Amazon has updated their terms and they now seem unfriendly to libraries.
I'd be interested in hearing the rationale of anyone who has analyzed the
current terms and decided to go ahead anyway.


On 3/24/08, Walker, David <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> We've been using Amazon book covers in our Union Catalog for years.  We
> provide a link at the bottom of the page to Amazon.
>
>   http://ipac.calstate.edu:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?full=3100001@!5564992@!9
>
> I thought this was within the terms of service; but we certainly haven't
> thought too much about it.
>
> --Dave
>
> -------------------
> David Walker
> Library Web Services Manager
> California State University
> http://xerxes.calstate.edu
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Code for Libraries on behalf of Jay Roos
> Sent: Thu 3/20/2008 12:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] Google Covers vs. Amazon Covers
>
>
>
>
> I've now been able to implement covers from Google and Amazon in our test
> catalog. Google has many fewer images, they sometimes don't make any sense
> (getting an author photo instead of the cover), and getting them is slow,
> at
> least through the javascript methods posted here recently. However,
> Amazon's
> terms seem unfriendly to libraries since "Your use of the Amazon
> Properties
> must be strictly limited to promoting the availability of products and
> services on the Amazon Website...."
>
> I'd really like to go with Amazon. Is there anyone who has implemented
> Amazon covers in production and who has been using them without issue? How
> do you justify your use when you're really just trying to enhance the
> library experience?
>
> --
> Jay Roos
> Computer & Information Systems Coordinator
> Great River Regional Library
> 405 W. St. Germain
> St. Cloud, MN 56301
>



--
Jay Roos
Computer & Information Systems Coordinator
Great River Regional Library
405 W. St. Germain
St. Cloud, MN 56301
(320) 650-2534