http://www.josephsmithpainting.com/research.html Additional informant can be found in the Book “Millions Shall Know Brother Joseph Again” due in bookstores in April 2008. Although many people contributed to the research, the author is entirely responsible for the opinions and conclusions in the book.
The Scannel Daguerreotype is definitely in the public domain. Although many people contributed to the research, the author is entirely responsible for the opinions and conclusions in the book. If the Daguerreotype image is a depiction of Joseph Smith, Jr. then it was taken before his death in 1844. Even if the original image was copyrighted by the photographer, any possible copyright and any renewal has long since expired and the document, by law, is in the public domain. See Title 17, Chapter 3 of the United States Code. (17 U.S.C. §301 et seq.). It is also undeniable that the Daguerreotype image predates the implementation of the U.S. Copyright law as it relates to photographs. The Act extending copyright protection to photographs and photographic negatives (13 Stat. 540, chap. 126) was signed by President Abraham Lincoln March 3, 1865. The Act provided for the deposit in the Library of Congress of a printed copy of each copyrighted work within one month of publication and empowered the Librarian to demand such copy, with forfeiture of copyright as a penalty for noncompliance. Therefore, unless a copy of this photograph was deposited in the Library of Congress it could never have been covered by the copyright law. See also ETS-HOKIN v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). See also http://www.copyright.gov/
The daguerreotype plate of this image was created after 1850 and was not used before that time period. This plate could not be an original and thus must be a copy. Only a copy would account for the positive portrayal of his anatomy and for the later date of the plate. But how could we prove that it was a copy of some other daguerreotype? This would require more study and access to the original daguerreotype. On close examination of this daguerreotype, many details can be observed that cannot be understood from just looking at a picture of the image. When you remove the glass off of the image, you can see the image as it was when last placed there. When examining the daguerreotype this way, free of anything but the image, a few things of interest stand out. When you look at a daguerreotype, the face has a highly polished finish. When held at an angle, it reflects like a mirror. Because of this trait, if there is anything on the face, such as scratches or fingerprints, they stick out very noticeably from the highly polished surface. Looking at it thusly you can see that there are some finger prints and scratches on the image. But what we discovered while examining the actual daguerreotype is that only some of the finger prints and scratches are actually on the face or surface of the daguerreotype; others are just photographically reproduced in the image, not on the polished face. This means that this image is of a daguerreotype that had fingerprints and scratches on it and then was copied; and then at some time the copy received more fingerprints and scratches on it. This definitely gives weight to the idea that this image is a copy of a former daguerreotype and not an original image; thus, it would be a mirror image of the original daguerreotype which it was taken from brings it back into the correct non-mirrored presentation of the image. This discovery helps to show that this image is a copy.
The fact that a copy of the original Daguerreotype image is in the possession of the Community of Christ mandates the conclusion that the original work was not only produced but copied for distribution. It is undeniable that the Daguerreotype image is and has for many, many years, been in the public domain. Since the publication of the image by the Community of Christ (December, 1994, Saints Herald, article entitled “What did Joseph Smith look like? Possible Early Photographic Image of Joseph Smith Jr.”, by Ron Romig and Lachlan Mackay Vol. 141, #12 p. 8-10, 12.), other copies and alterations of copies have been circulated on the Internet and through other channels. Most of the copies of the Scannel Daguerreotype now in circulation on the Internet are reproductions of this public domain image.
It is only through recent research and technology developments that the tools have become available to even make this study possible. Also, the amount of misinformation concerning the Scannel Daguerreotype through public interest had become significant warrant a clarification of known facts.
