Note that this is a larger copy of the picture printed in the magazine.
A search for renewals was done in publications for the years 1968 and 1969. There were no listings for this magazine's title; The only listing with "Hollywood" in the title was for Hollywood Patterns, published by a different company, Conde-Nast. There's no evidence of continuing copyright for the magazine.
Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (70 years p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 years p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 years p.m.a.), Mexico (100 years p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 years p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties.
Additional source information:
This is a publicity photo taken to promote a film actor. As stated by film production expert Eve Light Honthaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.):
"Publicity photos have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary."
Nancy Wolff, includes a similar explanation:
"There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them." (The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook By Nancy E. Wolff, Allworth Communications, 2007, p. 55.)
Film industry author Gerald Mast, in Film Study and the Copyright Law (1989) p. 87, writes:
"According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible."
Kristin Thompson, committee chairperson of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies writes in the conclusion of a 1993 conference with cinema scholars and editors, that they "expressed the opinion that it is not necessary for authors to request permission to reproduce frame enlargements. . . [and] some trade presses that publish educational and scholarly film books also take the position that permission is not necessary for reproducing frame enlargements and publicity photographs."[1]
Original upload log
The original description page was here. All following user names refer to en.wikipedia.
{{Information |Description=Photo of actress Vivien Leigh as Scarlet O'Hara. |Source=[http://archive.org/stream/hollywood30fawc#page/n549/mode/2up page 41] middle photo. Hollywood (magazine) |Date=[http://archive.org/stream/hollywood30fawc#page/n513/mod...
Captions
Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents
This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it.
If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file.
Headline
Vivien Leigh
Source
Bettmann
Credit/Provider
Bettmann Archive
Person depicted
Vivien Leigh
Author
Contributor, Bettmann
Image title
(Original Caption) Head and shoulders portrait of British actress Vivien Leigh, wearing ruffles and ribbons as Scarlett O'Hara in the film 'Gone with the Wind', 1939.
Short title
SF26439
Copyright holder
This content is subject to copyright.
Date and time of data generation
08:00, 1 January 1939
Orientation
Normal
Horizontal resolution
72 dpi
Vertical resolution
72 dpi
Category
E
Special instructions
Not Released (NR) This image is intended for Editorial use (e.g. news articles). Any commercial use (e.g. ad campaigns) requires additional clearance. Contact your local office to see if we can clear this image for you.