File talk:Samuel Reshevsky versus the World.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The photo is from France taken by New York photographer(s) "Kadel & Herbert". Is PD-1923 valid? I would really like to know more about "Kadel & Herbert" because the Internet is fully of interesting photos with this signature. Specifically, it would be interesting to know when he/they died. I'm suspecting he/they were working for New York times, but I could not verify this. Nillerdk (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- They seem to be a New York photo agency, so first publication in the U.S. is definitely plausible. Doubt they were working for the Times; they probably just distributed photographs to them (and presumably others). One of the partners was George Kabel, who apparently started out working in the Bain News Service (the Library of Congress has a 1909 photo taken by him but copyright Bain). He may have written a 1939 book on airbrushing photographs (someone of the same name did, anyways). I can't find much more info at the moment though. It would seem in general to be a U.S. corporate copyright though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the issue is whether the photo was published before it popped up in the NYT online store. It is not inconceivable that this might not have been so—another better angle shot was obtained, another "bigger" story was running on that day, etc. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given NYT is selling this photo, they at least THINK they own it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it is PD, like it almost certinaly is (in the U.S. at least), they have every right to sell it. The NYT should not have a copy in the first place if it was never published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, why would they not have a copy if it was never published? If the photographer is their staff (and not freelance), it could be the property of the company, right (like the archives of unpublished National Geographic photos)? Jappalang (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems pretty apparent that they were not NYT staff. Kadel and Herbert were two different people; they obviously had their own company (their photos show up in lots of different publications of the era). They would have had to sold/distributed the photo to the NYT, which would be publication. If it was NYT staff then yes publication is a question, but they would name an individual photographer (or none). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh... silly me; I deserve a trout, methinks... Jappalang (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- It seems pretty apparent that they were not NYT staff. Kadel and Herbert were two different people; they obviously had their own company (their photos show up in lots of different publications of the era). They would have had to sold/distributed the photo to the NYT, which would be publication. If it was NYT staff then yes publication is a question, but they would name an individual photographer (or none). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, why would they not have a copy if it was never published? If the photographer is their staff (and not freelance), it could be the property of the company, right (like the archives of unpublished National Geographic photos)? Jappalang (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it is PD, like it almost certinaly is (in the U.S. at least), they have every right to sell it. The NYT should not have a copy in the first place if it was never published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Given NYT is selling this photo, they at least THINK they own it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think the issue is whether the photo was published before it popped up in the NYT online store. It is not inconceivable that this might not have been so—another better angle shot was obtained, another "bigger" story was running on that day, etc. Jappalang (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But the photo was taken in France. Does French legislation have nothing to say? Nillerdk (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Berne Convention defines country of origin as country of first publication. If the photo agency sent the photos back to the U.S., then that would be the country of origin for Commons purposes. The only thing we know is that it was published in a U.S. publication, presumably at the time, which makes first publication in the U.S. quite plausible. It would seem that it would at least be simultaneously published in the U.S., which (for a U.S. company) should be enough to assume PD status for us. If it was simultaneously published in France, they may use their term rather than the shorter term, although without an actual photographer named (instead just the company) it may be expired there too as Anonymous-EU. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. That was a great answer to my question (I wasen't aware of the definition in the Berne convention). I think you can mark it as reviewed now. Nillerdk (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Another note is that Kadel & Herbert were American-based photographers.[1] Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- This needs resolved still. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Closing in summary, the photos were taken in France by an independent studio—Kadel & Herbert—that is based in US. The studio sold a copy of their work to NYT. Whether NYT published it in their paper becomes irrelevant. By selling the photo to the paper publishers, Kadel & Herbert has effectively published their work, so PD passed. Jappalang (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- This needs resolved still. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Another note is that Kadel & Herbert were American-based photographers.[1] Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. That was a great answer to my question (I wasen't aware of the definition in the Berne convention). I think you can mark it as reviewed now. Nillerdk (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Amazing photo
[edit]
The expressions of these men (accomplished players all of them) are fairly priceless: they range from the incredulous to the downright shocked. Some seem to be thinking "is there somebody remoting him?" while the man in the corner looks like, "oh NO! the kid just got me in his trap?!" :D 83.251.170.27 05:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
