Archive Photo Research for UK Journalists

What you need to know

Archive photographs present two distinct legal challenges: identifying who currently holds copyright, and obtaining a licence once the rights holder is found. Copyright in a photograph lasts for the life of the photographer plus 70 years under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). For images taken before the digital era, the original photographer may be unknown, deceased, or the rights may have passed through multiple assignments — meaning the chain of title must be traced before any use.

Where a rights holder genuinely cannot be identified or located after a diligent search, the Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Act 2013 created a formal orphan-works licensing scheme administered by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). This allows journalists and publishers to apply for a licence to use such images legally, paying a fee into escrow in case the rights holder comes forward. Using an archive image without a licence — even if the photographer is unknown — is not a defence to copyright infringement.

For rights-cleared archive material, the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies (BAPLA) provides a searchable directory of specialist UK archives. Major sources include PA Media (formerly Press Association), Mirrorpix, Mary Evans Picture Library, the Imperial War Museums (IWM), and the National Portrait Gallery (NPG). Each has its own licensing structure and terms for editorial use.

When archive photo research issues arise

• 1Producing an obituary or anniversary piece that requires historical images of a subject from decades past, where original negatives may sit in a library archive.
• 2Illustrating a long-read with period photographs sourced from a Google Image search without verifying licence status or chain of title.
• 3Using a photograph from a national institution such as the IWM or NPG under the mistaken belief that public collection status means free to publish.
• 4Scanning or photographing images from a physical archive — the scan itself may not generate new copyright, but the underlying photograph still carries its original copyright term.
• 5Publishing a photograph whose photographer died fewer than 70 years ago when the image is described only as a “Victorian” or “Edwardian” photograph without a confirmed death date.
• 6Attempting to rely on fair dealing for archive images in a current-events context — the CDPA explicitly excludes photographs from the Section 30(2) reporting exception.
• 7Acquiring images from a local newspaper or regional publisher whose archive rights have been sold to a third party (commonly Mirrorpix or PA Media).
• 8Commissioning colourisation or digital restoration of an archive photograph without checking whether the licence covers derivative works.

Red flags

• ⚠An image is described as “out of copyright” based solely on its age or the era it depicts — always verify the photographer's confirmed death date before assuming the work is in the public domain.
• ⚠No attribution or credit line accompanies the archive image supplied by a contributor — the absence of metadata is a warning sign that provenance has not been checked.
• ⚠A photograph is described as coming from a “private collection” — private ownership of a print does not convey copyright or the right to licence the image for publication.
• ⚠The diligent search conducted for an orphan-works application has not been documented in writing — the IPO will reject undocumented searches.
• ⚠An institution confirms an image is “out of copyright” but charges a reproduction fee — these are two separate matters; the fee may be legitimate even when copyright has expired, but confirm precisely what rights are being granted.
• ⚠A social media account shares a restored or colourised archive photograph — the share does not constitute a licence, and the restoration may itself be separately copyrighted.

Practical checklist

• I have identified the photographer and confirmed their death date to establish whether copyright has expired (life plus 70 years).
• If the photographer is unknown, I have conducted and documented a diligent search across the BAPLA directory, DACS, the Copyright Hub, and reverse-image tools before applying for an orphan-works licence.
• I have contacted the relevant picture library or institution (PA Media, Mirrorpix, Mary Evans, IWM, NPG) and obtained a written editorial licence for the specific image.
• My licence explicitly covers the territory (UK, worldwide), medium (print, online, social), duration, and any adaptation rights needed for cropping or colourisation.
• I have stored the licence agreement and the documented diligent search (where applicable) alongside the image record in our content management system.
• I have credited the photograph correctly in the caption, using the format required by the licensing library or institution.
• I have confirmed that the licence covers republication if the article is syndicated or repurposed across group titles or platforms.
• Where the image depicts identifiable living individuals, I have checked with our legal team whether editorial use is appropriate in context.

Common mistakes

• ›Assuming that an image found on Wikimedia Commons is automatically cleared for editorial publication — many Wikimedia images carry licence conditions (attribution, share-alike, non-commercial) that restrict use.
• ›Treating a “reproduction fee” paid to a museum or archive as a copyright licence — reproduction fees cover administrative costs, not necessarily copyright clearance; both may apply.
• ›Using the IPO orphan-works scheme as a shortcut without first conducting a genuine diligent search — the IPO audits applications and non-compliant searches result in rejection.
• ›Failing to account for the rights of any living person who may have commissioned the photograph — a commissioning party may have retained rights under a pre-CDPA contract.
• ›Assuming that a photograph published in a UK newspaper archive before 1988 is in the public domain — the CDPA 1988 contains transitional provisions that may preserve earlier copyright terms.
• ›Overlooking moral rights — even where copyright is licensed, the photographer's right to be identified (Section 77 CDPA) and right against derogatory treatment (Section 80 CDPA) persist and must be observed.

Related guides

Primary sources

Frequently asked questions