[steve bergson]

As some of the other replies have indicated, there is often a tendency for people to use content considered PD and then wrongly attach CC attribution to it. If the content is PD, no credit or sttribution is needed, but because PD is essentially proving a negative and mistakes possibly costly, it’s worth checking the copyright status yourself if you can. Don’t trust Wikipedia which does not take responsibility for the accuracy of its metadata.

There are different methods of doing this background check. The US Library of Congress is one place to start but it’s always worth reverse image googling the images to see where else it crops up on the internet. Sometimes an agency has picked it up and although they are charging for the reproduction as if it owned the rights, it’s not necessarily theirs to license exclusively. However, if you find the image occurring in multiple places and there are conflicting attributions or equally if you don’t find it in many places, it can be worth licensing it from an agency. The fee is covering the risk of your using it: the copyright usually becomes the legal esponsibility of the agency which claims it (but check the T & C of the license agreement).

Whatever you choose to do, it’s important to keep records of the attempt to trace a rights owner in order to show due diligence in the event of a question arising in the future from its use in your project. It looks as if this content is PD, so you could use it without concern but to be sure (and comply with your terms of supply to your distributor/client/outlet), you should investigate it as thoroughly as you can. There are specialist researchers you could engage to do this if needed and the budget permits; they are normally a lot cheaper than media lawyers’ time.