HC breaks copyright on coverart after being denied original

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh, there are many many cases where books have extremely similar covers, however, doesn't make it legal.

[abookreader]

But just because two books have similar covers even doesn't mean there is copyright infringement. Many covers are designed from stock art images - and both books buy the rights to the same image and end up looking similar.

It happens in Print Advertising also. A couple of years ago Dell and HP (I think) used the same Stock Model shot for their back to school ads and the same girl was happily going to college using two different brands of computers depending on which page of the magazine you were looking at. Since both companies properly licensed the use of the image - no foul.

In this case however the copyright holder of the design (the artist) clearly refused to give the rights to HC for their use.

It does make me wonder how many other times HC has just stolen some artists work though, and nobody ever noticed. Blech.

I see that Haper Collins has pulled the cover art image from Goodreads/Amazon. I wonder if they're going to be doing a redesign?

[DiapDealer]

To me, the differences between the two works of art are fairly moot. Their similarities combined with the knowledge that HC tried unsuccessfully to purchase the original are more than enough to establish sleazy behavior here—legalities aside.

Whether this turns out to be copyright infringement or not, HC has lost any credibility (in my eyes) to be able complain about their intellectual property being infringed upon. It's just another example of the Golden Rule: "those who have the gold make the rules."

Boo. Hiss. Boo.

It seems to me that if Apple can even hope to prevail with this https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=146081 that the artist here should have a clear case of plagiarism and/or copyright violation. I hope the artist kept records of all correspondence with the HC from the start.

[rkomar]

It would be good to know why they couldn't come to terms before blaming one side or the other. HC did approach the artist first and try to license the picture. Maybe HC low-balled their offer; maybe the artist thought she had them over a barrel and priced it too high. I would say that HC was acting in a sleazy manner if it was the former, but it gets less simple if it was the latter. Considering that the HC cover isn't just a photoshopped copy of the original (which would definitely be copyright infringement), but rather something they paid another artist to paint, I wouldn't be surprized if the original artist did try to overcharge.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

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

Whenever you desire assistance, you need to click the "Report Post" button (that small button with the bold exclamation point on it to the immediate right of the Karma button). Otherwise, the only way you'll get it is if one of the mods just happens to see your post, as I did just now.

That being said, Mrs. J my friend, what you you like the title changed to?

[abookreader]

The artist gives her side of the story on her website. She states that they approached her and offered her $4000 for use of the image, which is apparently a pretty standard fee.

She refused the offer because she had already licensed the image for one book cover (The Indie Author) and she didn't feel it was appropriate to have the same art on two books. Her counter was an offer to do another piece of artwork for them in the same artistic style - but different enough to not be a duplicate. HC never really responded to her counter-offer and she thought that HC had just decided to go in a different direction and forgot about it.

Then the author of the first book contacted her after spotting the cover of the second book, wanting to know what was up.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Maybe HC low-balled their offer; maybe the artist thought she had them over a barrel and priced it too high. I would say that HC was acting in a sleazy manner if it was the former, but it gets less simple if it was the latter. Considering that the HC cover isn't just a photoshopped copy of the original (which would definitely be copyright infringement), but rather something they paid another artist to paint, I wouldn't be surprized if the original artist did try to overcharge.

Why would the price the original artist asked for compensation have any bearing whatsoever on the sleaziness or the legality?

[rkomar]

Thanks @abookreader. As a long-time Slashdot devotee, I have become accustomed to not reading the linked articles. I'll admit now that the original artist is sleaze-free, and that there is a taint around HC. However, I'm still not convinced that HC acted illegally.

[abookreader]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Thanks @abookreader. As a long-time Slashdot devotee, I have become accustomed to not reading the linked articles. I'll admit now that the original artist is sleaze-free, and that there is a taint around HC. However, I'm still not convinced that HC acted illegally.

I really don't know enough about the legality of it either to have an opinion.

I think the eBook Community would do a collective jaw drop of immense proportion though if Agency Pricing Stalwart Haper Collins tried some sort of defense along the lines of....

"Oh, we stole that picture because the author priced it much higher than we wanted to pay!"

It'd be classic though.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why would the price the original artist asked for compensation have any bearing whatsoever on the sleaziness or the legality?

Especially when, from my understanding of it, HC offered $4000 (which is an average price for cover art from a major publisher) and the artist did not ask for a different price in their counter offer.

[Ron.]

I have no opinion on the cover art, but the story sounds interesting. I bought the first two books in the series because of this post. damn you people making me buy more books!

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why would the price the original artist asked for compensation have any bearing whatsoever on the sleaziness or the legality?

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.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by rkomar

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.

I think that HC definitely did something wrong here. I can't say for sure if it's illegal since I'm not a lawyer but...

From what I've read of copyright, this is clearly a case of HC wanting either the original artwork or a derivative. Copyright protects derivatives (otherwise authors like JK Rowling couldn't go after fanfic) and I believe that HC knows they have no case. They don't want any additional reader fall out - they're pulling the covers.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by rkomar

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?