 |
 |
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 ------------------------------------