Why do they insist on being so backwards?

[Hellmark]

Ok, I just purchased an epub copy of Seth Lerer's Inventing English for class, and unfortunately, it was absolutely useless. The book makes extensive use of having scans of classic documents, and then goes over the language structure of the writing. However, if you get the ePub, all of those scans and quotations are removed and replaced with the line that has "Copyrighted image removed by Publisher". I found this out, because I purchased this right before class, and we were supposed to read from Hart's An Orthography during class. I pull up my nice shiny new copy, and as we are supposed to read out loud I see, I stand out because I am unable to read. Like I said, the entire book is structured around those quotations, so it is extremely difficult to understand what the author is going on about when you cannot see what he is referencing. This is pretty much the same as the art book without any images, only it singles out ebook users.

I've wrote an email to the publisher, hopefully I will hear back from them.

[Tarana]

Barnes and Noble allowed me to return an ebook like that. They not only refunded my money, but changed the description of the book to indicate that all tables, charts, illustrations are not part of the epub version of this book.

[Hellmark]

Google did refund, but no change to the description. Still, why bother having the book at all?

[FizzyWater]

Why would they do that? What makes those images any less 'copyrighted' in a print book than in an ebook?!

I wouldn't be surprised if they'd be difficult to read in an ebook, but - if they're going to do what you say, then it doesn't make sense (as you say) to create an ebook version of this publication at all!

[SeaKing]

I would have thought that came under "false advertising."

You offer a book and it is expected to be whole unless you say it is not.

[Antoinekamel]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Why would they do that? What makes those images any less 'copyrighted' in a print book than in an ebook?!

It's the same copyright, but a restricted authorization to use the image.

[theducks]

You took the words right out of my mouth

Images are many times, 'used by permission'
In some cases the owners do not authorize digital editions of the image.

I also agree with FizzWaters last statements . Why bother publishing.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by theducks

You took the words right out of my mouth

Images are many times, 'used by permission'
In some cases the owners do not authorize digital editions of the image.

I also agree with FizzWaters last statements . Why bother publishing.

Since it is from Google, it is possible no humans were involved. They probably got a license to a batch of books from Columbia University Press and the entire publication process automated.

The King County Library, Issaquah, WA, USA, has it in epub and pdf. Don't know if that is also Google and don't have an account.

It is really sad if libraries are wasting money on (objectively) useless electronic books.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Antoinekamel

It's the same copyright, but a restricted authorization to use the image.

But in this case, what copyright is there? We're talking documents, that are on the low side of being 300 years old, and some going over a thousand years old. I mean, the majority of the stuff predates copyright. I mean, what is the first copyright law, the Licensing of Press Act of 1662? The one example I mentioned was from 1569. 93 years before then, so again, what copyright?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

But in this case, what copyright is there? We're talking documents, that are on the low side of being 300 years old, and some going over a thousand years old. I mean, the majority of the stuff predates copyright. I mean, what is the first copyright law, the Licensing of Press Act of 1662? The one example I mentioned was from 1569. 93 years before then, so again, what copyright?

There is copyright in the reproduction by image... it is owned by the image producer...

If I transcribe an out-of-copyright text then there is no problem but if I photograph/photocopy the actual pages of a manuscript then I have the copyright in the actual photographs/scans and I can approve the use in a book but if nobody asks there may be no approval to reproduce in other media such as eBooks...

May not be helpful but that is reality at the moment...

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by elcreative

There is copyright in the reproduction by image... it is owned by the image producer...

If I transcribe an out-of-copyright text then there is no problem but if I photograph/photocopy the actual pages of a manuscript then I have the copyright in the actual photographs/scans and I can approve the use in a book but if nobody asks there may be no approval to reproduce in other media such as eBooks...

May not be helpful but that is reality at the moment...

This is a 2012 release from a 2007 paper edition. I suppose it's possible that they weren't thinking about ebooks in 2007. Why not get those rights for the ebook or insert text in lieu of pictures? Why would Columbia University Press release an ebook that seems to be useless for academic settings?

.em ot ddo smeeS

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

This is a 2012 release from a 2007 paper edition. I suppose it's possible that they weren't thinking about ebooks in 2007. Why not get those rights for the ebook or insert text in lieu of pictures? Why would Columbia University Press release an ebook that seems to be useless for academic settings?

.em ot ddo smeeS

Good question... 'Why not get those rights for the ebook?" Could be a simple answer - they weren't available - just wanting something doesn't make it happen... it may be dumb releasing the book without the images but it's likely that they couldn't get the rights - maybe the originator of the images is dead and they couldn't track his/her estate or maybe he/she is backpacking round the rain forest for the next five years...

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by elcreative

There is copyright in the reproduction by image... it is owned by the image producer...

If I transcribe an out-of-copyright text then there is no problem but if I photograph/photocopy the actual pages of a manuscript then I have the copyright in the actual photographs/scans and I can approve the use in a book but if nobody asks there may be no approval to reproduce in other media such as eBooks...

Actually that isn't the case. If it were, then places like PGDP would not be able to take scanned images from online sources and create text versions from them.
A straight scan of a 2D page is not copyrightable, because there is no creative element involved in its creation, it is a 'slavish copy'.
See: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
While not directly binding on other courts, it has been widely followed, and is generally taken to be good law.

[powerjack0]

Why is this, I hope that this is a useful evaluation.

[Hellmark]

If the reproduction thing was true, you'd have people violating copyright for using images of the Mona Lisa, or OCRed copies of works would be in copyright.