Photo album preview project -- requests, please!

[Forum Admin]

I personally think that ANY author or publisher who thinks they should try and  "take Sarah to the cleaners" for putting up illegible text and useless pics of the interior of a book, in order solely to HELP PEOPLE DECIDE TO GO AND BUY THE BOOK, when the only "commercial" purpose of those copies is to SELL THE BOOKS on their behalf... is such a pedantic moron they deserve to have no sales of their books in the first place.

Just my dva kopecki...

Rob

[Sarushka]

It doesn't matter about the quality of the copy -- it is the idea that you are sharing the copy with lots of people.  I understand your reasons why, however, you are still making copies of someone else's work without permission ... you can make that copy for yourself - but sharing it -- now that's the issue goes beyond the Fair Use exemption.

I've had another look at the Copyright Office's Guidelines for Fair Use, and I disagree with your interpretation.

In accordance with the guidelines, these previews are not for profit, do not constitute a substantial portion of the works included, and in my opinion do not impede the sales of the copyrighted works. On the contrary, I've heard from a number of members who have decided to purchase featured books after finally having a chance to virtually browse them. Again, the text is illegible, which maintains the authors' unique form of expression -- the only thing copyright law professes to protect in the first place.

However, as I said before, if any author or publisher is uncomfortable with their books being promoted this way, I will remove the still interior images upon request with no argument.

[clockworkgirl21]

And you have to remember, it takes a lot of time and money to bring a lawsuit against someone. Just because someone publishes a book doesn't mean they'll have the money to get a lawyer and sue. If all they have to do to "fix" the situation is ask for Sarushka to remove the pics, that's probably what they'll do.

[Marlene]

I wish people would stop thinking that copyright is about money.  It is not, although money can play a role.  Copyright, first and foremost, is the protection of intellectual property rights.  Every publisher has a rights and permissions department ... all you need to do is go to the book's publisher and ask?  I deal with copyright every day so I do know a lot about it.   

It is up TO YOU to get the permission.  The onus is on you to seek the permission.  It is a very simple thing to do.  A publisher might say yes.  ANother might say no .. and another publisher might say, well you can do that if you pay a certain amount of money, depending on the amount of hits your site might receive.   

Copyright is not about PROFIT.   GRRRRR!

Did you write the book or take photo?  You have to also remember that the publishers DO NOT OWN the photos.  They bought the photographs from agencies, etc.  They bought the rights to use those photos in their books.  You would also need to get permission from the photo's owner, ie the agency hwere the publisher acquired the photo.   It is a very complicated situation.  But it is worth taking the time to do the research first before going ahead.  You could prepare a form letter with what you want to do - and explain how you are doing it -- and send the letters off ... real letters, not email, are preferred. 

It doesn't matter about the quality of the copy -- it is the idea that you are sharing the copy with lots of people.  I understand your reasons why, however, you are still making copies of someone else's work without permission ... you can make that copy for yourself - but sharing it -- now that's the issue goes beyond the Fair Use exemption.

I've had another look at the Copyright Office's Guidelines for Fair Use, and I disagree with your interpretation.

In accordance with the guidelines, these previews are not for profit, do not constitute a substantial portion of the works included, and in my opinion do not impede the sales of the copyrighted works. On the contrary, I've heard from a number of members who have decided to purchase featured books after finally having a chance to virtually browse them. Again, the text is illegible, which maintains the authors' unique form of expression -- the only thing copyright law professes to protect in the first place.

However, as I said before, if any author or publisher is uncomfortable with their books being promoted this way, I will remove the still interior images upon request with no argument.

[Marlene]

Every major publisher has a rights and permission department - and very major publisher has a legal department ...

And you have to remember, it takes a lot of time and money to bring a lawsuit against someone. Just because someone publishes a book doesn't mean they'll have the money to get a lawyer and sue. If all they have to do to "fix" the situation is ask for Sarushka to remove the pics, that's probably what they'll do.

[Marlene]

Rob, you are missing the point.  A publisher might allow it ... but Sarushka should ask permission first ... get that formality out of the way.  Moreover,  the publishers do not usually own the rights to the photos in their books - so there is another level of permission needed.   The point:  if you do not own the tex or the images, you need permission ...  and it is very easy to do ...

I personally think that ANY author or publisher who thinks they should try and  "take Sarah to the cleaners" for putting up illegible text and useless pics of the interior of a book, in order solely to HELP PEOPLE DECIDE TO GO AND BUY THE BOOK, when the only "commercial" purpose of those copies is to SELL THE BOOKS on their behalf... is such a pedantic moron they deserve to have no sales of their books in the first place.

Just my dva kopecki...

Rob

[clockworkgirl21]

I disagree. I think copyright is usually about money. It's so someone can't make money off your work. Which is why it *might* be okay for Sarushka to blur the pages and post them, since she isn't making money, and of course, they're blurred. But I took business law three years ago, and can't remember a lot of what was taught.

Also, in Photoshop class, we were allowed to change photoshopped pictures because we were changing them, so they weren't the same. Also, of course, we weren't making any money. 

Still, I'd research it, which Sarushka seems to already have done. Copyright law isn't always black and white.

[Marlene]

I happen to be a librarian, and I can assure that copyright is not always about money.  Authors make a percentage of the sales of their books.  If a publisher sells the rights to that book to another publisher in another country, a new contract is negotiated and the author gets a percentage of that sale, too.   I deal with copyright every day - and as a professional librarian as well as a published author who actually went after someone who violated my copyright some years ago, I can and do speak with authority and experience.

Let's use the example of a professor who leaves articles for students to read.  He has 25 people in his class.  He can leave only ONE COPY -- he cannot leave 25 copies because the publisher would have to be paid for multiple copies.  But each student can come into the library and make a copy for themselves.  They cannot make 2 copies, one for a friend. 
Royalties are paid through subscriptions and through the Copyright Clearance center which is used manu publishers.  Sarushka is free to make a copy for HERSELF ... what she is not permitted to do is SHARE IT.

I cannot stress enough HOW IMPORTANT it is to GET PERMISSION.  If you can take the time to make the copies, you can take the time to write the letter.  It is the right thing to do?   Now would you steal a bar of candy from a store or a blouse from Macy's.  No of course not.   You have to pay for these.   So why not apply the same respect for someone else's work, whether it be the written word or an image. 
One publisher might say yes, another might say no and another might say, you have to pay a  royalty every time your site is hit.  I have a blog and I include photos from my own collection, but I use ones that are out of copyright.  A lot of my collection remains in copyrght, and I need permission to use the image because I didn't take the picture.

I can understand the desire to want to share and all that.  But parameters remain, and rules obeyed, and, above all, the respect for other peoples' work. It you did not write it or if you did not take the picture, you need permssion - and it can be very easy to do ...

I disagree. I think copyright is usually about money. It's so someone can't make money off your work. Which is why it *might* be okay for Sarushka to blur the pages and post them, since she isn't making money, and of course, they're blurred. But I took business law three years ago, and can't remember a lot of what was taught.

Also, in Photoshop class, we were allowed to change photoshopped pictures because we were changing them, so they weren't the same. Also, of course, we weren't making any money. 

Still, I'd research it, which Sarushka seems to already have done. Copyright law isn't always black and white.

[Robert_Hall]

As another example, years ago I wanted to transfer my taped copies of the BBC series of Fall of Eagles to dvd.  The old tapes were deteriorating and there was no sign of them coming out on dvd.  I learned that no commercial operation would do it withour permission, so I wrote to BBC. They willingly gave, for private use. I never had it done however, as the series came out on commercial dvd shortly after, which is much better than my old tapes from PBS  copies.
 There are many examples of copyright violations on this Forum, I am sure unintentional,  but I shan't go on  for now.
 It is simple and painless. And only costs the price of a stamp.
 I understand Marlene's points and would take the advice of a professional.
 BTW, I see Sarah's posts on her book thread as more of a "review" and  almost all publishers give permission for use in that form It is usually in the front of the book itself.
 

[Holly]

You can't read the text or see the pictures clearly. It's not as if she's scanning pages and putting them up. If she did that, that might be a problem. Sarushka's previews are very helpful and if they're affecting the sales of any of these books, they're only raising them. I know I've made a few purchases based on her help.