0 Responses

  1. Tim
    | Reply

    Okay here is a question for debate:

    Is the Artwork that artists create for books any less copyrighted than the book itself? This may be neat but at least from a legal stand point I fail to see how this is any less copyright infringement than what Google does.

  2. llama
    | Reply

    Personally I feel we are becoming paranoid about the whole copy right issue. At some point you have to cut off to let people actually see it.

    The artwork is there to go along with the book, it’s a way of selling it to the reader. It’s an advertisment, and is meant to be looked at…often without buying.

    The differance between this and showing chunks of writing to the public is that the art work cannot properly be ripped off. you can walk through a bookstore and look at all the coverart you want, but how many bookstores would allow you to sit and read the whole book? On the internet, sure you could use screensnap on this and take away a copy of the cover artwork…however the quality would never match up to that of the original. Text, however, can be copied using a simple word processor (if you can spare the time) or it can be scanned in.

    We are told not to judge a book by it’s cover but if you look at this phrase literally then we do. That is one of the deciding factors considered when browsing through a books store (one of the reasons I like amazon is that I can avoid this). Look at the site this way…it’s a way of showing off the artists work. No one can steal the pieces easily and the quality isn’t superb. CHances are if the person likes the artwork that much, they will fork out for a proper print or a copy of the book/magazine.


  3. Jeffrey A. Carver
    | Reply

    I was pondering this same question, Tim. And I don’t know the answer. Yes, the artwork is definitely copyright-protected, and is licensed to the publisher for some specified purposes. Do those purposes include display of the magazine cover on the internet? It might. Only the artists and the publishers know for sure.

    Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that no such explicit right is granted. Is this covered under Fair Use? Hard to say. Certainly most people think it’s okay to display covers in connection with reviews, etc. Does this usage fall into a similar category? I dunno.

    Regarding the Google library, I think it’s significant that Google stands to profit from it, and that Yahoo is undertaking a similar project but applying to the publishers for permission.

    But I don’t think even the Google issue is clearcut.

  4. tsmacro
    | Reply

    Now there’s something you would’ve never seen if it weren’t for the internet! You’re right pretty cool!

Leave a Reply to Tim Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.