Back in September of last year, I got together with Stone Branch Center for the Arts on a small project I’d been working on. I collected many 1800s and early-1900s newspaper advertisements, converted them into block-print designs, created stamps with a laser printer, and began experimenting with ink and paper.

I’ve had a few ideas for how to use them — everything from a monthly newspaper poster to a scavenger-hunt collectible stamp at community events to small, standalone prints. But I’ve been a bit stuck on what to focus on without creating too much overhead for too little return. And then there’s the legal side of selling the work.

I talked with the center’s owner, and she gave me good advice: keep it simple. Start with 4×4 prints on one side, and include a description on the back explaining what the piece is about.

All of these ads are from our town. My ability to research them through the Laura Virginia Hale Archives at the Warren Heritage Society or online via Virginia Chronicle makes this kind of local history project especially accessible.

Which brings me to the last part of the problem: legal issues.

Public domain vs. archive scans

The original advertisements are well beyond copyright and firmly in the public domain.

The question I ran into wasn’t about the ads themselves — it was about where I was sourcing them. Virginia Chronicle hosts scanned images of these newspapers, which raises a new question for me: Does the scanning process introduce new restrictions?

When researching this, I kept seeing the same principle repeated:

A straight digitization (with no creative retouching or artistic interpretation) of a public-domain work does not create a new copyright, because the copy lacks originality. A commonly cited case is Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation (1999), which supports this idea.

In other words, a mechanical scan doesn’t magically re-copyright public-domain material.

From there, it seemed reasonable that I could trace, convert, reinterpret, and sell transformed versions of these ads as creative works derived from public-domain sources.

So are my block prints derivative and creative?

• Converted to block format
• Made into physical prints
• Ink, paper, and composition chosen by me
• Curated selections

Check. Check. Check. And… check.

Yep — authorship.

But then there are Terms of Use

That’s when I started reading Virginia Chronicle’s Terms of Use more closely.

They include language like:

Any copyrighted content is made available on Virginia Chronicle for personal use only…

The keyword there is copyrighted. Since public-domain material is no longer protected by copyright, that paragraph doesn’t really apply to these ads.

The next section is trickier:

The digital content contained in the collection is not available for copying, re-sale, re-use or incorporation into any databases or commercial product without express, written permission from the owner of the digital collection (Library of Virginia)…

This appears to be aimed at preventing people from reselling raw scans, bulk downloading, scraping, or building competing archives — all reasonable protections for their digitization work and infrastructure.

What I’m doing is different: extracting public-domain artwork, transforming it into block-print designs, and producing physical prints as original art.

Still, archive terms are contractual, not copyright-based, and even when something is legally allowed, institutions sometimes request courtesy attribution.

So rather than guessing, I decided to reach out directly.

Asking instead of assuming

I sent a short email to Virginia Chronicle / Library of Virginia asking whether they have a preferred attribution format for creative projects using pre-1930 public-domain materials. I also included a quick photo from an early test run so they could see this is hands-on printmaking, not scan redistribution.

Here’s what I sent:

Click to view email

Created At: Saturday 24, 2026, 9:17 PM
From: Lewis Moten <lewismoten>
To: Virginia Chronicle <virginiachronicle> Library of Virginia

Subject: Attribution guidance for pre-1930 Virginia Chronicle materials

Hello,

I’m working on a small creative project involving physical block prints derived from pre-1930 Virginia newspaper advertisements that appear in the Virginia Chronicle. My understanding is that these advertisements are public domain.

The process involves transforming selected ads into block-print style artwork and producing physical prints.

I wanted to ask whether the Library of Virginia has a preferred attribution format when public-domain Virginia Chronicle materials are used in creative projects. I’d be happy to credit Virginia Chronicle / Library of Virginia as the source archive, and I’m also glad to provide citations for the specific ads I’m considering if that’s helpful.

I’ve attached a quick photo from an early test run to give a sense of the format and process.

Thank you for maintaining such a valuable historical resource.

Best,
Lewis E. Moten III

Hopefully, it’s as simple as including something like this on the back of each print:

Derived from public-domain Virginia newspapers (pre-1930), via Virginia Chronicle / Library of Virginia.

Along with the newspaper name, date, page number, and a bit of historical backstory.

Some of these prints will end up larger than the original ads. All of them will be reinterpretations — old commerce turned into small pieces of physical history.

Now I wait for their reply.

Public-domain material invites reinterpretation, but archives also deserve respect for the work they do in preserving history. For me, this project became less about legal certainty and more about responsible creative reuse — turning old commerce into small pieces of living history.

A response from Virginia Chronicle

I awoke Sunday morning and checked my email. I heard back from Kelley Ewing with the Virginia Newspaper Program at the Library of Virginia.

They confirmed that the advertisements I’m using are indeed in the public domain and fine to use, which was reassuring. They also shared their preferred attribution format, suggesting something along the lines of:

Image from the [title of newspaper], [date of newspaper]. Courtesy of VirginiaChronicle.com and the Library of Virginia, 800 East Broad St., Richmond, VA.

They noted that this could be shortened if needed. An example was provided to just include the newspaper title and date, followed by “Courtesy of VirginiaChronicle.com.”

They also mentioned they’d love to see the finished prints someday, which felt like a really human moment in what started as a legal question.

So that’s the path forward: clear confirmation that the ads are public domain, plus a straightforward attribution approach that respects the work Virginia Chronicle and the Library of Virginia do to preserve and share this history.

For me, that strikes a good balance in honoring the archive while continuing to transform these small pieces of old commerce into new, physical artifacts.