File talk:Joseph Wright.jpg

The image Joseph Wright.jpg is of a relative of mine that was taken around 1915. In this case, I am not sure who owns copyright. As far as I can determine, the studio that took the photograph went out of business in 1920. Who now owns copyright (if any)?

Do you know if the image was published at all? When was the earliest time it was published? If this can be determined, it may be public domain. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the image has never never published. A very similar image (but not the same; i.e he was wearing the same clothes, looked the same age, but had a different expression) was published in a booklet called "50-years of methodism in Glodwick". This was published in 1913. I think he (or his family commissioned several photographs from a photographic studio called "Geo. E. Rowland" at 29 King Street Oldham in around 1912 simply as a set of memorabilia for the family. One of these found its was into the methodist booklet but the remainder were just passed down through four generations to me. Ian (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant- the other photo (the one published in the book) is public domain in the US. You can upload it with the license {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Wright died in 1930 and this photograph was passed down to me as family history. The photograph was taken by a company called Geo. E. Rowland (Photographers) of 29 King Street Oldham on a date prior to 1913. Geo. E Rowland went out of business in 1920. I believe this image to be PD. The only reason that I can forsee why this might not be the case would be if the "business" of Rowland had been sold or taken over by someone else. As far as I can ascertain this was not the case. I believe (but have no way of proving) that the negative for this image was destroyed in 1920 or soon afterwards. Ian (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Wright.jpg

Unfortunately the book image (published in 1913) and hence (I am told) definitely PD is far too small (about 1cm x 1cm) and would not provide a sensible image on a Wiki page. The book image and the Joseph Wright.jpg image are very similar; same clothes, same age etc., but a different expresssion. I believe that Joseph Wright.jpg was taken at the same time as the book image. There is another image in the book of a group of people who are officers of a local church in 1913 and Joseph Wright also appears on that photograph. In the group photograph he is clearly much older than both Joseph Wright.jpg and the other thumbnail immage in the book that I mention above. My conclusion is that Joseph Wright.jpg was taken a good number of years prior to the publication of the book in 1913. I would guess that there is more than a 5-year difference and that would put the age of Joseph Wright.jpg prior to 1908 (i.e. over 100 years old). The photograph caption states that it shows Joseph Wright in 1915. This date is provided by Joseph Wright's Grandson and the caption is chosen with respect to his memory of events. In reality, I do not believe that his memory serves him correctly for the reasons that I give above. I can upload copies of the two other images from the book so that you can see if you agree with my assessment. Ian (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Wright.jpg

OK, I think I can provide evidence that this image was produced in 1910 (or earlier) and hence might be covered by licence "PD-US-1923-abroad" as suggested by J. Milburn. On close inspection, the image is identical to a small thumbnail image produced in "Fifty Years of Methodism in Glodwick" which was published by Trinity Wesleyan Chapel Oldham in 1913. As I mentioned above, there is another image of Joseph Wright in the book taken with a group of other church members. The group is identified as "current officials of the church".. In this group photograph he looks older than in the image that is being disputed so I believe that it could have been taken as early as 1910. His wife died in 1910 and family history has it that his own health suffered as a result; possibly explaining the visual aging that appears to have taken place between the date of the disputed image and the group image taken in 1913. I can (if asked) upload the thumbnail image from the book to show that it is identical to the disputed image as well as the group photograph of 1913. Ian (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've just realised you said that this is identical to another published image- feel free to tag it with the tag and provide an explanation for where it was published. I am going to retain the other things I have typed because it took me a few minutes to research it, and it may be relevant for other images you will upload. The 1923-abroad only applies to images that have been published before 1923, not produced. However, I have other reasons that it may be in the public domain- of you're willing to have a good look around (and it appears that you are) then there are two more possibilities. Firstly, if you can determine who the author is, and the author died more than seventy years before January 1, 1976, then you can tag the image with {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-US-1996}}. If you are unable to determine the author, and you can provide some evidence showing that it is likely the author never claimed copyright on this work, then you can tag it with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-US-1996}}. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)