contributory infringement: 
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=268

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Both the law and the real world situation is unclear.
>
> Clearly, publishers own the intellectual property of a cover graphic. 
> Could using thumbnail images of lots of covers in aggregate be 
> considered fair use?  Maybe, the law is not clear (there is some case 
> law to suggest it could be, but it's hardly settled).
>
> Would publishers mind if you are using their intellectual property 
> like this? It's not clear. On the one hand, these days everyone thinks 
> they should be getting paid if you are using their IP for anything. On 
> the other hand, _some_ publishers are giving thumbnails for free to 
> Internet Archive. Maybe publishers realize giving you this 'property' 
> to, after all, let you advertise their wares for them, is a good 
> thing. Of course Bowker/Syndetics (and I think Ingram has a cover 
> service too?) don't like free covers because they make money from it. 
> I am very very curious as to what terms Bowker has with the 
> publishers; does Bowker have an _exclusive_ license with the 
> publishers to do certain things?  How much, if any, do the publishers 
> get paid for Bowker's use of their cover images? Very curious what the 
> business situation is, because that helps us guess how various actors 
> will behave.
>
> If you use Bowker/Syndetics images in a way not covered by the 
> license, that's a license issue. Amazon licenses from Bowker, and in 
> turn licenses the end-user, so there are various parties there that 
> could be violating licenses. Google also licenses either from Bowker 
> or Ingram or someone else, not sure who, but I'm pretty sure they've 
> gotten cover images by license.
>
> The LibraryThing archive was not obtained by license. It was obtained 
> by individual users scanning and uploading. So the only license 
> involved is one between LibraryThing and the end-users of the images, 
> there is no license violation with any provider of the image possible. 
> Just possibly a copyright violation.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Lars Aronsson wrote:
>> Tim Spalding wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> I really hope this—or more probably what comes of this—ends the 
>>> selling of covers to libraries.
>>>     
>>
>> Probably not, with all the restrictions you attached.
>>
>> Still, this is a most interesting experiment.  Commercial sellers 
>> supposedly have a legal backing from contracts with publishers, which 
>> you don't?  How long will that last?  If it does last, it is indeed a 
>> big win.
>>
>> In the blog entry, you wrote: "Publishers and authors want libraries 
>> and bookstores to show their covers."  -- I'm not so sure.  I think 
>> publishers want copyright to make it hard to use out-of-print books, 
>> so people buy new books instead.  Back in 1932, Aldous Huxley wrote: 
>> "We don't want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to 
>> like the new ones."
>>
>>
>>   
>


-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------