The photographic studio of Heald and Giles produced this portrait of a distinguished older gentleman. The man is wearing a nicely groomed graying beard and mustache. He is displaying a serious expression on his face. Research reveals that Mr. Heald had a number of partners during his photography career. Among the names he operated his business under was Wright and Heald, and Heald and Erickson. The law journal, “Open Jurist” and several other turn of the century law journals, cite Mr. Heald in an important legal case. The case was “Corlis et. al. versus E. W. Walker Company et. al. (1894). Emily Corlis sued the Walker Company for inserting a portrait (photographed by Heald) of George H. Corlis in a biographical sketch about to be published. A photograph of the late Mr. Corlis had been submitted to the company by Emily Corlis but she had withdrawn her permission for them to use it after they had not complied with some of her demands. The Walker Company returned the photograph to her but then turned to Mr. Heald and purchased a copy of an original photograph Heald had taken of George Corlis. Emily Corlis was outraged and took Walker to court. The general policy of the courts, based on precedence. was that negatives of photographs belonged to photographers but the right to print negatives belonged to the customer (subject of the photograph). The court in this case, however, ruled that this case was an exception to precedence because the rule applies only to “private persons”, and not “public characters”. The court stated that Mr. Corlis was a “public character” because of his status as the inventor of the Corlis Engine. It seems that his portrait had already appeared in a number of magazines and other publications. Stated simply, pubic characters had no right to privacy. In addition, the court stated that Walker could not be sued because he was not the photographer. Only the photographer had a contractual obligation not to publish the subjects photograph without consent from the subject. To view the work of another photographer involved in an interesting court case related to the business of photography, and to learn about that case, click on the category “Photographer: Rugg”.
A handsome young man poses for this portrait in his Salvation Army uniform. His embroidered shirt is labeled “Salvation Army” and has three crosses beneath the lettering. The gentleman’s hat also is labelled “Salvation Army”. The photographer is F. I. Stofflet of Bangor, Pennsylvania. Frank Stofflet was the subject of a law journal article (1894). Stofflet was the defendant against T. J. Stofflett in a case involving violation of a “no compete clause”. )To view other cabinet card images of Salvation Army workers; click on the category “Salvation Army”.
This cabinet card features a gentleman with a very notable mustache and bushy sideburns. He looks like a very intense man as he stares at the camera. The man behind the camera was Arthur B. Rugg (1853-?). Rugg’s life story is likely similar to many men who pursued the occupation of photographer. Such a life requires much change; first, working for various photographers in various locations, and finally, making enough money to finance ones own gallery. Rugg, at age 17, was an apprentice to J. C. Moulten of Fitchburg, Massachusetts. Moulton took ill just three weeks after Rugg began his apprenticeship and Rugg was forced to be a quick learner. He operated the gallery by himself and at night consulted with Moulten in his sick chamber , receiving criticisms and instructions. Rugg operated the business on his own for three weeks and the business did not suffer with him at its helm. In 1873, Rugg opened his own gallery but it did not do well, so he moved to Boston and worked for a photographer there for the next two years. He then went to Florida to become an orange grower but he lost everything when the business failed. His next stop was New Orleans where he worked for W. W. Washburn in one of the city’s leading galleries. However, after contacting malaria, he was forced to move North and ended up in LaCrosse, Wisconsin where he worked for a year and a half for a leading studio there. In 1879, he moved to Minneapolis and purchased the studio of William Brown and soon Rugg became one of the leading photographers of Minneapolis. Rugg was also noted for being involved in a major lawsuit that had impact on the profession of photography. The American Journal of Photography (1890) reported that the Supreme Court of Minnesota handed down a decision against Rugg for selling a copy of Mrs. Ida E. Moore’s photograph “which was put on exhibition in improper places, much to the discredit of the lady”. He was ruled to have had no right to the picture which legally belonged to the sitter (Ms. Moore). She won her suit for damages of five thousand dollars although it is not clear if that was the actual amount awarded. Another photography journal of that time reported more specifics of the case. It seems that Rugg had given one of Ms. Moore’s pictures to a police detective named Clark, who showed the photos in a number of houses of ill repute in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area. The court ruled that although the negatives of the photograph belonged to Rugg, he could not print photographs from those negatives without permission from Ms Moore. Mr Rugg seems to have lacked some ethics in this instance. Now, back to that great mustache. To view other photographs of unusual mustaches, click on Cabinet Card Gallery’s category of “Mustaches (Only the Best)”.
Two dapper men, looking quite professional, pose for their portrait at the Leeper studio, in Salem, Ohio. These men look like their on business. Are they lawmen? The gentleman who is standing is extremely handsome so perhaps the men are actors. The photographer is Burt Leeper. Leeper was born in Pennsylvania in 1865. He worked in Salem at the end of the nineteenth century. An article in a photographic journal (1900) cites Mr.Leeper as being part of a “Picture Trust”. It seems that he was part of a “price fixing” combine that was formed to resist the lowering of photographic studio prices as a result of fierce competition between photographers. Leeper and three other photographers agreed to match each others prices for services and goods. In addition, Leeper and two of the other photographers agreed to take turns being open for business on Sundays. The fourth photographer declined, preferring to stay closed on all Sundays.
A pretty young woman poses next to an indoor plant in the studio of Washington Boyce, in Danville, Illinois. The woman is wearing her hair up, and has a ring, collar pin, and earrings. Washington Boyce is mentioned in an Illinois law journal (1894) concerning a breach of contract case involving a violation of a non compete clause in the sale of a photographic studio. He is also referenced in a photographic journal (1886) for holding a patent on an innovative photographic paper box. Boyce’s studio was located at 18 North Vermillion Street, in Danville.