I would like to write a review and add figures including pictures of different publications. I was wondering how scientists usually react if one asks them whether they can send one of these pictures. Are they usually willing to send it? How should I cite it in the review?
According to my knowledge, when an author uses a picture in an article, and the article is published in a scientific journal, this picture is not for author anymore, it is for that journal and publisher! So you should ask publisher and editor to allow you to use that picture during a letter. You should write the source of the picture under it in your article, also the number of that letter!
That was also my guess, but pictures are annotated, and I would have liked to have raw pictures instead...
Razieh is correct in pointing out that the copyright for pictures and graphs is usually transferred to the journal when a paper is publihed.
Journals usually have a special link for requesting reuse of graphics, so obtaining permission is the easiest step. However, the journals are usually not able to supply you with the picture/graphics file and my guess is that they don't keep a data base with all the graphical material published over the years.
This is of course especially tricky for material from the non-digital era as I found out when I wanted to reproduce some classical figures in a review.
For more recent material, authors should be willing and able to provide you with graphics files when they know that you have obtained permission from the journal.
I'm no expert, but doesn't the raw format give you increased possibility to manipulate the picture? In theory, you only have permission to reproduce the already published picture, so I'm not sure if authors would be willing to provide you with this format.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India