Next in an occasional series on copyright — the newspaper article
Reader Aija Rahman has a collection of newspaper articles she’s put together. She wants to compile them into book form for her family and has copyright questions:
I’m researching my son-in-law’s great-great grandfather, Captain John Barneson,1 who was quite famous in the early 1900s. I have found over 800 newspaper articles about him and would like to compile the articles for my grandchildren and any other relatives who are interested. Can I legally copy the articles into a book form, such as through lulu.com ? Are there copyright issues with reprinting the actual newspaper articles? The time span is 1890 to about 1941. … I do have other articles regarding Captain Barneson’s descendants, and those are all from the 1941 to 2011 time period. I would like to include some of them in anything I publish as well, so would appreciate knowing the copyright implications for that time period. There are also copies of ships logs from 1864 to 1900 from Australian sources (mariners.records.nsw.gov.au) and Australian newspapers of the period. Any idea about copyright issues from Australia?
Before we tackle these questions, I need to do my disclaimer bit again. Always remember that I’m commenting generally on the law here and not giving legal advice, and you may want to consult your own attorney, yadda yadda.
American newspapers
Now… before I begin… if you haven’t made his acquaintance before, I want to introduce you to Peter B. Hirtle. He’s an archivist and digital information expert at Cornell University. And he’s put a ton of information about all the possible time frames for materials either being under copyright or passing into the public domain together in chart form that you can find here.2 Great resource!!
The following explains in (I hope) plain English the time frames graphically shown on Hirtle’s wonderful chart for Aija’s newspaper article collection.
Fair game: in the public domain
There are undoubtedly bunches of these articles that are totally fair game because they’re already in the public domain. By definition, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, “A work of authorship is in the ’public domain’ if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.”3
The articles you can use without worrying include:
• Articles published before 1923. This is the easy case. Any news article published in the United States before 1923 is in the public domain and you can reprint or republish it in any form you’d like without any copyright concerns at all.
• Articles published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. For this time frame, if there wasn’t a copyright notice in the newspaper, it’s in the public domain. But you need to make sure there really wasn’t a notice. That means looking carefully at copies of the entire newspaper for at least a few dates at regular intervals during the period from which you want to use articles to see whether there is a copyright notice anywhere in the newspaper.
Caution: check before using
• Articles published from 1923 through 1963 with a copyright notice but where the copyright was not renewed. An original copyright during this time frame lasted for 28 years. Longer protection — up to 67 more years — was available if the copyright was renewed by filing a renewal in the U.S. Copyright Office. So if there’s no renewal, then all of these articles are fair game — copyright protection would have expired at the latest in 1991. But before you can be sure you can use these safely, you have to be sure the copyright wasn’t renewed. For help on doing that, see the How to check copyright status section below.
• Articles published between 1978 and 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and not registered within five years of publication. These are fair game but only if both of these requirements are met. Even if there wasn’t a copyright notice, the newspaper might still have been registered with the copyright office within five years. Because of this five-year option, while it’s possible that these articles were fair game when published, it’s also possible that they’ll be copyright-protected well into the future. So before you can be sure you can use these safely, you have to be sure the copyright wasn’t registered in that five-year window. For help on doing that, see the How to check copyright status section below.
Only use with permission unless fair use
If an article does have copyright protection, then there are really only two ways that the law allows you to use it. The first is with the permission of the copyright owner. The second is if your use falls into the category of permitted uses called “fair use.”4 We’ll get into fair use at some point in this occasional series on copyright, but relying on the fair use doctrine is always a crap shoot.
Sure, you can do a risk-benefit analysis and decide that the publisher of a newspaper isn’t going to come after you for using a half-dozen articles from the 1980s. Some people firmly believe in the old saying that “it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.” If you go that route, you’re on your own. Me, I think getting permission, especially for a small non-commercial family publication, is easier, and there’s no question that it’s safer by far.
Here are the key time periods where you need permission unless you’re confident that your use will be considered a fair use:
• Articles published 1923 through 1963, with notice and with copyright renewal. For these, the total term for copyright protection — due to a number of amendments in the copyright law — is 95 years from the date of publication. An article published on 1 January 1924 in a newspaper published with a copyright notice and where the copyright was renewed would still be covered by copyright protection until 2019.
• Articles published 1978 to 1 March 1989, without notice but with registration. If a newspaper didn’t put a copyright notice in the paper but registered for copyright protection within five years, it still has copyright protection. Most articles published in newspapers were written as works for hire (meaning written by an employee of the newspaper). The copyright term for these published articles is 95 years from publication. We’re talking many many years before any of these are public domain — 2073 at the earliest.
• Articles published 1 March 1989 to present. These are all covered by copyright for 95 years after publication. Again, we’re talking many years before these are public domain — and some won’t go into the public domain until the 22nd century!
How to check copyright status
As noted above, there are a few categories where you need to check something beyond just the copy of the newspaper you’re working from to be sure whether it’s safe to use. With some, you need to find out if the copyright was registered; with others you need to find out if it was renewed.
So how do you find out what a newspaper’s copyright status is? There’s a circular available from the U.S. Copyright Office that explains it, called “How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work.”5 The process is tedious, but it’s not hard. First off, check any available online databases. There’s a wonderful collection of sources for these databases here at the University of Pennsylvania Library’s Online Books Page. I can’t recommend it — and the UPenn site — enough.
If you can’t find what you need online, then you’ll have to find a library that has the Copyright Office’s Catalog of Copyright Entries6 for the years you want to check, but entering “Catalog of Copyright Entries” at a search term at Worldcat.org turns up a lot of options. And there’s help available for this kind of search online at the UPenn site as well.7
Frankly, given the amount of work here with this many articles, I’d probably opt for taking an easier way: in your shoes, I’d write to the current publishers of the newspapers from which you collected the articles where you’re not sure. I’d explain exactly what I’m doing, the number of articles (broken down by year and month) that I wanted to include and ask (a) if they’re still under copyright protection and, if so, (b) whether I could have permission to include them in this privately-published collection for my family. That covers your bases either way.
Australian newspapers
Not surprisingly, copyright law in Australia is similar to United States law — there’s a treaty on free trade between the two countries that affected copyright protections.8 But the law is only similar, not identical. Under Australian law, as explained by the Australian Copyright Council (a non-governmental group that advises writers, photographers and others), any newspaper published before 1 January 1955 is out of copyright, since the copyright protection in effect at that time ran only for 50 years from the date of publication. A new law in effect in 2005 because of the treaty extends the protection to 70 years but that didn’t affect publication where the copyright had already expired.9
So for any article before 1955, it’s public domain. For anything after that, ask permission.
Australian government records
Here’s the big difference between the United States and Australia. In the United States, materials produced by the government can’t be copyrighted.10 In Australia, they can be and are copyright-protected.11 The specific ship manifests you’re dealing with are old records, but it isn’t clear under Australian law that the digital copies wouldn’t be considered copyright-protected. More importantly, the agency that now holds the records — the State Records Authority of New South Wales — wants you to ask for permission for anything beyond personal research or study, and says so on its website.12 Looks like it’s easy to get permission and free for non-commercial purposes, so that should be the least of your worries.
GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT!!!
SOURCES
- Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com), “John Barneson,” rev. 15 Nov 2010. ↩
- Peter B. Hirtle, “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States,” note 8, Cornell Copyright Information Center (http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/ : accessed 18 Mar 2012). ↩
- U.S. Copyright Office, “Definitions” (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html : accessed 5 Mar 2012), “entry for public domain” (emphasis added). ↩
- See generally 17 U.S.C. § 107. And see U.S. Copyright Office, “Fair Use” (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html : accessed 18 Mar 2012). ↩
- Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov : accessed 18 Mar 2012). ↩
- U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Catalog of Copyright Entries (Washington, D.C. : Govt. Printing Office, 1906-1898 ↩
- See e.g. “How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed?,” The Online Books Page, University of Pennsylvania Libraries (http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html : accessed 18 Mar 2012). ↩
- See Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, “Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement – changes to Australian copyright law – March 2005” (http://www.ema.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf : accessed 18 Mar 2012). ↩
- Australian Copyright Council, “Duration of Copyright” (http://www.copyright.org.au : accessed 18 Mar 2012). ↩
- 17 U.S.C. § 105. ↩
- See Australian Government, Attorney-General’s Department, “Commonwealth copyright” (http://www.ema.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf : accessed 18 Mar 2012). ↩
- See Request for permission to use State archives. ↩
What if you found a newspaper article in the historic newspapers at the library of congress but this article was also available from genealogybank and they’ve got their “we own it” on the article you print out from them. This is an article originally printed in an 1808 newspaper and then it was reprinted in newspapers all through the northeast within a few months. I went looking at the library of congress to make sure it was available free and not exclusively from genealogybank.com. It’s such an interesting article about my 3 greats grandfather’s demise that I wanted to include it in our genealogy group newsletter.
Clare, that’s a terms-of-service issue, not a copyright issue. I have that on my list of things to write about in the future.
I just obtained copies of news clippings from 1944 via the Harry S. Truman library. I found the articles through the National Archives or Library of Congress. I’m using the clips for their research value and considering publishing excerpts in a novel. The Truman Library staff made it a point that the news clippings are most likely under copyright. They included a 4-page explanation of “Copyright and Use of Archival Materials in the Presidential Libraries” and “Publicity Rights” (which I hadn’t considered.) Documents produced by federal agencies or by federal employees as part of their job are not under copyright; but documents owned by or housed in federal agencies are not automatically exempt from copyright. Hope that helps. (I’m by no means a lawyer, so take this heads up from a co-writer for what it’s worth.)
thank you for this very informative article! It will be a great guide for many. I did want to share though that not everything published before 1923 is free of copyright. For example, the New York Times still holds copyright on all of their content, regardless of when it was published. I have also experienced this with a small town newspaper I have been indexing – though, that paper did give me permission to post the material online. In general, I recommend that if a newspaper is still in print, one checks with the publication to be sure it is appropriate to reproduce.
No, there’s a difference between CLAIMING copyright and HOLDING copyright. If the item is out of copyright, it’s out of copyright, no matter what the publisher claims. I see that copyright notice on the NY Times articles pre-1923 as well. I don’t buy it.
Wow, another home-run, Judy! And thanks for the link to that pretty table of Copyright Term details as of Jan.1st/12. I appreciate being able to read/study and eventually wrap my head around all these copyright details. So many things to think about. Now I’m waiting breathlessly for the “fair use” article… Well, almost breathlessly. Cheers.
Thanks, Celia! Isn’t that Cornell chart wonderful?
Judy,
I have been working on a genealogy website for over a year now – it’s not up yet – and most of my content is pre 1923. I did not copy and paste anything – I retyped it for the website. My question is – pertaining to obits after 1923 – which I also retyped – I only used the facts and put them on a form-type document, listing name, age, place of death, etc. I DID list the newspaper in which I got the info from, so that if anyone wanted to get a hold of the original they would know where to get it. I was under the impression that facts could not be copyrighted. Is this correct? Thank you.
You are absolutely correct: facts can NOT be copyrighted. As long as you aren’t copying any of the creative aspects of an obit (“Mrs. Smith swooned when she got the news…” type of thing), and are just extracting plain facts into your own form, you should be just fine.
Thank you – I have been hesitant to put my website out there without knowing for sure if I had infringed on someone’s copyright. You have no idea how much your answer means to me – hearing this from someone that knows what they are talking about! Thank you for your promptness and this website!
Glad to help, and just to give you a little more comfort, here’s a direct quote from the U.S. Copyright Office: “Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.”
At the risk of asking a Clinton-like question, how do we define “article?” Is it the word-by-word series of words and expressions found in an obituary or newspaper story (even if reformatted), the image of it in the paper, or what? It appears that abstracting just the facts in an obituary and rewording things should avoid the “creativity” aspect. The Find A Grave forum on Facebook is fond of quoting your recommendations. Can you clarify this, please?
I am writing a small book about an an event in the life of a family. There were a few newspaper articles about the journey of this family. The event happened in 1960 ,the articles were written the same year. The name of the paper was cut off for the scrapbook. Trying to locate the papers the articles appeared in; mostly small town newspapers. Some might be out of business- trying to find this out. The journal of the mother was typed in the paper word for word. I am using the same journal with the permission from the mom, age 89 who is still alive. Since it is the mother’s journal. I would think that would not be considered copy right infringement as it is her journal. Is this correct? Her journals, in letter form were sent to the local hardware so friends and family to keep track of their trip. The local paper also printed them in the paper to keep the town informed. Also is there a website where I could plug in a passage of the article to see if it is copy written? Book for family use, but they think they might want to sell a few copies at vendor shows. So I want to do this correctly, legally and also give credit where credit is due. Any advise would be most welcome.
You should be fine with the journal. As for the newspaper articles, they may be out of copyright but probably not. There’s no place that does a copyright check for you, but you might be able to plug in search terms from the text to locate the newspaper if it’s digitized at Newspaperarchive.com or GenealogyBank.com. Both are subscription sites. Checking the clippings with the local genealogy librarian may help you identify the newspaper as well.
Good article, thanks for the information. This may have answered a question I put to you in another article. I write a free blog, if I retype the info it is okay but if I screen print the whole thing then it is “bad”. I don’t get it. I thought I was doing them a favor by printing their stuff (screen print) unaltered with their name and info right there for the entire world to see. I guess the more I learn about the subject the less I know about it. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Oops; do I have to cite who said that?
if I retype the info it is okay but if I screen print the whole thing then it is “bad”. That’s not the test. The test is, how did you get the information you’re copying? If you got it from a copyrighted publication, and you’re copying it word for word (or even close to word for word), then you must pay attention to copyright. That means you either have permission to copy or your use is a fair use… or you’re at risk.
The newspapers copyright the entire edition as a collective work. A newspaper page, including layout, would be part of the collective work. Articles and photographs created by newspaper staff and all other media outlets (like AP) are copyrighted in addition to the collective work copyright.
Some content published in newspapers since 1923 was and is created by authors not working for the newspaper or any media outlet. Examples for genealogists include: advertisements created by your family business especially sole proprietorships, classified advertisements written by a family member, obituaries or death notices written by a family member or a mortuary employee hired by your family, and letters to the editor. In these example, the content (e.g. words) belong to the creator/author.
If the work was created before 1978 and if no there was no copyright application or renewal, then these items are likely already in the public domain. Cornell University has a helpful chart here: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
All accurate — previously set out in various blog posts, but nice to have it repeated. One caution: in many cases, newspapers require that someone submitting something for publication relinquish copyright to the paper. More so in recent years than earlier, but something that should be checked.
Thank you so much for this information. In October 1978 an article was published about my Mom & family as an insert for a newspaper that went out of business. I found a copy of the article yesterday while cleaning my basement & am the only one in our family that still posses one. I want to make copies for my family. I looked for a copyright notice and there was none. I did find a local address & looked it up. It’s where my city’s newspaper is published. I’m going there today (if they’re open on President’s day) and see if I can make or get permission to make copies.
Not that it gives me permission to copy the article, but I do love that I have all of the original photos taken by the author/photographer. She sent them to my mom. The out-takes are great. There’s over 50 photos & 8 were used in the article.
That photographer gets special marks for giving your Mom the outtakes, Bonnie. What a wonderful thing to have. Sure hope the newspaper gives you permission to copy for your family.
I went to the newspaper office this morning. They don’t hold the copyright & the paper that published the article never filed a copyright.
If it was published without notice and without subsequent registration, it’s in the public domain.
BornInaZoo (Bonnie K.) wrote, “I have all of the original photos taken by the author/photographer. She sent them to my mom.”
Isn’t there a difference between ownership of the item and ownership of the the right to publish it?
Yep: ownership of the item and ownership of the copyright are entirely separate items.
When newspaper articles and/or personal letters were read into Court Testimony in 1964, can the entire Transcript of such proceedings, including the possibly-copyrighted material, be reproduced without obtaining the permission of each copyright holder?
GREAT question, Charlie, and still something of an open question right now until we see a written opinion of the judge throwing out a case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York called White v. West Publ. Corp., No. 12 Civ. 1340 (JSR) arguing that attorneys had copyright in things they wrote and filed with the court. The underlying issue here is much the same, though I suspect there would be more protection of items put into evidence by attorneys without the participation of the copyright holders than there is for items filed by the attorneys themselves. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of legal publishers months ago, but there’s no written opinion (and so no final judgment, and hence no appeal that can be taken) on the docket yet.
I’m doing a narrative of a small rural village,pop.700 for most of these years, where I lived for the first 18years of my life. The narrative covers this time era: 1898 thru 1957. I’m drawing articles from the weekly newspaper thru these years. The newspaper is Enterprise (WI). For example, my first narrative was on the high school sports during this time period. Second, business narrative and third narrative is the public library and so forth. In the narrative process, I use articles written by the Enterprise newspaper, word for word. Generally, the writer is the editor(S),but not always. Please advise on the copywrite issue for using the exact articles. I’m reading your material.
Rod, there are a lot of variables here. You’re absolutely safe for anything published before 1923; it’s now public domain. For things published after 1923, the rules can be very complicated, so the safest way to proceed is to get permission from the newspaper.
thank you for your time. After reading some of your copyright articles, I have a better understanding and I plan to use some of your ideas. I did forget to mention that the newspaper, Enterprise, is no longer in existence.I do not know if the current weekly newspaper bought out the Enterprise. I plan to check with the current editor. Again, thank you. Happy New Year-2014
Ah yes. The orphan works problem. First step is to see if you can find out who bought the paper, if anyone. Otherwise, you have to go at this the long way, to see if the copyright was ever registered and if registered if it was renewed. Being “safe” here won’t be easy.
For my historical novel where I use pics and clippings etc, I’m building on an idea I read in a blog about quoting lyrics (https://www.thebookdesigner.com/2015/03/how-to-use-lyrics-without-paying-a-fortune-or-a-lawyer/). The suggestion was ‘write your own’. I’m going to be citing from a fictitious newspaper and I’ll create clippings using the information from my research to create headlines or articles that might have appeared in that era. Otherwise it would be too tedious to get permission for several documents and I’d opt to omit them from my novel.
Was wondering how copyrights work with subscription based sites that you subscribe too such as newspaper.com; genealogyBank.com; NewspaperArchive and such. If you subscribe to them and clip copies of articles and post on facebook or ancestry, would you be breaking the copyright. In other words what if any rights do you gain from subscribing to sites like this.
This isn’t a matter of copyright law — your subscription to a pay site doesn’t get you the right to use copyrighted material if the article you want to use is still under copyright and the site doesn’t have a copyright on a specific article that’s already out of copyright. This is governed by contract law, your agreement with the website when you signed up (or, more accurately, as its current terms of use provide). I’ve dealt with this very issue repeatedly, and suggest you read through at least:
A terms of use intro
Terms of use: GenealogyBank
Looking at the news sites
GenealogyBank permissions clarified
A very interesting chain of discussion. Ok. Here’s my situation: I have written my autobiography for my grandkids and future generations and it will be published by a print on demand service.
I want to use a series of about 50 different newspaper articles printed over the past 40 years that cover the the major themes of my personal story.
The vast majority of the articles use my name directly.
-One important article from 1970 is from the defunct Pittsburgh Press; since bought by the Post-Gazette. Do the the copyrights typically transfer to the new owner?
-Does the fact that news articles contain substance of my own words, my own specific quotes, give me different status or permission to use the articles?
-I have decided to try to make collages of headlines and partial articles both for effect and to keep from becoming tiresome….does that make any difference relative to copyright?
Thanks,
Mark
Copyrights are usually assets sold with the underlying company, yes. No, the fact that the articles are about you doesn’t change the copyright analysis. The use of only portions of the articles may make for a stronger fair use analysis than if you were using all of the articles.
What if a newspaper is completely defunct? I volunteer with a small local historical society that isn’t sure if it can post old newspaper articles (past 1923) on its new website.
Same issues exist, whether the copyright holder is defunct or not. You have to make a fair use analysis.
Thank you for this helpful information. My question pertains to podcasting. I would like to start a podcast in which I read entire articles from newspapers printed during World War II. My intent is to get the flavor of the reporting from newspapers large and small all across the US during the war. Each episode would feature a different newspaper.
Is the best way to be “safe” to research the copyright status of each individual paper? Also, if permission is required, is it granted verbally or in written form? Does the request have to be written (i.e. e-mail), or can it be done over the phone?
Thanks,
Brent Kloster
Brent, you’re right that doublechecking the copyright status of the individual newspapers is the safest way to go, but it could be quite time-consuming. You’ll probably find it faster and easier to just ask permission, and I would document each contact (even if you talk with someone by phone, asking for a confirming email is a good idea).
Very informative. I have collected a large news cuttings from our local newspapers in Mumbai, India. I have prepared English language study material based on them for school going students. I wonder what copyright hurdles will I face when I put this material on my under-construction web-site.
You’re sure going to have to do your homework on the laws of India before you put them online.
In the 1960s/1970s our state library and archives undertook a major project to microfilm all of the newspapers and public records (deeds, etc.) in the state. I am using pre-1923 newspapers, that were microfilmed during that time. The reels indicate that the state filmed them and lists the date, but the reedls do not contain a copyright notice. These reels now exist at local libraries around the state and are used regularly for historical research. Does the state library and archives own a copyright on these microfilmed copies of the newspaper? Which date counts for copyright? The date the paper was published (pre-1923) or the date the state microfilmed it (1960/70)?
The newspaper’s original publication date.
Copyright law evolved a great deal during the last quarter of the 20th century, but civil litigation continues in the 21st because the U.S. Code Title 17 allows much subjectivity about what constitutes an outsider’s “fair use” of a newspaper’s work.
I am writing up a family history and I am considering publishing it. I have used transcripts of numerous newspaper articles to illustrate the book but they are all pre 1923 so I guess I am okay regarding copyright. However, there are a couple of issues that give me concern:
What is the copyright situation regarding use of photos that appear in the papers? Some of the pictures that I would like to use have also appeared for sale on the internet (mainly eBay) although the photographer is unknown.
Some of the pay sites on the internet allow free access (without registration – therefore, no contract) to transcripts of some papers. What is the legal position regarding copying the transcripts?
(a) Photographs are covered by the same copyright rules as text: anything published in the United States before 1923 is now public domain. (b) Whether you can make use of information from pay sites depends on the terms of use of the particular sites. Those terms of use are effectively a contract between the site and you, and you are bound by whatever you agreed to by subscribing or using each site.
Hello,
I am writing a small weekly article for a local newspaper to help homeless pets in need with a feature pet. I write the article (250 words) and submit a photo, sometimes mine, but other times they are from pro photos or other from people. Another person then edits it and submits it who oversee’s this weekly feature at the paper. I am not paid, which I am fine with, but they have not given credit to either me or the photographers, which I think is unfair and not particularly ethical. Is this legal for them to do? I am happy to volunteer my efforts but it would be nice to be acknowledged, especially so I could add it to my resume too. TY
Forgive me for asking a basic question, but have you told them you expect your work and the photographers to be credited? Sometimes the local papers just don’t think to do that.
Hello,
I want to publish news article on my website. Can I copy the photo and the article from renowned newspaper (Such as TOI, New York Times, etc.)and publish it on my website and at the end of article just give a citation or source from where I have taken the article. I have not obtained any permission from anybody. Thanks in advance for your kind reply
Generally speaking, no, you can NOT do that without permission. Giving credit for the article (citing it or giving the source) does NOT protect you from a copyright infringement claim. Using a single news article or photo may be a fair use, but that’s a decision you have to make on your own.
Hello,
I want to publish news on my website.Do I have to take up some legal rights or license for carrying out the same?
In order to determine your own legal rights and obligations as an online publisher, you need to consult with a legal professional licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.
Many thanks for a great thread. I am planning a blog (and maybe future book) on my grandparents, who were artists. I hope you could guide me on some further questions. They were born in Australia, but lived much of their lives in the USA and UK. I have newspaper and magazine articles from 1916 to 1981 that I would like to use in various ways. I have four questions:
1. Does the 1923 public domain rule apply to publications in the UK and Canada as well as the USA and Australia?
2. If the portraits they painted were printed as part of the article pre 1923, have the copyright on these portraits also become part of the public domain. (My Grandfather died in 1972 and Grandmother in 1985).
3. One or two portraits were commissioned by magazines post 1923. I believe they have the copyright in such cases, but what about ones that were not e.g. portraits of my mother that are still in our family possession, but had been reproduced in papers/magazines pre and post 1923?
4. For articles post 1923, where my grandparents are directly quoted in an article can I use their direct quotes without asking permission from the publications? (I would only use my grandparents’ own words and attribute that they came from such-and-such newspaper article)
I hope I have not asked too many questions!
(1) No, the 1923 date is US-specific. Copyright expiration dates are different from country to country and you should check the laws in the other countries. (2) The portraits are only in the public domain if the time for them has expired. The photographs published before 1923 are in the public domain. Meaning you can reproduce the black-and-white newsprint copies, not the original portraits, relying on publication alone. (3) Ownership of the portrait is not the same as ownership of the copyright. Make sure you do the research and know who owns your grandparents’ copyrights. (4) US law has a fair use provision that would allow you to quote small parts of published materials even if still in copyright. Read up on fair use rules and use your best judgment. And here’s an answer to a question you haven’t asked: (5) Yes, if you’re doing this much with potentially copyrighted materials, you should consult with a licensed professional in your jurisdiction. What you read online isn’t legal advice!
Dear Judy
Thanks for your very helpful reply. I read from an earlier response on this thread that Australian newspapers pre 1955 should be in public domain (and thus out of copyright). So I probably only need to check UK and Canada on their dates.
Also I will take your #5 answer to heart. In many cases the portraits that are not in my family’s possession are in the possession of decedents of whoever commissioned them. In many cases I have the letters that refer to these commissions and the cost of the commission. It could be that a commission is considered “work for hire” so the copyright would not belong to the artist, even though in an old, unpublished book of photographs of such commissioned work my grandmother had written on the first page that the work shown in the book is her copyright. As you say I will need to take more legal advise.
Again thank you, Anthony
Good luck to you in putting this project together!
Just as a clarification on point 2, while they were born in Australia in the late 19th century, they both died as UK citizens and are buried in the UK. (Although in addition to a UK passport my Grandmother had an Australian passport given her when in her 80s). Their heir was my mother (a UK citizen) and her heirs are myself and my two siblings, all UK citizens.
With luck the original question-poster will see your comment, Anthony. Of course, where the subjects of the newspaper articles died and who their heirs were doesn’t affect the copyrights on the newspaper articles — the copyright holder would be the newspaper, not the person about whom the article was written.
Many thanks Judy for your replay. If I may follow up with another question … does the reproduction of a work of art in a pre-1923 newspaper (not commissioned by the newspaper but shown as “news” in an article about the artist) become part of the public domain or is it just the words of the article that do?
I see that my original comment (that had the four questions) is “awaiting moderation”. I am very interested in any comments on these four questions before I start my book
I just came upon this and am so glad you’re still responding! I’m a writer and not a genealogist but I really appreciate your clear explanations. This may have been covered by the microfilm question earlier, but I think it’s a little different – I’m wondering if I could actually publish the scans of newspaper articles if the articles themselves are out of copyright. (In this case it would be in a book, though I don’t know that the way the material is being used matters.) I’d rather use the pictures of the original newsprint than re-typed text, but could the scan itself (obviously made post-copyright laws) be considered a copyrighted image? Thank you!
If the original is out of copyright, then any copy produced by anyone else is also out of copyright. There may be contract issues but there shouldn’t be copyright issues. Of course, whenever you’re dealing with a commercial venture like publishing a book, remember that this isn’t legal advice, you need to consult with someone licensed in your jurisdiction, yadda yadda…
Jess wrote, “could the scan itself (obviously made post-copyright laws) be considered a copyrighted image?”
Judy, could you clarify this for me? I have pre-1923 documents that were out of copyright that were later digitized and apparently the people who published the digital versions hold a copyright, not on the text but on the digitized version because of something having to do with creative use. Is that accurate? Would that mean I can re-type but not copy and paste?
Thanks for this post and all your responses. Many of them are of particular use for my current work-in-progress.
A straight copy of an out-of-copyright item can’t itself be copyrighted; only original works can be copyrighted. Where you find that copy may affect your ability to reuse it however, not as a matter of copyright law but as a matter of contract law. If you’re getting these online, you have to review the terms and conditions of the website since those constitute a contract between you (the user) and the owner of the item (the website).
Hopefully you see this before getting to my above question – it looks like you covered this in another article (“slavish copying” would definitely apply in this case). So I guess if there is a follow-up question it would be – if you know – would this also be the case in Australia? I will, however, keep looking around your site for myself. Thanks for your thorough coverage!
Well, I missed you, but thank you so much for the speedy reply! And yes, if it comes to actually publishing it will be a whole yadda-yadda process, but at least to start with I don’t have to worry the whole time that this is just straight up not going to be feasible to do. Have a great day!
Hi Judi, wow my writing bubble just got burst lol.
Can’t we just buy the right to use a newspaper article?
I writing the biography of a friend and I wrote about events described in newspapers and I was going to include them at the end as proof of authentication to the stories. I’m guessing, not a good idea?
So how does one write and proof to the readers that it’s a true story? Do old newspapers usually agreeable on letting writers use their articles?
What’s the worst that could happen in the slim chance that my book becomes a best seller and I didn’t ask permission?
I own nothing. So maybe a letter of cease and desist?
Please advise.
Your use of a single article probably qualifies as a fair use assuming the newspaper is still under copyright. You can always cite an article even if you can’t republish it. And the worst that can happen if you violate copyright and the publisher sues? Statutory damages of up to $150,000.
About photographs. A local history group has an original photo that was taken in 1888. The photographer died in 1902. The history group has taken a digital pic of the photo and published on their website. I want to use the photo – or the digital pic in a book I am publishing about my family history. The history group is claiming copyright and wants to charge me a fee based on each copy of the book I print. They will not let me take my own digital pic of the original photo. Where do I stand?
In the United States, this would be a matter of contract law, not copyright law: the copyright would have long since expired, and publication more than 70 years after the photographer’s death would not give the history group a copyright in the photograph — that would be in the public domain. In the US, however, contract law would apply: the history group owns the photo, so it can contract to allow access or not allow access on whatever terms it wants, whether in person or on its website, by its website terms of use.
I notice that your email address is from Australia, however, and there the Copyright Act of 1968 has a fundamentally different provision: for works that were unpublished in the creator’s lifetime and then later published after the creator’s death, “the copyright in the work continues to subsist until the end of 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work is first published.” It is not at all clear who would own that copyright — that would depend on how the history group acquired the photo, what rights it acquired and the like. But that is a wrinkle based on Australian law, and you’d be well advised to consult someone who can guide you on the nuances there.
I want to use photos that have been published in nationally syndicated newspapers usually of politicians in the course of their governmental duties. But I am trying to make them humorous, comical, yadda, yadda by removing the accompanying descriptions (if any) and substituting totally unrelated captions. The intent is not to be insulting or hurtful but just to be humorous. May I do this and be within the constraints of copyright? Hope you can answer this. Thanks in advance in any case.
I don’t ever give legal advice, and try to make that clear as often as I can. Your question really is one of fair use, and you’ll need to make your own decision on whether what you’re doing is or isn’t fair use. Some resources to help you make your decision are the statute itself, Stanford University’s overview on fair use, BitLaw’s Fair Use guide, Nolo Law’s fair use guide, and the American Library Association’s overview and evaluator.
Hello,
I’m wondering what happens to copyright if a newspaper closes down or merges with another? Most of what I have are pre-1950s. I don’t recall reading this, so not sure if I missed it in the above information.
Thank you!
If there’s a business merger, the new owner usually acquires all property and property rights, including copyrights. If the paper completely closes, you may need to check first to see if the paper really is still copyrighted at all (see Peter Hirtle’s chart here for the variables) and second to see if there was a dissolution plan for what happened to any assets. Copyright doesn’t end just because the owner went out of business. Somebody may still own the rights.
I think I know the answer, but … I have permission from our local paper (smaller town) to publish obituaries. I’ve done this for 15 some years. Then, every couple of years, I publish those in book form which I sell. I had a thought about using the photographs that accompany the obit. I know in the older papers not under copyright this is fine. But what about current times? Does the owner of the picture, the funeral home or the newspaper hold copyright? The photo is in 2 newspaper, the newspaper ezines, on the funeral home pages and I can do a web search and find them. What is your thoughts? I don’t want to do something illegal!
Thanks!
The person who took the photograph holds the copyright. The newspaper does not, unless the photographer assigns the copyright (not the permission to publish but the actual copyright) to the newspaper. You should probably consult with a licensed professional in your jurisdiction for personal legal advice as to whether your use might be a fair use. (I don’t keep an active law license, and don’t give legal advice on specific current legal questions.)
Thank you so much; that is what I thought. I had wondered about fair use since the photo was now in the public domain. It was just a thought as we all like to see photos of our family!
I appreciate your advice and I will check it out!
Sandi
Be careful here: just because something is published does NOT mean it’s public domain. It’s only public domain if it is not copyright-protected. Lots of published materials are not public domain.
I would like to publish extracts of articles by Arthur E Grix, originally pubished in the New York Times in 1927.
These are just extracts. Can I use them?
Let me begin with my usual caveat: I do not keep a current law license and do not give legal advice. I’m a genealogist sharing thoughts with other genealogists — I just happen to be a genealogist with a law degree. Keep that in mind. Here’s the key dividing line for copyright purposes: facts can’t be copyrighted; the way they’re expressed can be. If you’re simply extracting facts (for example, for a marriage index, John Smith married Jane Doe, New York City, April 22, 1930), there’s no possible copyright issue. If you’re extracting anything beyond mere facts, there’s a potential for copyright concern.
I plan to publish a few selected articles from various newspapers in a weekly digital news feed which is purely non-profit. I plan to give due credit by mentioning the name of the author and the publishing newspaper /magazine from where the article was taken. Do I need to still obtain the express permission of the publication in writing or otherwise ?
The fact that you don’t get paid for publishing doesn’t change the copyright status of the materials you’re copying. You have to decide for yourself if what you’re doing qualifies as fair use (and I strongly suggest you consult with a licensed professional in your jurisdiction). If it isn’t fair use, then yes you do need permission to republish anything that’s copyright-protected.
Hi Judy. What is the definition of copy in copyright infringement? If I assemble a digital scrapbook of content of which others hold copyright, and then email that scrapbook to others for free, am I copying or am I only “copying” if I were to post the scrapbook to the web for uncontrolled public access? Thanks.
Making it available to anyone else, even for free, is copying.
I have found a copy of a newsletter (eight page magazine) published by an industrial company in Sept 1954 and distributed free to their wholesale customers. Almost the entire issue is devoted to highlighting a business owned by my family members that was a distributor for these products among others.. The article has several photographs of the family, the original company offices etc. and a lot of information about how the family started the business. I would love to use the photos and information in my family history blog. The company that published the magazine has since gone out of business although some of its product lines appear to have been bought by other companies. I can find no copyright notice anywhere in the magazine. I would cite the magazine in the blog post. Is that fair use?
Anything published during that time period (1923 through 1977) required a copyright notice in order to receive the protections of the copyright law. Publishing without a copyright notice had the effect of putting the item into the public domain. (See Peter Hirtle’s chart here at Cornell.) So if you’re quite certain the document didn’t have a copyright notice, then you don’t have to worry about fair use; the item is public domain.
My Father in 1935 bought a (candid camera) photo of himself walking on a sidewalk in Chicago from photographer vendor for twenty five cents on a postcard. Can I get it copyrighted? Thank you.
Neither you nor your father was the creator — author — photographer — in this case, so you may not have a copyrightable interest in the photograph. You can check with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction for more information.
Thank you. I came to your blog to read the new post when I saw your Top Post section. Today, one hit the mark because I was going to start looking up to see if I was correct on when a newspaper copyright would be up. I got my question answered before I had started the research and enjoyed today’s post.
There are newspaper articles that get continued onto other pages. I cut & paste those and rearrange the columns so that they all fit nicely on a single sheet of paper. I add a citation line to it. On some, I give it a border, etc. I’ve posted some of those online, and I’ve noticed some have copied them and posted elsewhere online. While I have no copyright on the original articles, it took a bit of work to get the result I wanted, and I’m a little irritated they took a shortcut and reposted without attribution. Any chance I have a claim of furthering the work despite adding only a border and the citation line to the article?
In a word: no. You’re really not adding anything that’s truly original, and originality is the key to copyrightability.
Hi Judy,
What about two articles, one published in 1937 in Photoplay (long gone magazine), the other in 1959 in the New York Journal(long gone too), both having been signed by a famous actor who died in 1959. The representative of the famous actor’s estate doesn’t know who owns the copyrights. The same can be said about the companies that bought and buried the forgotten magazines.
Regardless of the status of the magazines (in business or out), these were published recently enough that they may still be in copyright. I’d suggest working through the options in Peter Hirtle’s chart (Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States) to see if they are still protected. If so, the fact that you can’t locate the copyright owner is no defense to a copyright action.
Judy, you said “the fact that you can’t locate the copyright owner is no defense to a copyright action.” If I can document that I’ve done what I consider to be due diligence in trying to find the copyright owner, would it be safe to publish a statement that invites a copyright owner to contact me either for permission, payment, or to remove the item from my publication?
I’m hoping your answers to my questions will be useful to your other readers, just as your answers to their questions are helping me.
Unfortunately, in the United States, we don’t have a safe solution to the problem of the can’t-be-found copyright owner (these are called orphan works, and the Copyright Office has repeatedly proposed legislative solutions without action by Congress — see the reports at https://www.copyright.gov/orphan/).
If a community archive wants to collect selected articles from the local newspaper, which they have a subscription for, is there any reason they can’t do that and clip those articles from the paper and add them to their collection? Does the clipping and cut and paste (in some cases) create copyright issues? Should the whole page be kept rather than cut and paste?
What you’re really talking about it creating a clipping file, and essentially taking the archive’s one copy of the newspaper and reorganizing it in a different way. I don’t see that as a copyright issue at all.
Thank you, Judy. I just wasn’t sure if altering the article by “cut and paste” was an issue. Thanks again.
As long as there is only one copy being cut-and-pasted, then there shouldn’t be an issue.
Judy, Our historical society maintains clipping files from local newspapers about local events/places/people/etc. In one specific case, the local college wants to acquire digital copies of newspapers articles about the college and post them to their website. Both newspapers that the articles were published in are NO longer in business. When the original request was made for digital copies of the articles it was to be used in writing a history of the college, but now they want to post the digital copies on their website. Your thoughts please. The articles are from the late 1960’s to mid 1970’s.
As an archive open to the public, your right to make a copy for a patron may well be governed by the special section of the copyright law for archives and libraries (see 17 USC §108). It should then become the obligation of the college to ensure that its subsequent use of the copy, whether for research or for reproduction, comports with copyright law. But you are both well-advised to sit down with the lawyer for the college and review this issue. Only by consulting with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction can you be sure you have advice you can rely on and that will protect you.
This is a bit off-topic since I am not doing a blog, newsletter, or distribution of something historical to my family…
…I have read that even printing things you find on the Web for your own use (like a photo to pin to a bulletin board) is not legal per copyright law.
I work for a public entity and we like to save media articles (newspapers, specialty periodicals, etc.) as Word documents with the title/author/text shown verbatim. Is it legal for us to put in into a word version and save it in our files? Most are from papers for which you can access the articles for free but a few are from a paid subscription site (our agency, I believe, has one subscription)
The only possible answer is: it depends. You have to look at the terms of use of the website you’re making the copy from. If it allows it, and the article is solely for your reference and use, then it may not be a problem. If the terms of use don’t allow it, or if you’re doing this to pass the articles around to avoid paying for more than one subscription, then it is a problem.
Newspapers.com has digitized newspaper articles from microfilms before 1923 but claims copyright for the image. Am I allowed to transcribe the article for a genealogy report and only reference the name of the original newspaper? Can I copy images from newspaper.com that are older than 1923?
Read the terms of use!! That’s where you always find the answers to these kinds of questions. (And as long as you are only copying small portions of the collection, the answer is yes.)
Familysearch.org won’t allow submissions of images from newspaper.com even though they are prior to 1923. I just ran into this with a 1914 submission from the Detroit Free Press on one of my ancestors. I think it’s wrong that newspaper.com can slap a copyright logo on works that are in the public domain.
Before hitting Newspapers.com for what’s clearly a decision by FamilySearch.org (which requires that users upload only materials to which they personally have the rights), you might want to read About that copyright notice…
I would like to include in an article a Camel advertisement from a 2/27/1951 Look magazine. The publication is defunct, there is no copyright notice in the ad, and I was unable to obtain permission from RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. From all I’ve read, it’s public domain, but I am looking for reassurance. What do you think?
I think you need to consult with an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction, if you’re looking for legal advice you can count on.
I agree with Shakespeare!
Can I send a 1941 newspaper to a friend, or can I cut out a picture from that newspaper and send it to a friend, or can I show that picture to a friend on skype, or if the picture page is behind me on skype, do you think that such would be ok.
Don’t blame the lawyers, blame the politicians who wrote the copyright law! You can always give away the one copy you legally own (example 1 or 2) without any copyright issues. The latter two are probably fair use, but remember: I don’t give legal advice, I just address issues as a genealogist who happens to have a law degree.
I’m about to self-publish a history of the small community in which I live. I have two dilemmas facing me about permissions for some of the material I’ve found. The first is that I very much want to use a few quotes (about a paragraph each) from another woman’s work, which was published in 1964 with a copyright. Both the author and her husband are dead, and the publisher in now defunct. I have hunted without success for a descendant who might grant permission. Is my only recourse to take out the quotes? Since this a commercial project, I’m not sure fair use would cover it. My second dilemma is that a few decades ago, an elderly man gave me some unpublished stories he had written about the area. I neglected to get a signed permission from him. He is now deceased, and his family won’t talk to me. May I still glean the information from the stories, if I properly cite the author and don’t quote him directly?
(a) Fair use isn’t killed by the fact that the publication is commercial. Whether it’s commercial or not is just one of the factors and overall your use seems to me to be well within the fair use analysis. (Caveat: this is NOT legal advice. See Rules of my road: 2018.) You might do an analysis using the American Library Association’s Fair Use Evaluator to see if you can defend your use as fair use if you needed to.
(b) Facts can’t be copyrighted. You can always extract facts from other sources and use them, and yes — as genealogists we always cite our sources.
Any thoughts on newspapers that used the Associated Press (AP) or the United Press (UP) in the early 1940s? The “author” of an article would say “AP” or “UP” at the beginning. No specific author’s name, just “AP” or ”UP”. The newspaper itself is in the “public domain” because there was never a renewal in the U.S. Copyright Office of the copyright in year 28 from the publishing date (actually I checked years 27/28/29, just to make sure). I know that newspapers that typically used these types articles from the AP, were also part of the cooperative, unincorporated association that was the “Associated Press”. So, I would think that the copyright of AP articles follows the copyright of the newspaper that published them.
Both AP and UPI are wire services and produce their materials under license or subscription for member news outlets. The copyright status of anything from AP or UPI would likely be impacted both by copyright law itself and by whatever license there was at the time. So the copyright registration status you probably need to check is that of AP or UPI, not the newspaper.
Does the statement, All Rights Reserved 1998 – 2017, mean the newspaper no longer hold the rights?
Oh, no!! It doesn’t mean that at all. Remember, a copyright notice isn’t required at all under the law any more: copyright is automatic, no notice required, no registration with the Copyright Office required. Anything published as a work of corporate authorship (such as a newspaper) in 1998 won’t be out of copyright until — at the earliest — 95 years from the date of publication, or 2093. All that statement means is that the newspaper took the time to put SOME copyright notice on its work and hasn’t updated it (probably in the HTML code online) since 2017. But that doesn’t affect the validity of its copyright ownership at all.
Hi Judy, great information here. I am currently creating a scrapbook of letters written between 1926-1934 with the intention of publishing. Some of the handwritten letters have newspaper clippings included in the envelope. For instance a clipping of a photo of a wedding party and a story about the Navy. The newspapers are unknown. Can I scan the clippings and put them in the book?
Your book publisher or printer should have a lawyer who will cover this issue with you. (I don’t give legal advice since I don’t maintain a current law license.) If I were in your shoes, I would use them for two reasons: (1) it’s very likely the newspaper is out of copyright (during those years it should have renewed its copyright to keep it, and most newspapers didn’t); and (2) I can make a good argument that it’s a fair use (allowed by the copyright laws) in a transformative way (I’m really using the clipping in a different way for a different purpose than the newspaper did, which helps in my fair use analysis).
I’m a nonfiction writer and author. What many persons fail to take into account is a simple technique for avoiding copyright problems no matter what the state of the original written material: Liberally rewrite the information that you need to publish yourself, with enough change in the writing that it cannot be construed as copyright infringement. Remember that information cannot be copyrighted, only particular arrangements of words.
Not quite so fast for genealogical and historical writers. We have the additional concern of “rewriting” ourselves right into intellectual plagiarism. See https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-15-plagiarism%E2%80%94five-copywrongs-historical-writing
How does copyright law affect using images of newspaper pages or headlines? I am having difficulty ascertaining. (Talking about quick visual flip through digital images of headlines in a short, nonprofit documentary about attitudes toward voting and the 2020 U.S. election.) Trying to use these as shorthand visual rather than going into detail about events that will be in viewers’ recent memory.
Personally — and I am not giving legal advice here!! — I would regard that as fair use. But if you’re doing this for real you should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
Hi
I copy article from newspaper for other online newspaper though I mentioned under article source newspaper name that is (collected from “newspaper name”). Is it right or wrong? Please advise us. Thanks.
I can’t give legal advice. If you need legal advice you can rely on, you need to consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. As a general matter, anyone thinking about copying material from an online source has to ask two questions: (a) is this material still under copyright? If so, then giving credit to where you got is WILL NOT protect you from a claim of copyright infringement. If not, then (b) do the terms and conditions of the website where you got the article allow you to copy it and republish it? If not, then giving them credit WILL NOT protect you from a claim of breach of contract.
Just like in the original question, I’m interested in including a dozen or so newspaper clippings (from the 40’s & 50’s) in a family history photo book I’m putting together. I understand the need to get permission- but the process doesn’t seem straight forward. My newspaper’s website has a link for “archived” issues that takes you too- you guessed it- newspapers.com. So when seeking permission I don’t know if I need permission from my newspaper (owned by Gannett), newspapers.com (owned by Ancestry), or both! Gannett appears to use a 3rd party called Pars to handle permissions, but the Pars website is clear that no license is free and implies that each license has a minimum $250 cost. Frustrating
You need to determine first if these clippings are copyright-protected at all. If they are, then your first question is whether you need permission from the publisher or whether you can use the clippings under fair use. Fair use isn’t an easy question, and either you need to educate yourself to make a decision on that (see https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ for some resources) or consult with an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction for legal advice. If they are not (and most newspapers from that time period did not renew their copyrights, so the clippings are out of copyright), the question will be the terms of use of the website or other source where you got the clippings.
Thank you for the helpful article. My grandmother was a writer and poet and submitted her writings and poetry to a couple of small local newspapers between
1918 and 1976. I am not sure if the fact that she was the author would make any difference in copyright protection if the newspapers did in fact copyright her writings and then renewed the copyrights.
Unless your grandmother transferred the copyright to the newspaper in writing, she retained the copyright and the newspaper only had what was called a compilation copyright (on the newspaper as a whole). And, of course, most newspapers did not renew their initial copyrights.