HC breaks copyright on coverart after being denied original

[MrsJoseph]

I hope this isn't a duplicate thread.


From Dear Author:

Author LK Rigel’s self published book, Spiderwork, has a gorgeous cover. So gorgeous that HarperCollins contacted the artist to purchase it from her. The artist refused. No matter, thinks HarperCollins.

In an email, Nathalie Suellen, the artist, shared she was originally contacted by writer LK Rigel about the license for Suellen’s original artwork ‘City of Angels’ which was created in 2009. The license was sold to Rigel and Rigel used it on her book ”Spiderwork.” HarperCollins contacted the artist in May 2011. The company offered her 4,000 dollars (a very normal value offered for cover art) but knew that the art had been sold to another author.

The artist refused because the cover art had already been used on a book and she didn’t think it was right for the same cover art to grace more than one book. Suellen offered to create another image, including one with the same model but eventually the parties could not come to an agreement. Suellen had no further contact with HC and thought the matter had been dropped. (Read more at Suellen’s site) Then the “Bewitching” cover appeared. Suellen contacted HC and received no response.

It's ironic, to me, that publishers make a huge deal over copyright. Especially when they are prone to breaking copyright themselves whenever they see fit.

I also think this is hugely insulting to both self-published authors and artists. One of the major issues that readers generally have with self-published work is the lack of editing and "polishing" (i.e. good cover art). It's sad that this self-published author did everything that she was supposed to do. Yet she still may possibly be viewed by the reading public as the person who "copied" the traditionally published author.

I plan to purchase a copy of LK Rigel's book just in support (of course, it doesn't hurt that she's in my genre, too).

See also:
http://www.lkrigel.com/2011/08/shoul...pset/#comments
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...-rip-off-cover
http://nathaliasuellen.blogspot.com/...publisher.html

[MrsJoseph]

I forgot to change the title of my thread. Could a mod assist me, please?

[Hellmark]

If you goto Edit, and then Go Advanced, you'll be able to edit the title.

[covfam]

personaly i think its pretty unethical. but unfortunatly probably legal.

[Daithi]

That's Horrible! I hope the artist and the writer of the original book both sue Harper Collins. With the documentation concerning HC's contact with the artist it should be a pretty open and shut case, but I'm guessing that HC is taking the gamble that neither one of them have the resources to sue.

BTW, before reading the story my assumption was that the indie author had stolen HC's artwork. This is really awful behavior on HC's part.

[ilovejedd]

Doesn't this count as plagiarism?

[rkomar]

The pictures are similar, but the later one really isn't a copy of the first. All the details are different, so I don't see what the fuss is. How many covers are there with a picture of a shirtless man holding a woman with long, wind-swept hair? You can't sue just because someone paints the same subjects in a picture.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The pictures are similar, but the later one really isn't a copy of the first. All the details are different, so I don't see what the fuss is. How many covers are there with a picture of a shirtless man holding a woman with long, wind-swept hair? You can't sue just because someone paints the same subjects in a picture.

Well, I would say that they have the exact same look and feel - except that the original is much much better.

It's not just the female pictured. It's the color/cut of the dress and the fact that it's backless; it's the cloudy, ominous sky; it's desolate city in the background and it's even the fricking crow flying in the same dang direction.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The pictures are similar, but the later one really isn't a copy of the first. All the details are different, so I don't see what the fuss is. How many covers are there with a picture of a shirtless man holding a woman with long, wind-swept hair? You can't sue just because someone paints the same subjects in a picture.

A right justified view of the back of a woman, head turned to the right, hair done in an updo, wearing a long black backless dress with a large flowing train, infront of a colorless cityscape on a cloudy day, with a blackbird flying up and to the left positioned to the left of the woman. That is a pretty detailed description of both pictures, and copyright infringement cases have been made and won with fewer similarities, even when there was no proof the accused had seen the supposed original work.

[MrsJoseph]

From (www.copyright.gov and http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...e.html#howmuch )

“How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else’s work?”

“Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another’s work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner’s consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.”

Circular 14

“To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes.”

[taustin]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Doesn't this count as plagiarism?

By any reasonable definition of the word, I'd say yes, it counts as plagiarism. Plagiarism, however, isn't copyright infringement. And it would cost somebody $100,000 or more in legal fees to find out if it's that, as well. I wouldn't hold my breath on that lawsuit being filed.

Certainly makes me glad none of my favorite authors publish through Harper Collins, though, so I don't have to quit buyone any of them.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The pictures are similar, but the later one really isn't a copy of the first. All the details are different, so I don't see what the fuss is. How many covers are there with a picture of a shirtless man holding a woman with long, wind-swept hair? You can't sue just because someone paints the same subjects in a picture.

I agree. I think the main point of similarity is that bird. Of course, the fact that HC took steps to acquire the rights to the other cover does create suspicion.

I would like to know who the artist is for the HC cover, what instructions that artist was given, and whether that artist was specifically shown the earlier artwork.

Anyone remember all the gothic romances from the sixties that showed a woman in flowing gown fleeing from a house with a single light in the window?

[MrsJoseph]

I might agree...except we also have Substantial similarity

Substantial similarity is the standard developed and used by United States courts to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if infringement was limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work.[1]Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove copying has occurred.[2] A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. These may rely on one or both of expert or lay observation and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

[abookreader]

Well looking at it I have no doubt that the creator of the Harper Collins cover was re-creating the first artwork.

I'm not a legal expert so I have no idea if they crossed legal boundaries. I know that in High School my English Teacher used to pound home that if we used more than so many exact words ... we had to give credit. I think it was around 10 words. In music, you hear of lawsuits all the time where one song has an identical number of chords to a previous song and somebody sues. ... I'm sure there is an equivalent for artwork such as this.

We have the

woman in the exact same pose in the exact same place
same colors
bird
buildings (yes they're different but the exact same architectural style)
all those clouds


and nearly every element is positioned in the exact same place in the picture.

I feel for the original artist. Unfortunately, it isn't all that easy for David to take on Goliath. More times than not, he gets smooshed.

[rkomar]

To me, the two women look to be quite different in terms of traits. The one on the left being more aggressive (head forward, eyes open), the other being more passive (head turned back, eyes closed). I don't get the same vibe (i.e. suggested story) from the two pictures. The atmosphere is very similar between the two, although the older looks to be modern urban while the newer looks Gothic. I have no doubt the publishers wanted a picture that looked similar, but I wouldn't call it a copy myself.

Edit: I googled for "similar book covers" and eventually wandered into "magic books" and their google images. Have a look at those if you're convinced that there is copyright infringement going on with the two covers shown in this thread.