The nice thing about public domain images is that you can do pretty much whatever you want with them — use them on your website or even commercially, use them to illustrate your book or CD, and as I demonstrate here — modify them in any way you like. Here, I’ve taken an image of a young woman holding flowers, labeled ‘Flora’ by the photographer, and colorized the image. I’m no expert with Photoshop, but even so I can create a modified version of this image that is much more attractive (in my opinion), and could be used in a variety of ways. Now the question arises, do I own the copyright to this colorized version? That is not clear. If it is different enough from the original to constitute a new work — minor changes are not sufficient — then it is a copyrightable derivative work. Is colorizing a minor or major change? Seemed minor when I did it — took about 5 minutes. In any case, if this qualifies as a derivative work, I hereby place it in the public domain. The original would remain in the public domain regardless of any derivative I might produce.

The original photograph was taken by Edwin James McCullagh of Stockton California, about 1900. Edwin was born in Michigan in January of 1870, and is listed with his wife and baby son in the 1900 census in Stockton California. In the 1920 and 1930 censuses they are found in Berkeley California. In the 1920 census 21 year old son Gavin is also listed as a photographer.

Here is a typical carte-de-visite style, card mounted photograph. This was the normal family photo of the 1860s to 1890s, along with a larger type called a ‘cabinet card’. Almost every antique store has a pile of these sorts of images, many without a clue as to who the person was. This card has an inscription on back ‘Adam Bentz 1864′ — as well as the photographer’s imprint which indicates it was taken at Racine Ohio. Such clues — and they are only clues, and in need of further verification before being accepted — make a card photograph much more interesting. Sometimes we find the name written on a card is a person who was to receive the card, not the subject. And dates may be added much later, and are only as reliable as the memory of the person adding them.

In this case, we see an immediate problem — this is not the style of card found in the 1860s, it looks much more like a typical 1870s image. In searching for the photographer, Thomas W Mercer, we find him living in Racine Ohio (Meigs county) in 1870, but at that time his occupation is shown as saddler, while in 1880 he has moved to Sutton Ohio (in the same county as Racine) and is listed as a photographer. So it appears he took up photography sometime in the 1870s. In the 1900 census he has moved to Allegheny Pennsylvania, where he is living with the family of his son George, also a photographer.

Searching for Adam Bentz in the 1870 census we find ten listed, two in Meigs County Ohio, the younger of whom was born about 1851 — which would mean he was 13 in 1864, which looks about the right age for this fellow. But the photo was clearly not made that early, and does not look like a copy of an 1864 image either — the pinstripe suite, close-up head and shoulders portrait, both suggest 1870s as well. We see however another Adam Bentz, living in Allegheny Pennsylvania, who was born about 1862. Maybe he was born 1864, and the date is not intended as the date of the photo, but the birth-date of the subject. We know the photographer had connections with Allegheny — we find him living there in 1900 — so it is highly coincidental that we find an Adam Bentz there and two in Meigs county in 1870 — I think if a more complete genealogy were worked up, we would find they were all related to one another. Perhaps young Adam from Allegheny was visiting with relatives in Ohio when he had his picture taken. Either that or someone in the family identified this as the Adam born 1851, but was in error, and calculated it must be 1864 because he looks about 13 — in which case it is probably some other member of the family.

This is a portrait of Henry Laurens Dawes (1816-1903), a politician from Massachusetts. He was a state senator and U.S. district attorney before becoming a United States senator 1875-93. He was involved with anti-slavery issues and Indian Affairs. At the time this photograph was taken (ca 1865) he was still United States district attorney for the western district of Massachusetts.

This public domain image is attributed to the Brady National Photographic Art Gallery, rather than an individual photographer, since there is no way to tell which of the several ‘operators’ that worked there actually took the photograph. Mathew Brady opened the studio at at 350-352 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC in 1858, and hired Alexander Gardner to run it, although a couple years later Gardner was off to photograph the Civil War, and by 1862 had ended his association with Brady. In 1868 the studio was seized for debt and sold at auction, but Brady manged to buy it back. The address changed that year to 625-627 Pennsylvania Avenue, so we know photographs such as this that bear the old address were made before then.

This distinguished looking gentleman is James F Queen, a Philadelphia lithographer. A biographical sketch lists his birth year as 1824, but census records suggest 1818 or 1820. That same biographical notation says he died ca 1877, but he is listed in the 1880 census. His occupation is listed in the 1850 census is Lithographer, 1860 Designer, 1870 Lithographic Artist, while in 1880 it is Chromo Artist. This photo was probably taken right around 1880.

The photographer who took this public domain image is Adolph Newman (ca1845-aft1920). Son of photographer Christian Newman, Adolph was born in Germany, and emigrated to the United States with his family in 1857. By 1870 they were living in Philadelphia, with both Christian and Adolph listed as photographers. Adolph is listed again in 1880, but by the time the 1890 City Directory was compiled, his occupation has changed from Photographer to Frames. In the 1900 census he is listed as a Fine Art Dealer. He is listed in the 1920 census, but in 1930 his wife is shown as a widow.

This photo is identified as being Bill Drennan, Indian Scout and Companion of Kit Carson, and is supposed to have been taken about 1880. But it is attributed to Noah Hamilton Rose, who was born in 1874, and didn’t begin taking photos until about 1892. Rose was known to have copied old photos, but the quality of this image, and the setting, look very much like a ca. 1900 image to me. So is it Bill Drennan? Probably. Rose’s family is said to have lived in Ballinger Texas at one time, and there in the 1900 census we find William T Drennan, born May 1846 in Texas, occupation Liquor Dealer. Was he a ‘companion’ of Kit Carson? Well Kit Carson died in 1868, so it is just possible, but not too likely.

There are only two William Drennan’s listed as living in Texas in the 1860 census; one an 8 year old boy is probably the William T Drennan mentioned above — it is not unusual for his age to be off by 6 years some 40 years later in the 1900 census, the one nearer his birth is more likely correct. The second is his father, also William Drennan, born about 1798 in South Carolina. The elder Bill Drennan is a better candidate for ‘companion’ of Kit Carson, being only nine years older than Carson. But even if the original photo was taken in 1870, this Bill Drennan is too young to be born 1798 — so the image is more likely his son. Either the story got transferred from father to son, or the term ‘acquaintance’ might better replace ‘companion’.