Concepts are not copyrightable. Beyond that you are potentially in trouble. There is a long
tradition in science literature of creating new art that can be pretty slavish replication, and as
long as you give credit to the source ("after ------- (author/artist) there is not problem because
the artist normally has given up all rights to the art to the scientist. This is not ideal in this
day and age, and this tradition does not extend into other types of publication.
On 10/2/15 5:47 PM, Jorge A. Santiago-Blay wrote:
> Dear Entomo-Listers
> When authors send me papers for publication, I try to remember to remind them to ask permission to
> reproduce images from the owner of the copyright. Whether non-human or human entities, an email is
> generally all it takes to say "yes". Yet, sometimes money needs to be transacted or the reply is
> "no" or no reply at all is available.
> My question is, if one cannot get permission, how different does the new image have to be to be
> considered as "different" from the previously published one and be free from the concerns of
> copyright violations.
> Your anecdotes (whether personal or from someone else) as well as constructive suggestions,will be
> welcomed. Please send them directly to me at:
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Apologies for potential duplicate emails.
Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at