File talk:Edgar Allan Poe portrait B.jpg

Public domain?

This image may not be in the public domain. It is an illustrated derivative of an original daguerreotype circa 1848-49. Though the daguerreotype is certainly public domain, without further information on this image's illustrator or its date of creation, it is difficult to gauge copyright. Recommend deletion or further information from uploader (especially where the "circa 1830-1850" line came from). --Midnightdreary 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I have changed the licensing tag so it should be fine now. -- RedCoat 18:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely not fine now, no offense. The original daguerreotype is circa 1848-9 but this image is not the daguerreotype. It is an illustrated version, but it doesn't look like it was done for an engraving in the 19th century. My guess is that this is a more modern portrait, possibly in the last couple decades, using that daguerreotype as a model. This makes the image almost certainly copyrighted but that's just a huuuuuge guess on timing. Without further information, we can't be sure. Really, there are 150 years of possibilities as to when this derivative was created. --Midnightdreary 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but shouldn't it still be covered by the copyright tag: "Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works (the original daguerreotype in this case) cannot attract copyright in the U.S. The original image (the original daguerreotype) comprising the work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason: its copyright has expired." So regardless whether the scan/photograph of the daguerreotype was taken last month or 50 years ago, it is in the public domain because the actual work of art it depicts (i.e. the daguerreotype) is circa 1848-9. Well, methinks. -- RedCoat 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is, see here. -- RedCoat 15:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. That policy refers to a photograph of the original artwork. It doesn't apply if, say, I painted a new version of, say, The Last Supper. The original painting is public domain, but my new version is not - I would still own the copyright to my own work. The same applies with this particular image. It is a hand-drawn image of an old daguerreotype. That old daguerreotype is public domain, but this artist's hand-drawing is original and holds its own separate copyright. If it was just a photograph of the original it wouldn't be a problem, that's what the "PD-Art" tag refers to. Does that make sense? :) --Midnightdreary 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I now know what you mean. However I have found something which should sort it out: This is a copy photograph of the portrait painted by Oscar Halling in the late 1860's. Halling used the "Thompson" daguerreotype, one of the last portraits taken of Poe in 1849, as a model for this painting. This image is probably one of the many photographic copies authorized and copyrighted by Amelia Poe in 1893. (see here) If you have a look at the URL title it says 'Halling'. That should be certainty that it's in the public domain, right? -- RedCoat 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... Nice work, that sounds about right. Thanks for tracking that down!! It's worth adding into the main description, I think! --Midnightdreary 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)