Image Licensing and Citation: Permissions for Papers, Books, and Media

“Can I use this image” and “how do I use this image properly” are different questions. The first is about status. The second is about permissions, credit lines, and scope.

Can I use this artwork commercially? answers the first. This guide answers the second: what to actually do when the image is going into a thesis, a book, or a campaign.

Start from the use, not the image

Different uses run on different processes, and costs differ by an order of magnitude.

Use	Typical case	Usual route
Academic and teaching	Thesis, course pack, conference slides	Often free or low-cost, but still requires a request and a credit line
Publishing	Catalogue, monograph, journal article, textbook	Priced by print run, territory, and edition; a licence agreement is signed
Exhibition and public programmes	Labels, gallery guides, public screens	Negotiated per project, usually licensed for the run of the show
Media and commercial	Advertising, packaging, film, marketing site	Highest fees; sub-licensing and derivative use are usually excluded

One thing graduate students miss: a thesis deposited in a repository or published as a book counts as public distribution, so a free “teaching use” permission may no longer cover it. Ask your institution and publisher before you submit.

Three layers of rights

A single photograph of a painting can involve three separate permissions:

1. Copyright in the work. The artist’s rights in the image itself. For modern and contemporary work still in copyright, you need the rights holder’s permission.
2. Copyright or related rights in the photograph. The photographer, scanning unit, or conservator may hold rights in the file. Jurisdictions disagree about whether a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional public-domain work creates a new right.
3. Institutional terms. The museum’s terms of use, download policy, or database contract. Even where the work is public domain, the museum may restrict how its files are used.

Public-domain work does not imply a public-domain file. That is the most common misreading.

Finding the rights holder

Three steps locate most holders:

1. The institution’s rights page. Look for Rights and Reproductions, Image Request, or Permissions. It names who licenses the image, whether a form is required, and whether there is a fee. Always start here.
2. The artist’s estate or foundation. For living and recent artists, rights usually sit with the artist, an estate, or a foundation. Gallery sites often list representation and copyright contacts.
3. A collective management organisation. National visual arts societies handle bulk licensing and orphan works, and are the practical route when the holder is unclear.

If you cannot identify a holder, do not assume nobody is watching. Keep a record of your search and state in the publication that a diligent search was made.

A request that gets answered

Institutions receive a lot of requests. Specificity is what produces a fast reply. Include:

• Image identification. Artist, title, date, accession number, and a link to the exact page you took the image from.
• Use. Which publication, academic or commercial, who publishes it.
• Scope. Print run, language, territory, edition, size and placement (cover, half-page, inline).
• Term. One-time use, or ongoing.
• Modification. Cropping, overprinting, colour adjustment.
• Credit line. Ask them to supply the exact wording they require.
• Deadline. The date by which you need an answer.

A low-resolution reference image attached to the email saves a round of correspondence.

How fees usually work

• Academic and teaching. Often free or nominal, but still formalised with a request and a credit line.
• Publishing. Tiered by print run; larger runs cost more. Additional language editions and territories are priced separately.
• Commercial. Quoted against scope, and typically excludes sub-licensing — meaning your client cannot reuse it.
• Exclusivity. Significantly more expensive, and most institutions decline it.

Budget separately for reproduction files: many museums charge for the high-resolution scan independent of the permission fee.

Building the credit line

Most institutions supply a fixed format. Copy it; do not invent one. A typical line contains:

Artist, Title, date. Medium, dimensions.
Collection, City. Accession number. Image source / licence.

Example:

Vincent van Gogh, The Bedroom, 1888. Oil on canvas, 72.4 × 91.3 cm.
Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam. Image: public domain / CC0.

If the institution specifies a format, theirs wins — including punctuation and the order of elements.

Open licences still have conditions

• CC0 / Public Domain Mark. Free to use. Attribution is still good practice, and it lets readers trace the source.
• CC BY. Attribution required; note the licence and whether you modified the image.
• CC BY-NC. Commercial use is excluded, and “commercial” is broader than most people assume — internal training and some social campaigns count.
• “No known copyright restrictions.” Means the institution found no restrictions, not that it guarantees there are none.

The Smithsonian Open Access programme releases images and metadata under CC0. The Rijksmuseum, the Met’s open access collection, and the Art Institute of Chicago all offer high-resolution downloads under their own terms. Check each one; they are not identical.

The Vatican Museums, by contrast, apply stricter image terms, and commercial use generally requires a separate request. “It was downloadable elsewhere” is not a legal argument.

Where fair use stops

US fair use weighs four factors: purpose and character, nature of the work, amount used, and effect on the market. Chinese law takes a more enumerated approach, and situations outside the listed exceptions are harder to defend.

Neither system is a good backstop for a commercial project. For commercial use, licensing is usually cheaper than arguing.

Common mistakes

• “The work is public domain, so the file is too.” The work may be; the photograph and the institution’s terms may not be.
• “I changed it, so it is fine.” Cropping, recolouring, and overprinting do not change ownership.
• “I credited it, so I am covered.” Attribution is one condition, not the whole licence.
• “They did not reply, so I can use it.” Silence is not permission.
• “It was on Wikipedia, so it is commercial-safe.” Wikimedia Commons licences are per file; you have to open the file page and read it.

Checklist before publication

• Is the work still in copyright?
• Where did this specific file come from, and is there a separate right in the photograph?
• Do the institution’s terms permit this use, especially commercial use?
• Do I have written permission covering print run and territory?
• Is the credit line in the required format?
• Have I kept the permission and the correspondence?

What to do next

• To decide whether a use is permitted at all, read Can I use this artwork commercially?.
• To find downloadable open images, use Free public-domain art.
• AI-generated images raise a different set of questions: see AI art copyright.
• For high-resolution files of Chinese and East Asian collections, start with Finding Chinese and East Asian art online.