Thread: HC breaks copyright on coverart after being denied original
View Single Post
Old 08-18-2011, 07:14 PM   #30
Hellmark
Wizard
Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Hellmark ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Hellmark's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,592
Karma: 4290425
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Foristell, Missouri, USA
Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3, Kobo Libra 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkomar View Post
My position is that HC did not do anything illegal (because I wouldn't judge the newer painting to be a copy of the original). In which case, if the original artist had demanded, say $1,000,000, then I wouldn't say that HC acted sleazily at all.

I'm not pro-industry, anti-artist here. I'm definitely worried that artists will paint themselves into a corner if they push for laws that make such 'copying' illegal. There have been countless works of art created in the past, and I'd say that any new work of art 'copies' some past piece on a loose enough definition of copying (e.g. has same four elements in roughly same positions). Art will fall into the same quagmire that software development already has because of patentable ideas, and it will be the same 'intellectual property' estate owners gouging the tenants in both cases.
The jist of things, based on the linked article, and posts in this thread, is that:
  1. Artist made picture
  2. Indy book author licensed picture from artist for indie book
  3. HC liked picture and offered $4000 for license to use it for another book
  4. Artist told HC that they wouldn't license it for another book because it has already been licensed but that they would be happy to make another image in the same style and even use the same model if HC desired
  5. HC never responded to artist's counter offer for a new image in the same style
  6. Artist didn't think about it and moved on
  7. HC had another artist make the cover that is thought to be a copy of the one that they tried to license
  8. Indy author sees HC's book and contacts the artist and goes "WTF is going on?"
  9. Artist sees cover of HC's book and goes "WTF! They copied my cover after I told them that I wouldn't license it to another book!"
  10. HC pulls cover from book without comment.

Now, I do believe that the cover on the HC book is a copy, because it has too many similar elements and themes. It would be like if I were to make a portrait of a rennaisance woman, up close, without a smile, with rolling hills as a back drop, and claim no similarities to the Mona Lisa. Also, if HC wasn't being shady, why pull the cover?
Hellmark is offline   Reply With Quote