ELI5: what photographs am I allowed post in my online newsletter?
February 3, 2024 3:28 PM Subscribe
I'm starting a historical themed newsletter and want to post (not my own, but credited when that info is available) old photographs and illustrations (roughly 1920s-1980s) alongside my text. How much do I have to know about public domain/IP/copyright law to do this?
The newsletter is currently free but will be monetized in the future, if that makes a difference.
How do I determine which images I'm allowed to include?
The newsletter is currently free but will be monetized in the future, if that makes a difference.
How do I determine which images I'm allowed to include?
Response by poster: Jairus, how do I check for those things?
posted by CancerSucks at 3:55 PM on February 3
posted by CancerSucks at 3:55 PM on February 3
What is your tolerance for being in violation of a copyright? Even if you are in the right it is not unheard of for a litigious copyright owner to sue and ask questions later.
You cannot simply draw the line on whether or not a newsletter is monetized or not, it general that’s different from copyright in that assume an image is copyrighted but usage rights can be complex in themselves.
Simply even taking a picture yourself doesn’t necessarily mean you own the material in the picture or taking video of a movie wouldn’t be prosecutable.
I wouldn’t worry about it or if you do simply don’t use images unless it is art or illustrations you made yourself. I don’t think there’s a middle ground other than avoid popular obviously cowritten materials that are enforced by their owners. You probably can get by with whatever as long as it’s not the latest Disney/Marvel film still that is easy for a bit to find in a search. Simply attributing it doesn’t absolve you of ignoring usage rights.
posted by geoff. at 3:57 PM on February 3
You cannot simply draw the line on whether or not a newsletter is monetized or not, it general that’s different from copyright in that assume an image is copyrighted but usage rights can be complex in themselves.
Simply even taking a picture yourself doesn’t necessarily mean you own the material in the picture or taking video of a movie wouldn’t be prosecutable.
I wouldn’t worry about it or if you do simply don’t use images unless it is art or illustrations you made yourself. I don’t think there’s a middle ground other than avoid popular obviously cowritten materials that are enforced by their owners. You probably can get by with whatever as long as it’s not the latest Disney/Marvel film still that is easy for a bit to find in a search. Simply attributing it doesn’t absolve you of ignoring usage rights.
posted by geoff. at 3:57 PM on February 3
There's no general absolution, I'm afraid. You should assume that photos are copyright unless you have good information they're not.
Anything from 1928 or earlier is public domain (in the US). Caveat: if it's unaltered. Colorizing, for instance, creates a derivative work that is copyrightable.
Works by the US government are public domain.
Some institutions are generous with their holdings: the Metropolitan Museum of Art has made all its images public domain. This was of immense help to me when I wrote a book on the ancient Middle East. If you want a photo from a museum, check their web page for things like "public domain" or "open access."
Wikipedia has millions of images you can use freely; see this policy page.
This is by no means an exhaustive list.
I briefly looked at commercial sources (Getty Images, the NYT, Associated Press), and it looks like they charge through the nose. Sigh.
posted by zompist at 4:12 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
Anything from 1928 or earlier is public domain (in the US). Caveat: if it's unaltered. Colorizing, for instance, creates a derivative work that is copyrightable.
Works by the US government are public domain.
Some institutions are generous with their holdings: the Metropolitan Museum of Art has made all its images public domain. This was of immense help to me when I wrote a book on the ancient Middle East. If you want a photo from a museum, check their web page for things like "public domain" or "open access."
Wikipedia has millions of images you can use freely; see this policy page.
This is by no means an exhaustive list.
I briefly looked at commercial sources (Getty Images, the NYT, Associated Press), and it looks like they charge through the nose. Sigh.
posted by zompist at 4:12 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
You should research fair use, which allows use of copyrighted materials in the context of research and scholarship. You'll want to tread carefully, as fair use is a pretty fuzzy area of copyright law. If you're analyzing a particular image, that's more likely to be okay, but if you're just using an image to add some visual interest, probably less likely to be covered by fair use.
posted by toastedcheese at 4:33 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
posted by toastedcheese at 4:33 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Response by poster:Jairus, how do I check for those things?
posted by CancerSucks at 6:55 PM on February 3 [+] [⚑]
As gently as I can, I'll just give the usual advice that if you're embarking on any public-facing venture, especially but not exclusively profit-making, you need legal counsel. You need a budget for several professionals, including legal.
In this case, there are professionals whose expertise is in checking the copyright status of the works you want to use, and if necessary obtaining the rights for you. A possible search term might be "copyright clearance."
posted by JimN2TAW at 4:35 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
posted by CancerSucks at 6:55 PM on February 3 [+] [⚑]
As gently as I can, I'll just give the usual advice that if you're embarking on any public-facing venture, especially but not exclusively profit-making, you need legal counsel. You need a budget for several professionals, including legal.
In this case, there are professionals whose expertise is in checking the copyright status of the works you want to use, and if necessary obtaining the rights for you. A possible search term might be "copyright clearance."
posted by JimN2TAW at 4:35 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
Wikipedia has millions of images you can use freelyI'm not sure I would rely on this.
Wikipedia has gotten better at it over the years, but it's still not terribly uncommon to run into pictures there with bullshit explanations of why they are (supposedly) allowed to be used. The initial decision is up to whatever random person uploads the picture, and while they are required to provide a rationale, it's easy enough for people to just check the box to claim that it's their own work and that they're allowing Wikipedia to use it, or that it's public domain because <choose your preferred-but-not-necessarily-true reason here>, or whatever. And just like any other thing that any random person puts on Wikipedia, it might be wrong, perhaps even obviously so, and it might not get fixed for years and years.
posted by Flunkie at 5:03 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
Copyright depends on the owner enforcing their rights. Fair use is a defense but it's not going to stop someone who is really motivated to enforce their rights making a claim against you.
The safest answer is you should only use things you know are cleared (not covered by copyright, CC, licensed, you asked permission, Getty, etc.). A large part of what you pay for with Getty or similar archives is 100% knowing you are cleared and being able to prove it.
Not everything is on Getty though obviously, so IMO it really comes down to what kind of image you're talking about. Something that appeared in a newspaper in 1932? Unlikely anyone will care in a history-educational context even if it's paid. The work of someone who is still alive and working? Very likely to generate their notice in telling you to stop/pay up. The IP of some major corporation? Don't even think about it.
posted by bradbane at 5:47 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
The safest answer is you should only use things you know are cleared (not covered by copyright, CC, licensed, you asked permission, Getty, etc.). A large part of what you pay for with Getty or similar archives is 100% knowing you are cleared and being able to prove it.
Not everything is on Getty though obviously, so IMO it really comes down to what kind of image you're talking about. Something that appeared in a newspaper in 1932? Unlikely anyone will care in a history-educational context even if it's paid. The work of someone who is still alive and working? Very likely to generate their notice in telling you to stop/pay up. The IP of some major corporation? Don't even think about it.
posted by bradbane at 5:47 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: bradbane, this is helpful...lots of what I'm looking for is from newspapers or now dead artists
posted by CancerSucks at 6:00 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
posted by CancerSucks at 6:00 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
Library of Congress free to use.
An artist’s work may be in the public domain, but the photo taken of that work might not be out of copyright.
posted by Ideefixe at 8:37 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
An artist’s work may be in the public domain, but the photo taken of that work might not be out of copyright.
posted by Ideefixe at 8:37 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Openverse will help you find things that have a Creative Commons license or are in the public domain. See the licenses page in the menu for info on how you can reuse items with the specific kinds of CC licenses.
posted by JonathanB at 9:24 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
posted by JonathanB at 9:24 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
I think it would also be worthwhile to get in touch with any historical societies that serve the area(s) you’re planning to write about. They may have helpful advice and be able to point you in the right direction(s).
posted by Suedeltica at 2:06 PM on February 5
posted by Suedeltica at 2:06 PM on February 5
« Older Learning About Illuminated Manuscripts and... | Apple Photos (on Mac) : how to move one to an... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Jairus at 3:41 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]