> Old Book Illustrations presents itself as a scholarly resource, including a digitized Dictionary of the Art of Printing and short articles on some of the most famous artists and significant texts from the period. The site’s publishers are also transparent about their selection process. They are guided by their “reasons pertaining to taste, consistency, and practicality,” they write. The archive might have broadened its focus, but “due to obvious legal restrictions, [they] had to stay within the limits of the public domain.”
> We do not try to limit the use of the Illustrations available on OBI, but we cannot guarantee these Illustrations are noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction and your use of them is solely at your own risk. Although we do our best to offer only Illustrations that are considered public domain in most countries, copyright laws vary from one jurisdiction to another, and you agree that you are solely responsible for abiding by all laws and regulations that may be applicable to using the Illustrations. While we endeavor to provide enough information to make that process as easy as possible, we cannot guarantee that this information is accurate.
The image of the squirrels in the article is from Beatrix Potter's Squirrel Nutkin. I'd be really surprised (pleasantly though) if the publishers of something so famous had allowed the images to become public domain.
Published in 1903, and Potter died in 1943. The copyright would have expired in 2013 (! — i.e., 70 years after the death of the author) at the latest as far as I can tell.
It should of course be completely unnecessary to look up the exact rules for something published that long ago, but that's the consequence of defect intellectual property laws.
Where did you find the 75 year period? The general consensus seems to be that her works entered the public domain in 2014 (which is 70 years counted from the year following her death, I missed a year in my previous post).
> Old Book Illustrations presents itself as a scholarly resource, including a digitized Dictionary of the Art of Printing and short articles on some of the most famous artists and significant texts from the period. The site’s publishers are also transparent about their selection process. They are guided by their “reasons pertaining to taste, consistency, and practicality,” they write. The archive might have broadened its focus, but “due to obvious legal restrictions, [they] had to stay within the limits of the public domain.”