Talk:William H. Mumler

A fact from William H. Mumler appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 20,754 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that William H. Mumler claimed to take a photograph (pictured) showing Mary Todd Lincoln with the spirit of her deceased husband, Abraham Lincoln?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May.

Wikipedia

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Trial

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]