When vintage photograph really means vintage

I've been selling, and buying, on okay for ten years, and selling full time for five. And mostly I sell vintage photographs from the Civil War to 1950. An d I have noticed a troubling trend of late. After viewing the listings under photo albums. CDVs, and tintypes, I often check "other vintage listings" and it appears that the majority of the items are actually recent copies of supposed vintage photographs. Now my question is simply, when is a copy of an old photo considered a vintage photograph? It would seem to me that a copy or reproduction or reprint or whatever one chooses to call it, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be vintage. It's new and a copy. Now the sellers of same do find clever ways of describing their product as a copy, thus avoiding the ire of okay. But it throws a shadow over those of us who list true vintage photographs. I start out every listings as "vintage, original", yet I continue to received inquiries as to whether my listing is an original, followed by an addendum that the buyer has been burned in the past. I think okay should bar these copies from a category which clearly calls for vintage photographs. make a separate place for the reprinters if they must, although I would assume that in such a case these reprinters would stop selling their copies. In any, case I am tired of browsing through countless pages of this junk in search of the genuine product.