Image talk:Oneill.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Copyright Status

*Author: anonymous or pseudonymous, per EU Copyright Directive (1993), Article 1, §§1-4

  • This image was published not later than 1936 in conjunction with the Nobel Prize in Literature. If anyone has information that an author (photographer's actual name) was published in connection with this photograph within 70 years of the original publication , please make a note on this page and indicate where the author's name was seen to be publicly disclosed in connection with this image.
  • A search of the US Copyright renewals shows no record of copyright renewal, as would be required to extend copyright protection beyond the year 1964. If anyone has information that would document a copyright renewal in the U.S., please cite it on this page by clicking on "Edit this page".
  • Source: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1936/oneill-autobio.html

13:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a very confused argument. Lack of registration is only sufficient to show that something is in the public domain if the material was first published in the United States. Otherwise URAA restoration will apply. I don't see any indication that the Les Prix Nobel series was published in the United States.
  • The supposed anonymity of the photographer also doesn't have any supporting evidence. Just because he's not credited on that website doesn't mean he wasn't in the original book. And even if he wasn't credited in the original book he may well have been sometime in the following 70 years.
  • Come to think of it there's really no good indication that the 1937 Les Prix Nobel was the first publication of this photograph.
  • Even ignoring the above the "search of the US Copyright renewals shows no record of copyright renewal" line is not very helpful. What titles/authors/keywords did you search for? Where did you search? How could a third party confirm your work?
  • The image may still very well be in the public domain but the reasoning above is not at all convincing. We don't need absolute irrefutable proof but we do need something more careful than this. Haukur 11:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1) Failure to comply with U.S. formalities such as copyright renewal + published in 1936 = public domain in the United States.
2) It doesn't matter if 1936 was the first publication. We have very strong evidence it was published not later than 1936. See, e.g., this compact summary of copyright/public-domain status
3) Search for the years 1963, 1964, 1965, under N for Nobel. See, e.g., this source, which includes all books, periodicals and submissions to periodicals. And s a practical matter, individual photographs were never, or at least rarely, renewed individually because the issue in that era was who owned the photographic negative.
... Kenosis 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"Failure to comply with U.S. formalities such as copyright renewal + published in 1936 = public domain in the United States." Originally, yes. But in 1996 the URAA restored copyright on foreign works which had fallen into the public domain in the US due to failure to comply with US formalities but were still under copyright in their home countries. If this photograph was first published in, say, Sweden, and was under copyright in that country on January 1, 1996 its copyright was restored in the United States. Haukur 13:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No. It is CURRENT LAW. ... Kenosis 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, you lost me. What is current law? Haukur 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I gave the sources right above. I recognize how rumor and misinformation can spread. Haukurth, maybe it's time to collect this important information and put it in a conspicuous place so all WP admins and users can access it when needed. ... Kenosis 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Check the Hirtle chart - you have to consider the "WORKS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE THE US" possibility. Haukur 14:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>I'll admit it does present an interesting case, as this was published worldwide. In the US, the lack of renewal signals public domain from 1964 forward. In the EU, the lack of author disclosure for the photograph signals public domain in the EU as of 2006. So, you are arguing that this image is not public domain under the "not in the public domain in it's home country as of 1996" clause? That would surely be a stretch, IMO, since the unattributed photo was published worldwide no later than 1936. ... Kenosis 14:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all speculation. How do you know that this particular photo was published worldwide? It seems just as possible that it was published only in, say, Sweden in this Les Prix Nobel series. Maybe some other photo of this particular Nobel laureate made the rounds in newspapers at the time. And photos in newspapers weren't really that ubiquitous back then. And you're still assuming that it was published without attribution to the photographer with no particular evidence to back that up. In any case the question of anonymity doesn't really come into play for determining US copyright status. All it would take for the 1996 restoration to apply is for the photo to have been first published somewhere outside the US and not subsequently published in the United States within a month and still copyright in its home country in 1996. That does not seem at all unlikely to me but it would depend on local law. I think Sweden, for example, grants a shorter protection term for photographs that are not works of art and this would probably fall under that. But all that is irrelevant unless you can establish where and when the photograph was first published. The "balance of probabilities" is not enough. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not required. "Clear and convincing evidence" is the standard we should use. See burden of proof. Haukur 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Haukurth, I heartily disagree. Show me one case where such a claim has been successfully made for a photograph-- just one court case, in the EU or the US, just one. ... Kenosis 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC),
Please be more specific. What sort of claim? A claim that the 1996 copyright restoration worked as the law says it works? Haukur 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just one court case where this "back door clause" has been successfully used to claim copyright on a 70+ year old photograph. Just one, and I'll correct the situation here and anywhere else it comes to my attention. ... Kenosis 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's still unclear. What backdoor clause? The URAA restoration? Why would you only be interested in 70+ year old photographs? Do you think that younger photographs would be different or that, say, films or texts would be different from photographs before the law? In any case I don't understand why you feel I have to provide you with a court case. Do you feel it is unclear what the law is? That said you may be interested in Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.. Haukur 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You bet it's unclear. What is clear to me is that in order to have 70 years p.m.a., you need to have dislosed the author to the public, not put an organization name on it and keep the author hidden, but rather to disclose the author. The class of images 1937 and earlier is of significance here because they are no longer eligible for such claim once 70 years has elapsed. Thus there is a bit of a conflict of laws here (not a very uncommon event in the world). So, show me just one single case where someone has successfully claimed copyright for a 70+ year-old anonymous or pseudonymously published photograph. ... Kenosis 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean a case where the author eventually surfaced but not until more than 70 years had passed after the photograph was published? I'm sure that's very rare indeed and I doubt there are any cases. But this isn't really relevant to the case at hand. Copyright status in the European Union is of secondary importance to copyright status in the United States. Also keep in mind that it's not incumbent on me to prove that the law works as written by providing court cases for any scenario you might think of. Haukur 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Haukurth, it is not of secondary importance. The EU law is clear on its face. If the author (a natural person) is not disclosed within 70 years, it's public domain, because orgaizations can live virtually forever, so you can't attach 70 years p.m.a. to an organization. Article 1 of the harminizing Directive is quite clear about this need for disclosure within 70 years. If there is a legal case that says otherwise, I'd appreciate seeing it cited. ... Kenosis 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It is of secondary importance for Wikipedia which has to comply with US copyright law. Haukur 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and the failure to renew copyright in the US means it is in the public domain in the US since 1964. That is what I meant by the "back door clause". You're attempting to argue that because it might have been under copyright in the EU in 1996, that even if it's public domain EU it should be subject ot the 95-year standard. Well, I disagree. This is an American author and it appears very likely the photo was taken by an American photographer who hasn't been named. If so, it's public domain in the US unless someone can show an author who renewed copyright to this photo, an almost ridiculous proposition because virtually no one renewed copyrights to photographs back in that day.
......But as to the EU copyright status or complete lack thereof, I want to see a citation to one court that has accepted such an argument for a 70+ year-old photograph-- just one. It's been ten years since the Uraguay Rounds, so surely someone can find one, right? I doubt it, but will accept it if it's a valid court decision. This is important, given the vicious opposition to fair-use in some quarters of Wikipedia. If someone can show me one such court case involving, say, Sweden, or another EU country, I'll remove the PD template and submit it under fair-use/NFC as historically important-- unless, of course, we find out that it was taken by an American photographer. ... Kenosis 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This is still very confused. The nationality of the photographer doesn't matter. The country of first publication does. You still have not established it or, as far as I can see, made any attempt to do so. If it was first published outside the United States a failure to register or renew copyright doesn't matter. If it was still under copyright in its home country in 1996 - something you have made no attempt to refute - then it will still be under copyright in the United States now. This is not some fantasy interpretation, it's widely available information. You can, for example, find this in the Hirtle chart - which is the source you were citing earlier in this discussion as a good guide to copyright law. It is not at all incumbent on me to find a court case dealing with the specific case of 70+ year old photographs getting their copyright restored. Such a case may or may not exist, I have no idea. Here's a case for 70+ year old films: [1] Haukur 20:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, films are a separate discussion involving different standards. See, e.g., the comment I made at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags/Public domain for a definition of "art". We're talking about still photographs that were very widely reproduced. And, it would be nice to know what the exact origin of the photograph is, and if and when we do, we can note it here or on the image page. Several other of the very old Nobel laureate photos are presently developing a written progeny, to which anyone is welcome to add material as we go along. It is, after all, part of our collective cultural heritage, and should be treated with a level of respect consistent with that importance, IMO. A number of those images, it turns out, have multiple paths of dissemination not limited to Nobel Foundation. But the Nobel copyright date at least gives evidence that the image was published "not later than year X". And the claim here is that with the evidence we do have, it's public domain.
...... And, as to "country of first publication", that is by no means dispositive of international copyright claims, particularly where something was published worldwide as is the case with these images. ... Kenosis 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What evidence? You have presented no evidence that the photograph in question was "published worldwide". URAA restoration does apply to photographs - see this circular for example.[2] You have uncovered almost no information on the photograph. By the level of evidence you're accepting just about any photograph from 1937 would be in the public domain. I don't even understand what your argument is at this point. Denying that the URAA restored copyrights? Denying that it restored copyright in photographs? Denying that location of first publication matters? Claiming that EU copyright law overrides US copyright law? Haukur 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No Haukurth, the image source page plainly states "© The Nobel Foundation 1936". That one statement says a great deal. It says it was first published no later than 1936. It says the image was published under an organization name (pseudonymous) and not an individual natural person to whom the 70 years pma would apply. Perhaps I should have quoted it before. And Le Prix Nobel was published internationally and circulated worldwide, including the United States. (This was long before the EU was formed.) And, this discussion is becoming somewhat tendentious, IMO. You are, essentially, as I said before, arguing that the 95-year standard might apply and that we don't have enough evidence to positively rule out the possiblity, am I correct? I already told you the basis for the claim, a claim of public domain in both the EU and the US which is based upon the evidence provided by the Nobel Foundation right there on the image source page.... Kenosis 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And, no, I am not "claiming that EU copyright law overrides US copyright law". Are you? If so, then it's public domain in both countries because it's public domain in the EU. Rather, I was arguing that absent more specific evidence to the contrary, it is in the public domain under both US law and under EU law independently of one another. And, under the URAA as well, if it's public domain in the EU, then it's public domain in the US. ... Kenosis 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I am most certainly not claiming that photographs are not covered. I was referring to ongoing arguments in WP that photographs can't be checked online because the "art" section of the US Copyright Office renewal database for the years 1950-1977 isn't online yet. I mentioned it and gave a definition because the copyright law generally has not defined mass-desseminated photo images as art, not that they weren't techically copyrightable. ... Kenosis 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If you were to start a sentence with "This photograph is in the public domain in the United States because..." how would you end it? Haukur 21:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The syntax you propose is actually fairly standard for legalese. Given the proposed syntax, I'd put them in order of alternatives (1) If A, then ..... , (2) If B, then ......, (3) If C, then ........, etc. But I can't compose it for you right now. Tomorrow and the next day will be busy with "real life". Possibly over the weekend if you think that approach would be more effective. Frankly, I think you might be onto something that could help some of these image-copyright-tag rationales in the future. ... Kenosis 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And I'm not sure you should have changed 1937 to 1936. My use of 1937 was not an accident. O'Neill got the Nobel Prize in 1936 and apparently "Les Prix Nobel is published in October the year after the award is made"[3] There may, of course, have been an earlier publication of the photo - or it might not even have been published in the 1937 LPN but that's what I was assuming. Haukur 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, change it back then, and I apologize. The image says "no later than 1936" not 1937, As to the expected standard, I have no idea what it should be. Clear and convincing is frequently unattainable, given the vociferous opposition to all non-free-licensed images in WP. But clear and convincing is, IMO, an appropriate standard to use. IMO, the same standard should be applied to all purported free licenses too. .... Kenosis 16:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I will never understand how one can argue with so few hard data for so long about such a poor small image. Especially when we do have a great photo on which the LoC does tell us that it were PD (Image:ONeill-Eugene-LOC.jpg) and when there are several Carl van Vechten portraits of the man that are absolutely fine to use. (Search here for "Eugene O'Neill". The van Vechten collection has been donated to the PD.) This image has unclear copyright status. First, it was certainly copyrighted in Europe in 1996, and thus eligible for URAA restoration. Second, the copyright statement at the Nobel Foundation Website does not explicitly say it covers the image itself. Third, just because we don't know the photographer doesn't mean he were unknown. He's unknown to us, but that doesn't mean this were an anonymous work. This is grossly wrong. If this were some unique photo, I'd say you'd have to do much more research. Essentially there would need to be external reliable sources stating that the photographer was unknown. You can find such sources by asking the Nobel Foundation about the photo, or by getting actual books on the man from your nearest library and see whether one of them shows the image, and if so, who it's credited to. This image should be deleted. It's entirely superfluous, and there's no evidence at all that it were an anonymous work. There's also no evidence at all that the non-renewal tag was correct. Lupo 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence, please. We've already provided clear, explicit, publshed evidence in support of public domain status for this 70+ year-old photo. Show us a publicly dislosed author that is a natural person and not an organization, a US Copyright renewal, or some other evidence, please. As to the assertion that it was (we should read that:may have been) under ligitimate, enforceable copyright in Europe in 1996, this unfortunately is not necessarily correct and there is in fact a conflict of law on this, as I said before. Some of the current fear in WP is based on the wide paranoia created by previous public domain works falling back under copyright after the URAA. But the available copyright protection is not infinite, nor is it necessarily 95 years for works that have since become public domain. The reference to the 1996 date in the URAA does not automatically extend protection to 95 years worldwide the copyright duration for works that have since fallen into the public domain. And no, the image is most certainly not superfluous, as the image postdates the one Lupo cited by many years. Moreover, it is part of our collective cultural heritage, no longer merely a proprietary image that can be controlled by one organization. As I said, what's needed is evidence to counter the clearly displayed evidence that this is an 70+ year=old expired copyright== show us a published name of the natural person who "authored" this photo, or a copyright renewal, or some other relevant evidence that would indicate continued copyright protection beyond 70 years. ... Kenosis 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No you haven't. Show me a source that says that the photographer of this image were not known. "Anonymous work" does not mean "I don't know who the author is, but I'm too lazy to find out." Lupo 11:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Not true at all. The EU copyright harmonizing directive explicitly involves anonymous and pseudonymous. That is, the framers of this directive clearly recognized the need for public disclosure of an actual natural person as the author in order for the public to be aware of the author, otherwise there is no "70 years p.m.a.", but rather, simply 70 years. This is quite basic. You can't claim more than 70 years protection unless you have clearly disclosed the author to the public, because organizations can live virtually forever. The EU Copyright Directive, Aritlce 1, right in the first three or four short sections, makes explicit that it is not the burden of the public to go searching for the author, but that it must be published (the language actually says "disclosed"). The evidence right on the Nobel page indicates that it is not published, but rather that it is un-published (un-disclosed), in favor of an organization name. ... Kenosis 12:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to claim anonymity you have to present clear and convincing evidence of it. So far your evidence is:
  • The website we got the photograph from doesn't name the photographer
  • You don't personally know who the photographer was and neither does anyone else in this discussion
This is not clear and convincing evidence. But even if you did hit the library and came up with good evidence of anonymity that still wouldn't be enough to establish public domain status. The URAA would still apply if the photograph was first published abroad, notwithstanding your denials above. You say: "The reference to the 1996 date in the URAA does not automatically extend protection to 95 years worldwide the copyright duration for works that have since fallen into the public domain." Everything I've read indicates that this is wrong because the US does not apply the rule of the shorter term. What makes you think this is correct? You seemingly weren't even aware of the URAA restorations until yesterday - what material have you studied since then? Even if the URAA somehow didn't apply and even if you came up with evidence for anonymity you still wouldn't have established public domain status even in the EU. The Nobel site clearly indicates that the biography which we are assuming the photograph was attached to was first published in 1937. An anonymous photograph published in 1937 wouldn't be in the public domain until 1 January 2008, assuming no public disclosure of the authorship until that date. Haukur 11:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I just commented above about this. The burden is not upon the public to go searching all over creation for an author. That's why the law was written the way it was. We have evidence that the organization hasn't disclosed the author's name under its organizational copyright dated 1936. If there's evidence to the contrary, the burden is now on those asserting the possibility that the author's (photographer's) actual name was published, and not the other way around. ... Kenosis 12:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC) As to the notion of the URAA restorations, upon a thorough search of my user contributions over the past month or so, one will find several references to the restoration problem that were not prompted by others' comments -- though I do not have time to go parsing through them, so I won't endeavor to do so. ... Kenosis 12:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Look again at that EU directive. I presume you mean directive 93/98/EEC. Look at its article 1, §3: you need to provide evidence that it was originally published anonymously, and that the identity of the photographer did not become known in the 70 years since that anonymous publication. So far, we only have that Nobel web site, where they don't give the photographer. That doesn't mean that the photo wasn't published elsewhere (earlier or later) with the photographer's name. Furthermore, you need to provide evidence that it is indeed a European photo. If you can then establish a publication before 1926, or show that it was published within 30 days in the U.S., then (and only then) the URAA restorations would not have applied to that image. Otherwise, the copyright on that image was restored in the U.S. to 95 years since publication. (Certainly not worldwide, but in the U.S., that's how it works.) Alternatively, if you can show that it is a U.S. work (after all, Eugene O'Neill was American), you can forget about the URAA, but you'd still have to show that the photo's copyright was indeed not renewed. The on-line catalogs unfortunately are not a great help for images, as they only cover books.
Note that the 1936 copyright notice of the Nobel Foundation may or may not apply to the image. It establishes neither 1936 as the original copyright/publication date nor the ownership of the copyright. They may also have published the photo originally under a license from its copyright owner and used their copyright notice to cover the entire article.
It's very hard to establish anonymity of a work or the non-renewal of copyright for a photograph. Your only bet is to find a reliable, verifiable external source saying so. So far, you have not presented such a source. How about asking the Nobel Foundation via E-Mail where that image came from, and who took it? But it'd be far better and simpler to use one of the Carl van Vechten photos available at the Library of Congress, which are PD (and which are from the same time period, too).
Without sources, this is all idle talk. This image should be deleted. Lupo 16:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion about how to interpret the law. But I do not see any reliable sources indicating that courts use an intepretation of the EU Directive putting the burden on the public to find an unattributed author, but rather a plain requirement that the author be disclosed to the public. In this case, the Nobel Foundation had every opportunity in the world to attribute this photograph to an "author" if it wished to do so. On the evidence in the image source page, the Foundation chose not to do so, opting instead to state "© The Nobel Foundation 1936".
...... With respect to the status of this image page, the issue was decided in a deletion review which almost unanimously reversed. an administrative override of the consensus in a prior IfD. In the original IfD, the consensus to keep was quite clear as well. Upon a showing of evidence of public disclosure of the author within 70 years of its first publication, the assertion of public domain will be promptly removed and a fair-use rationale will be reconsidered promptly, I should think. There is also a note on the image page inviting anyone with evidence of a publicly disclosed author to post it, whereupon such additional evidence will no-doubt be immediately researched for the validity of the additional information and any appropriate action discussed and implemented, either by administrative decree or consensus. ... Kenosis 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
...... As to the question regarding attempts to contact the Nobel Foundation, please see User_talk:Kenosis#Nobel_photos. When I get a chance, I'll post the information here as part of the image's progeny documentation. ... Kenosis 19:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether someone would be held criminally liable for posting that picture to Wikipedia. It's a question of whether those who want to keep the image here can provide clear and convincing evidence that it is in fact in the public domain. Earlier this month I asked you whether you thought Image:Fiskvinnslukonur-1910-1920-kirkjusandur.jpg had enough information to establish that it was in the public domain. You told me that "Photo taken around 1910-1920 - name of photographer missing" was certainly good enough because it indicated anonymous authorship. Well, yesterday I was browsing a book and by a complete coincidence I came upon this photograph. I checked the back of the book for any information on it. Sure enough, it listed the photographer's name. Not so anonymous after all.
You seem to be still living in a pre-Berne Convention world. Modern copyright law puts just about every conceivable advantage to the copyright holder with no need for them to actively assert their copyright or even their authorship. All it would take for this photograph not to fall under the anonymous work clause is for one public disclosure of the authorship at some point in the last 70 years. The fact that one particular publication of the photograph doesn't list the photographer is hardly any evidence at all. And besides, it doesn't even matter for the purposes of establishing copyright status in the United States. Haukur 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
W.r.t. this entire post above: Are you an attorney, preferably one specializing in international copyright law? If not, then this is just going around in unproductive circles at this stage. W.r.t. " not a question of whether someone would be held criminally liable for posting that picture": Correct, we're permitted, at least in the US, to display an image based upon a reasonable search for relevant information regarding the image. If the Nobel Foundation or anyone else cares to provide additional information that might affect the standard under which the image is digitally displayed (a low resolution image by the way), the option is available on the image page and on the talk page right here. W.r.t. the statement that I seem to be still living in a ''pre-Berne Convention world": I trust you mean the original Berne Convention, right? Or just the most recent one? Heck, I might be living in a world that predates the original convention, which also predates this 70-year-old standard facial photographic promo image of an American who's long dead. W.r.t. the 1910-1920 image, if new evidence comes in indicating authorship, then the information should be noted accordingly and the template changed in good faith. This happens all the time in the real world, and it also happens in WP. Why do you surmise I put the bolded offers for more information on the image page. Nevermind; the reason I put the bolded offers to provide more information is that this sort of search for evidence happens all the time in copyright law where the issue of public domain is potentially involved. Wikipedia is no exception to that. If the Nobel Foundation or someone else decides to point the way to an author disclosure, then the "PD-EU-no author disclosure" template will promptly be removed. If someone shows a copyright renewal, the PD-US template will promptly be removed. Etc., etc. Haukurth and Lupo do not find the evidence clear and convincing, and indeed that standard was just made up, AFAIK. Fact is, I've seen proposed standards in WP ranging from "reasonable evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt", to "absolute certainty". But this one's already been decided for the forseeable future. What is needed next is any further evidence, not pseudolawyering. (Sorry to get angry.) Bye for now. I'll check back in sometime later with: 1) the statements Quadell received via email from the Nobel Foundation, and 2) any additional information that may come to light about this image. ... Kenosis 20:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Asking passerby for information on the image description page is not "reasonable search for relevant information". A search is active, not passive and so far there hasn't been one. You haven't written to the Nobel Foundation. You haven't checked the 1936/1937/whatever Lex Prix Nobel. You haven't checked biographies of O'Neill. All your information is a copyright statement by the Nobel Foundation - and you believe that statement to be wrong. Haukur 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Haukurth, it appears to me you have not fully read my statements. I've respected the Nobel statement and so has everyone else who participated in discussion and debate about this image. The statement by the Nobel Foundation, as noted twice before on this page, says "Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1936". The information on the image page is fully consistent with this evidence. ... Kenosis 21:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, I apologize. I didn't realize you didn't take their statement to be a claim to a currently active copyright. Haukur 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
NP, Haukurth. ... Kenosis 00:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, with regards to your comment, "Are you an attorney, preferably one specializing in international copyright law? If not, then this is just going around in unproductive circles at this stage." - Nonsense. Are you an attorney, preferrably specializing in international copyright law? Even if you were, can you verify it so that I do not doubt that you are? To dismiss someone's arguments because they are not an attorney simply lends itself to others dismissing your arguments because you are not an attorney. Shall we dismiss your arguments, assuming you are not an attorney specializing in international copyright law? I think you would argue not. So don't dismiss ours. Thanks, --Iamunknown 00:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Evidence please. ... Kenosis 04:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please do provide some evidence that the photographer is anonymous or pseudoanonymous, Kenosis. As it stands, you've yet to do a single thing. You haven't contacted the Nobel Foundation, you haven't checked out any books, not one whit. When will you learn, Kenosis, to take your own advice? Thanks, Iamunknown 04:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The comment just posted indicates that User:Iamunknown has not read or digested the entire discussion. Kindly read and understand the discussion prior to making accusatory and erroneous statements. There is a link above on this page to the conversation with the Nobel Foundation, and the evidence is, again, right at the image source page, at the bottom, which specifically displays the words "Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1936". Relevant quotes from Quadell's connversation with the Nobel Foundation are, again, at User_talk:Kenosis#Nobel_photos. My statement telling of the search of the US Copyright Office records is on the image page. And, in response to the developing debate, I'm not the only one who's checked. . ... Kenosis 13:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait, Kenosis, are you talking to me or are you talking to someone else? Why then did you say, "The comment just posted indicates that User:Iamunknown..."? And, your statement is false. The source and the search of the US Copyright Office records amounts to what, exactly? Have you checked biographies? No. Contacted anyone who would be knowledgeable in the relevant area(s)? No. What a thorough search you have executed... --Iamunknown 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not only talking to "you", whoever you are in real life which I have no way of knowing, but in fact this conversation is privy to anyone who cares to look in on the page, and the comments above are in fact not privately directed at me but in fact are directed in substantial part at a potentially broader audience (not that I necessarily expect massive attendance). And in fact brief review of various user contibutions and comments which took only about an hour reveals that this little snipe directly above is merely an extension of already developed connections, particularly within the past five months, among vigorous image opponents in pursuit of a broader policy agenda, one which has turned in frustration and/or preexisting anger to resort instead to interpersonal sniping, as immediately above. As to the 10-12 hours I spent w.r.t this one image alone, I will say only this: If further evidence comes back as a result of my written queries and phone calls, I'll promptly disclose it on this page, no matter where the evidence may lead. For the reason that these images such as the ONeill image are part of our common heritage, not necessarily only that of a particular proprietary organization or corporation, it was worth the long day (spread out over a number of days) that I spent on it. Good day. ... Kenosis 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
And in fact brief review of various user contibutions and comments which took only about an hour reveals that this little snipe directly above is merely an extension of already developed connections, particularly within the past five months, among vigorous image opponents in pursuit of a broader policy agenda, one which has turned in frustration and/or preexisting anger to resort instead to interpersonal sniping, as immediately above. - I'm not sure I understand your full complaint. Without passing judgment or maligning anyone, however, I agree that a lot of frustration, preexisting anger, and sniping has come as a result of copyrights and non-free content, including (what seems to me to be) between us on this talk page.
I maintain disagreement with your on this matter, but considering that the community has nearly unanimously commented twice in favour of your position, no amount of bickering ;-) on my part can change that. I agree that the best thing to do at this point is to drop the matter, and address it if further information is made available, as you have suggested. I apologize for any unwarranted anger and frustration I have caused. Cheers, --Iamunknown 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are these two photographs the same? If so, more research is to be done.  :-)

See http://www.eoneill.com/photographs/36895.htm. That photograph and this photograph certainly look the same to me. The angle of the eyebrows, the mouth, the right thumb appear the same, as do the direction of and angle between the eyes. It is significantly less in quality (though I imagine the Nobel Prize copy was very touched up). At any rate, it is linked from http://www.eoneill.com/photographs.htm (go to "Eugene O'Neill, formal portrait with chin on hand, Seattle, November, 1936. With an inscription by O'Neill to Dudley Nichols."), which in turn linked from http://www.eoneill.com/, which indicates that the image is from the, "Manuscripts, first editions, letters, photographs, and more from the private collection of Harley J Hammerman, MD". Now we have more options: attempt to contact Dr. Hammerman to inquire about information (probably difficult), talk to English professors about the image to see if any recognize the portrait (manageable), and scour biographies about the O'Neill for any more precise information (manageable). I'll be checking out books at the local University library this week. --Iamunknown 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)