copyright germany
Do I need permission to use an image from a book from 1942?
<p>The book is <em>On growth and forms</em> by D'arcy Thompson. It was published in 1942 and Thompson died in 1948. Wikipedia uses the image citing public domain. Can I use extracts and images from the book with proper citation without the problem?</p>

<p>The image I want is Fig. 125 on <a href="https://archive.org/details/ongrowthform1917thom/page/322" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this page.</a></p>

<p>The book is also available in archive.org and I think it should be in public domain. </p>

<p>The image itself has a caption and in bracket says <code>(After Rhumbler)</code>, I am not sure if it is by Thompson himself.  Rhumbler would be Ludwig Rhumbler who died in 1939. So it should still be in the public domain as far as I get it.<br>
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Rhumbler</p>

<p>Do I need a copyright license for the image or it is in the public domain and I could use it without one?</p>

<p>I am in Germany and my thesis will be published in Germany.</p>

<p><em>On Growth and Form</em> by D'arcy Thompson is a somewhat tricky case. (The last word of the title is "Form" not "Forms" by the way.) The first edition was published in 1917, and is therefore out of copyright in the US. The expanded edition ws published in 1942, and will be in copyright <strong>IN THE US</strong> until 2037, unless the copyright holder failed to renew the copyright in 1970 (after the initial 28 year term). Actually the renewal could have been anywhere in the period 1969-71, as a 1 year margin plus or minus was allowed. Assuming that the renewal was done properly, any images included in the first edition are free for anyone to use. Any added in the 1942 edition are not. </p>

<p>If Wikipedia lists the image you want as public domain, check the detailed reason that they give. For the image of <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transformation_of_Argyropelecus_olfersi_into_Sternoptyx_diaphana.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">figs 517 &amp; 518 from the 1942 ed</a> The original publication date is listed as 1917, which implies that the image was in the first edition.</p>

<p>Wikipedia is pretty good at copyright, but has been known to get things wrong. In fact I have been involved in correcting a few errors of this sort. In this case verification is not excessively hard.</p>

<p>I would suggest that you find a copy of the first edition, and check if the image you wan to use is included there. If it is, you should feel free to use it. if it isn't they you are are not free without permission unless the renewal was not made. Verifying copyright renewals is a bit arduous, but it can be done.</p>

<p>On a further look it seems that the version on the internet archive linked in the question is a copy of the first edition. It carries a 1917 date, and I see no indication of a revision or 'second edition" or a 1942 date. The IA metadata says "Publication date 1917 " If this is correct, this version and any orall of its contents are in the public domain for anyone to use in any way at all.</p>

<p>Note that if the book had been first published in 1942, the answer would have been different. And the answer would be different again under UK law, which now uses a life+70 term, placing the 1942 edition out of copyright. The same would be true in many other countries which use life+70 or life+50. (The US uses life+70, but only for works published after 1977. The 1978 copyright act came into effect 1 Jan 1978.)</p>

<p>Note that in countries which use a term longer than life+70, and there are a few, this work would not yet be out of copyright.</p>

<p>Since you don't specify what country you're in, I'm assuming you're interested in the United States copyright.</p>

<p>If the book were published in 1942, the answer would be "maybe".  You'd need to ask permission in the following case:</p>

<ul>
<li>It was published with a copyright notice and the copyright was renewed in 1970.</li>
</ul>

<p>and would be free to use it in these others:</p>

<ul>
<li>It was published without a copyright notice (the copy you linked to doesn't have a notice, but that doesn't apply, because it's from the UK publication of the book, not the US publication).</li>
<li>It was published with a copyright notice, but copyright was not renewed.</li>
</ul>

<p>But the book you've linked to wasn't published in 1942, it was published in 1917.  That makes it unconditionally in the public domain in the United States.  Additionally, since the author died in 1948, it's in the public domain in any country with a copyright term of life+70 years.</p>

<p>(Source: <a href="https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain</a>)</p>
