Image: Thaddeus C. Pound - Brady-Handy

Description: Thaddeus C. Pound (1833–1914). Member of the Wisconsin State Assembly and the Wisconsin State Senate, Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin 1870–1872, member of the United States House of Representatives from Wisconsin from 1877 until 1883. Library of Congress description of photograph: "Pound, Hon. Thad C. of Wisc.".
Title: Thaddeus C. Pound - Brady-Handy
Credit: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. Brady-Handy Photograph Collection. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cwpbh.04607. CALL NUMBER: LC-BH832- 1027 <P&P>[P&P]
Author: Mathew Brady
Permission: I've added PD-US based on Commons:Hirtle chart ("Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.": "Known author with a known date of death: 70 years after the death of author. Other works[1]: 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first"). I'm assuming that the photograph's appearance on the Library of Congress website was the first known publication (another photograph of him taken at the same sitting appears in John Tytell, Ezra Pound: The Solitary Volcano, New York: Anchor Press, 1987, credited to the Library of Congress), that this took place after 2003, and that Levin Handy (d. 1932) was the author. If in fact the photograph was published during Thaddeus Pound's lifetime (which seems more likely), it is still PD in the US. If the photograph was not published before 1923, the remaining question, according to the Hirtle chart, is whether it was a work for hire. If the photographer did not retain the copyright, then according to the chart the copyright expires "95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first," not 70 years after the author's death. If we go by 120 years from creation, the photograph is PD in the US, but if the criterion is 95 years from first publication, it may not be. If I've understood "whichever expires first" correctly, we can ignore the latter. In any event, we have no way of knowing the circumstances in which the photograph was taken, so I'm assuming in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the photographer did own the copyright. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Usage Terms: Public domain
License: Public domain
Attribution Required?: No