The Copyright Mystery Over a JFK Photo

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated while riding in his motorcade in Dallas, Texas. Over sixty years later, the story is still one of the most important and controversial moments in US history. It has spawned countless books, movies and, perhaps most famously, conspiracy theories.

Regardless, interest in that historical moment has not faded. As such, photographs, videos and other recordings of the day are highly sought after. Whether they are private collectors, museums or those documenting the day itself, all media from that day is highly prized.

One of the biggest and most important collectors is The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealy Plaza. The museum is in the former School Book Depository Building, where Lee Harvey Oswald fired the famous shots. The museum hosts a large collection of media, including photographs and videos of the fateful day.

However, a private collector recently claimed that the museum was unlawfully displaying a photograph that they owned. The collector, Cade Campbell, filed a claim with the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) and the board was given the unenviable task of determining where the photo was taken and, thus, who took it.

Though the board eventually sided with the museum, getting to that point was not a straight path.

Background of the Case

Campbell filed the claim (24-CCB-0263) in September 2024 and quickly amended the claim once to fix some errors and add new exhibits.

According to the claim, the photograph in question was taken by a photographer named Jack Jordan, who worked at Dallas Love Field Airport. That was the airport that Air Force One, and thus Kennedy, arrived at for the visit.

After Jack Jordan passed, the rights reverted to his son, Ron Jordan, who looked to sell the photograph in 2013. Campbell initially served as an agent for Ron but eventually agreed to buy the work directly. As part of that sale, Ron provided an affidavit stating that his father worked at the airport and took the image in question.

Campbell registered the work with the US Copyright Office in January 2014 and has repeatedly contacted third parties asking them to cease using the image. Those parties repeatedly expressed skepticism about the claim, saying that the photo was not an original, but was a later copy. That is supported by the fact the photo is date-stamped April 1864 and Campbell does not own any of the original negatives.

According to the museum, the photo is of Kennedy and his motorcade, but was instead taken by Jack Titus as the motorcade drove down a local street. The photo was the fourth of five Titus took. After Titus passed away, his widow donated the images to the museum and provided an oral history.

The story is backed up by Reverend Richard Tullius, who was seventeen at the time. He was in the same group of photographers and donated a collection of slides he owned, including the copies of the Titus series.

The two sides then began to present conflicting evidence about where the image was taken. The museum highlighted that Campbell’s photo did not fit other images taken at the airport, such as lacking wet pavement or featuring cars not seen in other images. Campbell pointed out extra pavement seen in the image and even questioned the mental state of Titus’ widow at the time of the donation.

In the end, the board found in favor of the museum. It found that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the photograph Campbell owned was a later copy of the Titus image, not the other way around. As such, the board dismissed the claim with prejudice.

Understanding the Decision

Unfortunately for Campbell, their case was always going to be an uphill battle. Even if we assume that Jack Jordan took the photo, there were major issues that Campbell would have had to overcome.

First, the chain of ownership is dubious and could be easily contested. The problem is simply record-keeping; many of the images taken from that day were by amateur photographers, not professionals, who never considered the value of their work. However, even if the chain held up, there could be other licensed users who have the authority to give permission.

However, the biggest problem would have likely been the statute of limitations. Under copyright law, a rights holder has (at the most) three years after learning about an infringement to take legal action. The image had been widely used since before Campbell’s ownership and had been on the museum website since 2015. It was going to be difficult explaining why he waited so long to file the claim.

Finally, there’s the issue of damages. Though I don’t think the museum had a particularly strong fair use argument, Campbell would have struggled to prove damages as the museum gained little from the usage, and it’s unclear if Campbell had ever successfully licensed it. As such, if Campbell had won, it would have likely been for the $750 statutory minimum. 

In the end, the board examined the evidence and determined that Campbell did not meet the burden necessary to prove ownership. The copyright registration was simply too late to serve as prima facie evidence (more than five years after first publication), but even if it had been timely, the museum presented more than enough evidence to challenge that claim.

So, while there may never be 100% certainty as to who took the photo, the balance of the evidence supports the museum’s claims of it being Titus’ work. But even if it didn’t, Campbell didn’t meet the requirements of proving their case either. 

Bottom Line

To be clear, I don’t think anyone in this case is lying or acting in bad faith. I believe both Campbell and the Jordans, most likely, fully believe in what they claimed.

This isn’t an issue of bad actors or malfeasance. It’s simply that these works are over sixty years old and were taken by amateur photographers who didn’t realize at the time that they were taking some of the most important images in US history. It’s very likely that Jack Jordan did indeed take images while at the job, but this just wasn’t one of them. The actual images may be lost to time.

Simply put, over time evidence degrades, memories fade and things get lost to history. This creates genuine confusion.

In the end, I think that the CCB handled this case well. The issue here was singular: where was the photograph taken and, by extension, who took it?

Determining the origin of a 60+ year old image is not an enviable task. I think they did as well as anyone could under the circumstances. Ultimately, I agree with their decision.

Still, the main takeaway I have from this case is just how confusing and difficult it can be to show ownership of older works. Even when those works are some of the most famous and most important in modern US history.

Personal Note

Yesterday, I published the story of a heated copyright claim before the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) over a saddle blanket pattern. In that article, I noted that the board had not published a new final determination in over three months. So, of course, the board published its few new final determination just a few hours after that.

Still, this case was far too interesting and far too important to not cover. We will return to normal coverage next week.