have been what other copies were made from.

Same reason why you'll see original prints from Ansel Adams sell for unbelievable sums of money despite there being better looking modern prints of his work available. You'd be buying the physical object that the artist spent hours fine tuning, the actual original which all other prints copied - and keeping in mind the darkroom printing process is what inspired the modern photo editing platforms Lightroom, Photoshop, etc.

Some NFTs come with copyright. Snoop Dogg’s NFT has him making all sorts of companies now using it as his logo

[deleted]