Talk:William H. Mumler

Trial
There should be something here about his trial. --75.151.116.106 (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Error/Unauthorized Use of Images
Please remove the images taken without authorization from the American Museum of Photography website, www.photographymuseum.com. Please do a web search for information on UK Law regarding Publication Right, which protects intellectual property in this class (or review this page: http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/29040.htm ).

There are good reasons (besides common courtesy) to ask for, and secure, permission before republishing images posted to the web. It is not only a potential legal violation, it is having a chilling effect on scholarship. Piracy is the reason that some museums have removed thousands of older photographs from their websites; these museums now make their images available through online picture libraries which plaster large watermarks all over them.

In addition, there is an outrageous error in the identification of the Mumler self-portrait. You may contact me via email for the correct identification, and a source.

Bill Becker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.224.123 (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the images are in the public domain. It is perfectly legal for us to post them here. In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain, and, for UK law, (according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48), a reformation of the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74)) images fall into public domain 50 years from the death of the author. As for the incorrect labeling of the image, feel free to point me in the right direction here. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bonner
The caption under the top photograph ("Robert Bonner...") does not match the caption on the photograph page, which says it is of Mumler himself. Liadmalone (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tone of article
Perhaps I'm picking it up wrong, but it seems to me like this article is implying that Mumler's skilful artefacts might actually be real. As everyone from P.T. Barnum onwards has immediately surmised, they are craftily worked double-exposures. Yet the article quotes widely from credulous paranormal investigators with books to sell. --Oscar Bravo (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Kaplan citation
The footnote for the Mumler process refers to page 304 of Kaplan's book, but the paperback edition is sitting right next to me and only goes to page 265. (Amazon lists 288 pages because of a foreward numbered with Roman numerals.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.188.9 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)