RKO may own the copyright to the image (you claim), but what is the actual source for the jpg? Did you scan it yourself from an actual poster or what?... an online url would be helpful and consistant with the image policy. We need this to vertify if RKO are indeed the owners of the copyright. - The Daddy 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What sort of a beast is an "url"? Is that a species of troll? Is it related to a DyK? And what does it mean to "vertify"?—DCGeist 04:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And what in the world is a "consistant"? Is that like a contestant's sister? A sissy contestant? (That's uncivil, and you really shouldn't suggest such things). Please explain.—DCGeist 04:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on, don't play dumb. Where did you get the image? Did you scan it from a magazine? Did you get it from the web? Haukur 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Daddy was in the midst of a spate of Wikistalking and trolling. That's why he didn't get a response. You're just rude. That's why you don't. Basic civility: Don't say "don't play dumb" to someone you don't know. Capeesh? Let's see if you know how to apologize, and we can start with a clean slate.—DCGeist 04:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea about any previous contact between you and the other user. All I saw was that he asked a reasonable question which you didn't answer - instead heckling him for an innocent misspelling and pretending not to understand in a rather grating way. Now you've moved on to lecturing me on civility. Haukur 09:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't need a lecture, you wouldn't have got one. You introduce yourself to a stranger in the real world by saying "Don't play dumb," you might get a lot worse than a lecture. And you've failed to apologize. Quelle honte.—DCGeist 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

While you are all class? Having just moved on to implying that I deserve to be treated violently. You were playing dumb even if it wasn't particularly polite or productive of me to point it out. Haukur 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this. The argument between User:DCGeist and User:Daddy Kindsoul appears to be several months old at least. Please see this diff, wherein Geist is referred to as "Geistcore". There were other exchanges, but I don't want to complicate the situation. Maybe everybody can settle down a bit and stick with the substantive issues, por favor, merci grazie, danke (how do you say that in Icelandic?). ... Kenosis 15:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For images that are demonstrably in the public domain, a url is not necessary, and indeed even a statement of the source is not legally necessary (unlike with images under known copyright). As a matter of current Wikipedia policy, public domain images are still in something of a black hole, being neither free licensed nor non-free content. Having the progeny of an image is a useful feature however, even if it's in the public domain. If this image, among others originating from the old FBO/RKO archives, was, say, scanned and put into jpeg form, this would be useful information; if it's scanned from a private collection, this would be useful, and if it was found online, this too would be useful information. ... Kenosis 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is a scan from the holdings of the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts/Billy Rose Theatre Collection. At the time that I entered the information about "Source," the prevailing interpretation of "Source" on similar image description pages appeared to be "Legal author." Unaware of the necessity of copyright renewal for material published during the period of the photograph (the mid-1920s), I assumed that legal author to be the corporate descendant and relevant rights assets owner--RKO Pictures LLC--of the original legal author--Film Booking Offices of America Inc.—DCGeist 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If you remember more about those holdings that might be helpful but please add what you can to the image description page. Haukur 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)