Quotation and Criticism

Many jurisdictions recognize a “ quotation ” exception , or some other similar exception, that allows limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, review, scholarship, or parody. These exceptions aim to balance the rights of artists with freedom of expression and information. However, the specifics of these exceptions vary from country to country.

For visual arts, quotation for the purposes of criticism or review usually applies when the artwork itself is the subject of discussion, rather than a decorative element. Typical examples include:

• showing a painting, sculpture, or photograph in an academic article or exhibition catalogue to discuss its style, meaning, or historical context;

• using an artwork in a documentary or review to illustrate the artist’s technique, message, or cultural significance;

• including artworks in art-history lectures or textbooks where the works themselves are being examined.

In all these examples, the key point is that the artwork is used to say something about the artwork itself, not just to decorate or illustrate something unrelated. The amount reproduced should also stay within what that purpose actually justifies — sometimes that means using the whole artwork, and sometimes only an excerpt, depending on what the commentary or discussion requires.

Quotation and criticism generally allow reproduction of artworks for thoughtful commentary, analysis, or explanation. They are not intended to justify reuse for decoration, branding, or profit alone.

To stay within this exception, it is usually important to:

• use only what is necessary for the commentary or analysis;

• clearly credit the artist and source, wherever possible;

• ensure the use is genuinely connected to discussion or critique, not unrelated illustration.

This balance helps protect artists’ economic and moral interests while enabling cultural dialogue, education, and research.

Using Images to Support Commentary or Analysis

Sometimes, an image is used to comment on, analyze, review, or critique the image itself (or what it represents); not for decoration or for enjoyment alone. Many copyright systems allow this, under certain conditions. The key idea is that the image is included because it is necessary to explain, discuss, or evaluate it—not just to make a page, film, or presentation look more attractive.

In these situations, several factors are usually taken into account. The purpose of the use must be clearly connected to commentary or analysis, such as in a book, article, lecture, exhibition, or documentary. The author and source of the image should be acknowledged wherever possible. The amount used should be proportionate to the purpose, meaning that only what is needed is shown—sometimes a cropped version or lower-resolution image is sufficient as a practical, risk-reducing choice, though this is not itself a legal requirement: the legal standard remains the extent justified by the purpose, which can sometimes call for showing the whole image. Finally, the use should not replace the original work or undermine its normal licensing, exhibition, or sales market.

When these elements come together, the use is more likely to be seen as legitimate commentary or criticism rather than unauthorized reuse.

Where has Criticism Been Recognized in Practice?

Exceptions for criticism and review apply to all categories of works, including visual art, photography, film, and architecture. Whatever form the work takes, criticism can focus on the work itself or on the ideas expressed by the work, and an image may be reproduced to the extent necessary for that purpose.

In practice, many countries accept that reproducing artworks or photographs in books, catalogues, documentaries, scholarly writing, or exhibitions can fall within the scope of criticism or review when the images are used to analyze the works themselves, or to comment upon artistic movements or cultural meaning, as long as the use is fair, proportionate, and properly attributed.

In systems that use broader standards, such as fair use, art criticism is routinely recognized as a core legitimate purpose for reproducing visual works.

Specific Considerations for Quotation in Visual Arts

Unlike text, visual artworks cannot always be quoted by simply taking and showing small segments. For this reason, quotation in visual arts may sometimes involve reproducing the entire image. What matters is not whether the whole work is shown, but why it is shown.

There is no fixed percentage rule for visual quotation. The amount used must be limited to what is necessary for the specific purpose. In some cases, a detail, crop, or low-resolution image is enough; in others, the whole artwork may be needed.

Quotation and criticism are tools that allow, within certain limits, the use of artworks for the purpose of being discussed, analyzed, taught, and placed in context, without competing with the artist’s normal market. They support cultural dialogue and education, while still protecting artists’ economic and moral interests.

For visual artists, the key distinction is purpose. These exceptions apply when an artwork is shown in order to talk about it. They are much less likely to apply when an image is used mainly for decoration, branding, or commercial appeal.

Credit image: Andrii Dodonov