Forum Moderators: not2easy
If they are no longer in business, then you would need to find out who now controls their publishing assets...
They might in turn refer you either the publisher or the current copyright-holder.
You mention reprinting the artwork, are you talking about reprinting the entire cover or *just* the artwork? If you are talking about "just the artwork" it would seem to me that you would be in a worse position than doing a picture of the book cover.
You are talking about mass-producing it, but you do not say for what purpose. Are you provideing a bibliography or commentary? Are you going to be making money on the mass-production?
Oh yeah, what country are you in?
But that's NOT the case here. We are discussing a cover which largely consists of one commissioned illustration. If you reproduce either the cover as published or just the illustration, you are essentially reproducing the entire work. It's very hard to do that under fair use guidelines!
I speak from experience. I wrote a book that reproduced the covers of a few published books (reduced, in black and white) as examples of cover approaches. My publisher had me get permission from the original publishers and in every case we were asked to pay a fee (in one case so high a fee that we dropped that cover).
I don't agree that it's easy to pass fair use with a book cover. If it's a simple, designed cover, just type and nothing else, then copyright may not even be an issue (though publishers can and do argue that design can be copyrighted).
I stand by my statement. It is significantly easier to pass a Fair Use analysis on something like a book cover or a public piece of art than the insides of a book.
I did not say that every use suddenly becomes fair use. The details are important.
But that's NOT the case here. We are discussing a cover which largely consists of one commissioned illustration. If you reproduce either the cover as published or just the illustration, you are essentially reproducing the entire work. It's very hard to do that under fair use guidelines!
First, there is a very clear distinction (that I made in my previous post) between the artwork and the cover containing the artwork.
The cover containing the artwork IS NOT A COMPLETE WORK. It is the cover of the complete work that happens to contain another complete work. But as a cover of the book, it is simpley the cover of a book.
The artwork on the cover, when considered out of the context of the book cover will have its own copyright. A totally different set of standards apply. If you reproduce only the artwork then you are dealing with a complete work.
I speak from experience. I wrote a book that reproduced the covers of a few published books (reduced, in black and white) as examples of cover approaches. My publisher had me get permission from the original publishers and in every case we were asked to pay a fee (in one case so high a fee that we dropped that cover).
Sorry, but that is useless experience. There is no legal standing to what your publisher wants you to do. That is a publisher's CYA opinion, not an IP attorney's opinion.
First off, publishers want the world to think that copyrights are stronger than they are. It is in your publisher's interest to play the game by the rules that he wishes were true. He probably also would like to avoid being a test case and just thought it would be easier to pay a few bucks than going to court to fight it.
Now, depending on how your book was done, he may very well have had a good point. It might also depend on whether that book was going to be sold internationally.
But if your book was doing review, commentary or especially parody on those covers, you almost certainly would have had a good case. But the fact that you are making money off another's work will always weigh against you in tha analysis.
On the other hand, printing up posters of a book cover, without permission, and selling them, would certainly amount ot infringement due to no added content or value combined with the profit motive.
I would feel absolutely safe if I were to put up on my personal website a bunch of thumbnail pictures of the covers of books I own. And I can provide you with case law that covers it from about 20 different directions.
I would not feel as safe doing the same thing with more than a couple of paragraphs of text from inside the book.
Do you see the difference?
Do a search on Naltalka Husar / Harlequin. She's an artist that bought a bunch of romance novels and used the covers in her art -- she is being sued by Harlequin (owner of the copyright of the covers).
OT: A search on the Illegal Art Exhibit might also prove of interest.
I'm not sure how easy it is to pass "fair use" with book cover art, but not getting permission is something that will likely get one a lawsuit (not saying who would win or lose, just that a lawsuit is likely.
True, or at least a C&D.
It depends on how good your chances are of winning, and whether they think you have deep enough pockets to fight.
Do a search on Naltalka Husar / Harlequin. She's an artist that bought a bunch of romance novels and used the covers in her art -- she is being sued by Harlequin (owner of the copyright of the covers).
Has this actually gone anywhere? I haven't heard anything about it in at least a year, and couldn't find anything newer on the web.
If she fights it, I would put money on harlequin losing. The courts have made it clear that parody wins on free speech grounds over copyright protections. Congress is not even able to block this one, as it is considered a first amendment protection.
The only way for harlequin to win (in court, that is) is if they convince the court that it is not parody.
My point wasn't the end result of the case. Rather that these days, any time you use corporate-owned artwork without permission, you place yourself in significant lawsuit jeopardy.
The landscape has changed and, right or wrong, artistic and business decisions are based on the fact that perfectly legitimate use may not be worth the legal hassles.
The safe answer is that you can't use the cover in this case unless you get permission first, based upon the publication year strongly indicating that it is still under copyright.
It sounds if I need to contact the publisher. I tried that at first but it seems they have been bought by other companies and so on. The inside of the book says published by special arangement with Platt and Monk Publishers. The entire contents is copyrighted. All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Printed by Western Printing and Lithographing Co. Published by Golden Press Inc. .
So after all of that I called information for Platt and Monk , NY, Ny. No listing. It seems maybe an attorney would be in order for this one. I do want to reproduce the cover in its entirety, and the name of the book is Trade Marked.
Was hoping my simple idea would have a simple answer.
Your learning is impressive, but as you say, the details are important here. Most of the situations you discuss don't apply. ilovnaples2 wants to reproduce the entire cover, presumably at full size, and then sell it. No way would that be OK under fair use.
I take your point that in the cover reproduction situation, my publisher had an interest in playing the game the way all publishers do. But I'm also pretty certain that if we HAD reproduced those covers without permission (since this wasn't a personal use situation, as in your thumbnails example; or an academic study) we could have been taken to court.
And ilovnaples2 also says that the title is trademarked. Another issue that needs to be dealt with.
The place to start is tracking down Platt and Munk. Platt and Munk is a publishing name I recognize (I believe that they were the original publishers of The Little Engine That Could)--it should be possible to find out who controls their assets. Possibly Golden Books? Which is now owned by Random House.
Unfortunately, not a simple task....
In the case of the book that included covers as examples of cover art, it would very much depend on the text that goes along with it. Was there any review or commentary on what is or is not good design? Did you discuss specific features or how they did things?
There is a lot to Fair Use, and commerial use is only one of the factors that the others can easily outweigh.
Of course, they can always sue you anyway, and that is why it is always best to try and get permission.
Most of the situations you discuss don't apply. ilovnaples2 wants to reproduce the entire cover, presumably at full size, and then sell it. No way would that be OK under fair use.
The details ARE important, but BigDave's comments absolutely DO apply. If the book cover is used to create a product such as a line of t-shirts that use the artwork, that may indeed fall under fair use.
Put the cover art in a collage on a t-shirt and the situation gets even muddier.
Not every copyrighted image is granted equal protection under the law and not every use that includes "for monetary gain" is automatically disqualified from "fair use".
OT: Of possible additional interest, do a search on: Roy Orbison Two Live Crew Pretty Woman
That being the case, if I were the original poster, I would get some legal advice before proceeding. He/she should not act on the basis of what anyone is saying here--not me, not BigDave, not Labyrinth, not anyone.
Can we agree on that?
That being the case, if I were the original poster, I would get some legal advice before proceeding. He/she should not act on the basis of what anyone is saying here--not me, not BigDave, not Labyrinth, not anyone.
yes.
But I would limit that even more to someone that works in the copyright field and is completely up to date on the current standards in their circuit.
He/she should not act on the basis of what anyone is saying here <snip> Can we agree on that?
Without hesitation. Given the fact that in many cases the courts can't even agree on what constitutes infringement, it would be foolish to pretend that anyone here can advise as to how a court would decide ANY case.
