Did you know that drawing a textbook picture again with your own pen does not necessarily make its ideas, arrangement or distinctive design your original work? A pupil carefully redraws a diagram of a water system, replaces every colour and types new labels. The image looks different, yet the route of every arrow still comes from a diagram the pupil found online. A beautiful new drawing can therefore carry an invisible source problem.
A redrawn diagram is a new rendering of visual information; when it follows another person’s source, it may also be an adaptation or derivative of that source. The immediate answer is to name the source, describe what you changed, check that you have permission to reuse or adapt it when required, and separate source-backed features from your own additions. A citation explains the intellectual trail; it does not by itself grant permission to copy or publish copyrighted artwork.
First diagnose what the learner has actually made
Before asking for a footnote, put the source and the new figure side by side. Invite the learner to point to which shapes, relationships, labels and decisions came from where. They should be able to identify the source without relying on a vague sentence such as ‘I found the idea somewhere on Google’.
- Was the diagram copied exactly, traced, redrawn with cosmetic changes, or genuinely reconstructed from several sources?
- Are the sequence, unusual grouping, visual hierarchy and relationships taken from one identifiable original?
- Did the pupil add any new component or remove an important condition?
- Is there evidence that reuse or modification is permitted under the relevant licence, permission or legal exception?
- Can a reader tell which claims were in the source and which were added for this assignment?
The questions are deliberately separate. Attribution, factual accuracy and permission are related but different. A learner may accurately credit a diagram and still lack permission to distribute its adaptation publicly; another may create an entirely original chart from facts while still needing to cite the source of those facts.
Worked example: a rainwater diagram acquires an extra box
Entirely fictional classroom example: imagine a teaching handout by D. Lim titled Collecting Rainwater at School, dated 2025. Its labelled sequence is ‘roof → gutter → mesh screen → storage tank’. There is a pipe marked ‘overflow’ beside the tank. For this scenario, the teacher has explicitly authorised pupils to redraw the diagram for class work, but not to claim the source as their own.
A pupil creates a new black-and-white image using circles rather than rectangles and retains the four stages. That new style does not remove the source relationship: the stages and their order came from the handout. A responsible caption would say something like, ‘Redrawn from D. Lim, Collecting Rainwater at School (class handout, 2025); simplified shapes and labels.’ The pupil must follow any additional school citation requirements. This is an illustrative caption, not a claim about any real author or licence.
Now suppose the pupil inserts a box labelled ‘water purified and safe to drink’ between the mesh screen and tank. The original handout never made that claim. The added box is not merely a graphical change; it is an unsupported scientific and practical assertion. The student must remove it, or explicitly label it as a separate proposed treatment step and check it against appropriate technical evidence. A mesh screen alone does not establish that collected rainwater is potable. Crediting the original handout cannot make a new, unsupported statement true.
This reveals two independent checks: who contributed the arrangement, and whether the revised meaning is accurate. Honest attribution protects both the source creator and the learner’s own reasoning.
Why ‘I drew it myself’ is not a complete attribution
There are at least three levels of creation. A copy reproduces a source figure with little or no change. An adaptation may change colours, labels, format, sequence or emphasis while remaining based on the source’s expressive work. An independent visualisation may be built from facts, observations or data using the student’s own design. These labels can overlap and legal treatment depends on the work and context, so do not infer copyright status from the number of alterations or from whether the software was new.
Even when an illustration is independently drawn, the evidence for its underlying measurements or scientific relationships should be acknowledged appropriately. A photograph taken by the pupil, by contrast, may still require permission to photograph or share an identifiable person or restricted location. ‘Original image’ and ‘unrestricted image’ are not synonyms.
A six-step source-to-figure workflow
1. Find the primary source rather than a repost
Open the page or publication where the figure appears. A search thumbnail or repost often strips the creator’s name, revision notes, licence and context. Record the diagram’s title if supplied, creator or organisation, original location and access details. When those facts cannot be established, the safest choice may be to make a new diagram from independently verified facts rather than reuse the uncertain image.
2. Identify what the permission actually allows
The Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence permits sharing and adaptations subject to its conditions, including appropriate credit, linking the licence and indicating changes. That does not mean every image found online has a CC BY licence. The Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 licence does not allow sharing adapted material under that licence. Other licences can add noncommercial or share-alike conditions. A school assignment, private classroom use and a public website may also raise different questions; refer uncertain cases to the teacher or rights holder.
3. Make an explicit changes log
List what was redrawn, simplified, translated, cropped, relabelled, recoloured, added or omitted. State why the change helps learning. The log is not busywork: it gives the student a way to notice that a tidy-looking change may alter the meaning. In the fictional example the newly inserted drinking-water box should immediately trigger a scientific evidence check.
4. Check the relationships, not just the spelling
Compare each arrow, scale, direction, category boundary and condition with the source. A correctly spelled label pointing to the wrong part is still an inaccurate diagram. Ask whether a removed note such as ‘not to scale’ or ‘illustrative only’ changes what readers will infer. If a diagram includes measured values, preserve their units and context.
5. Write attribution that fits the actual source
A helpful working template is: ‘Adapted from [original title], by [creator], [source link or publication], under [verified licence, if applicable]; changes: [specific adjustments].’ Replace every bracketed item with verified facts, and comply with the required citation style. When a work is used under a CC licence, retain the additional notices that licence requires. The Creative Commons recommended attribution practice explains the title-author-source-licence approach and how to mark an adaptation.
6. Let a second person reconstruct the evidence trail
Hide the student’s explanation and give a peer the final caption. Can the peer locate the source and identify the changed elements? Can they spot any newly introduced claim? If not, improve the caption or mark the edits directly on the figure. A successful diagram should communicate accurately even when the maker is not beside it.
Three misconceptions worth repairing explicitly
- ‘I changed the colours, so it is mine.’ Cosmetic changes do not automatically remove source or permission obligations.
- ‘A citation means I can publish any adaptation.’ Attribution and permission are different checks.
- ‘The original picture is evidence for everything in my redraw.’ New boxes, arrows or claims require their own verification.
A fourth misconception is more subtle: ‘If I do not know the original author, I can write source unknown and carry on.’ Sometimes identification is genuinely impossible. However, missing information is a reason to evaluate permission and provenance more carefully, not a shortcut around them.
Practice ladder: model, co-check, independent transfer
Guided: distinguish three figure captions
Show learners the following fictional captions: ‘Diagram by me’; ‘Redrawn from a 2025 class handout’; and ‘Adapted from D. Lim’s 2025 class handout, with the overflow pipe omitted’. Ask which one most clearly identifies the intellectual source and change. The third carries the most useful information, although additional rights or citation details may still be needed.
Partner task: audit a change
Ask pairs to take the four-stage rainwater sequence and change one visual feature without introducing a factual claim. The partner checks the original, lists the edit and tests whether the caption accurately states what was changed. Then they discuss why adding an unsupported purification stage is different from changing a rectangle into a circle.
Independent task: credit a verified figure
For a school-approved source, the learner records title, creator, original location and reuse terms; draws an adapted figure if permitted; writes a concise change log; and captions it appropriately. A teacher should be able to trace the diagram back to its source and confirm which claims came from that source. Do not publish the student’s diagram externally if the permissions have not been established.
What parents, teachers and pupils can measure
A parent can ask the pupil to explain one source-backed feature and one original design decision. A teacher can assess three observable outcomes: source correctly located, modifications accurately disclosed, and relationships faithfully represented. Repeat with a different figure a week later. Improvement is the ability to transfer the process to an unfamiliar diagram without a prompt, not a claim that a particular pupil achieved a grade jump.
This is why explanation must precede decorative improvement. The same independent-checking approach appears in the eduKate Clementi tutorial reference: identify the cause of an error, teach the principle, then remove support gradually.
Frequently asked questions and limitations
Can I trace a textbook diagram if I add a reference?
A reference does not automatically grant permission. Check the textbook’s terms, a relevant licence, school policy and any applicable exception; ask before public sharing. Tracing can also be poor learning if the pupil never reasons about what the arrows mean.
What if the idea is common, such as a simple water cycle?
General scientific facts and a particular artist’s expression are not identical. A student can construct an independently designed water-cycle diagram from verified sources, but should still cite substantive claims or data as required by the assignment.
What if the original is published under CC BY-ND?
Under the CC BY-ND 4.0 licence, sharing adaptations is not licensed. A private adaptation and public distribution are different acts; permission from the rights holder or an applicable legal exception may change the position. Avoid an unsupported blanket rule that all classroom uses are automatically permitted.
Does citing a diagram prove its science is correct?
No. A source can be attributed precisely and still contain outdated, mistaken or context-dependent information. Attribution identifies provenance; checking the science assesses the claim.
A good redraw tells the truth about both learning and sources
The best classroom figure is not merely neat. It tells the reader what came from elsewhere, what the pupil changed, and what evidence supports the relationships shown. For connected practice, see how to label a scientific observation drawing without inventing details and how to separate quotations from paraphrases in research notes. Continue exploring at the eduKate Education Hub.