Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
01.29.2008 11:30 am

What is copyright infringement anyway?

Post-Dispatch Book Editor
  • Email this
  • Print this

I asked for, and luckily got, a nice jargon-free explanation of copyright law on book covers. Thanks very much to Michael Kahn, a partner at Bryan Cave law firm in St. Louis and a mystery writer himself. This is a succinct explanation that show that a lot might depend on individual judgment:

The copyright law governing book jacket art is the same as
the copyright law covering all visual arts.  The basic question is
whether the alleged infringer’s artwork is “substantially similar” to
the original artwork.  While there are, as you can imagine, many
refinements of that general rule depending upon the specific artwork at
issue, the courts generally ask whether the ordinary observer would find
the images substantially similar.

One relevant — and occasionally dispositive — principle of law in this
area is that copyright does not protect ideas — just the specific
expressions of those ideas.  For example, you could decide to use a
photo (or a painting) of a lighthouse along the shoreline as the dust
jacket art. Your copyright does not include the IDEA of a lighthouse
along the shoreline — only the specific expression of that idea in the
photo or painting.  Thus another publisher could decide to use a
lighthouse along the shoreline as the cover art for one of its books,
and so long as its expression of that idea is not substantially similar
to the original publisher’s art, there is no infringement.  Your readers
can see the distinction between idea and expression by searching the
internet for images of lighthouses.  They will see dozens and dozens of
original expressions of that one idea.

Michael A. Kahn
Partner
Bryan Cave LLP

I didn’t ask Mr. Kahn this, but I suspect that individual aspects that might be taken into consideration for a book jacket might be color and typeface along with the image.

7 comments

Comments are closed.

[...] Ms Henderson posted an explanation from a lawyer about what copyright infringement might be where it pertains to book cover images. Er, sort of. [...]

Now, seeing as how you have just refuted your own irresponsible use of the term copyright infringement, where is that apology you owe Ms. Marr?

Also, you say you have been an editor for 12 years … what publishing house did you work at? For an editor, you sure don’t seem to know a lot about the industry.

— Lorem
1:58 pm January 29th, 2008

I am book editor for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper. I have been book editor for 12 years. In that capacity I sort through hundreds of review copies, assign books for review, edit book reviews and write about books and authors. The Post-Dispatch book reviews appear on Sunday in the newspaper, which on that day has about 460,000 subscribers.

Book reviewers and book critics don’t just publicize books, they actually make critical judgments and offer opinions, which is what I was doing in the book blog. I do not believe I have anything to apologize for as I was doing what the newspaper pays me to do.
I have tried as well as I can to explain why I see the new Marr book as suggestive of the Hamilton book. My explanation regarding the combination of monotone cover art and topic and theme has been adequately explained and the quotations have been rendered accurately according to the AP stylebook and what is common practice among professional book critics.

I do not work at a publishing house nor did I ever say that I did. And to you Urban Fantasy writers who have ideas for more topics to discuss regarding your genre, bring them on.

— Jane Henderson
2:12 pm January 29th, 2008

“I do not work at a publishing house nor did I ever say that I did.”

Oh, well that explains it.

— Lorem
9:30 pm January 29th, 2008

I knew I was going to screw up something in my post, since I misread “monotone” as “monochrome” and responded as such. So let me amend this:

Monotone: sameness of tone or color, sometimes to a boring degree.

So I can see why you use the term, though it’s still technically wrong, as the Hamilton cover is definitely a duotone process, and Marr’s cover looks suspiciously four-color.

I apologize for my error, especially in light of the now rather ironic statement of begging you to use the correct terminology. Either way, monochrome or monotone, it’s still wrong.

— Shara Saunsaucie
9:50 pm January 29th, 2008

Shara, thanks for noting that error in terminology. Actually, maybe I should have said monochromatic. But obviously I meant that there is primarily one color (besides black). Yes, the lips on the girl/woman on the Marr book have a pinkish red, which is different.
But I never intended this to be a point-by-point match. It’s more of an impression of similarity. I never said anything illegal was done.

And now my awareness by all the comments has been raised! There ARE more and more monotone/monochrome-ish covers that are blurry-ish, shadow-ish that seem to evoke mystery AND/OR fantasy. When they have women’s body parts or whole women I believe they are also implying that there will be sexual innuendo, women as lust objects and/or women-in-danger aspects. Perhaps, though, this is an overdone trend at this point. It might be getting to the point where the information conveyed by the images has less meaning.

These are obviously generalizations - which I still maintain is a way of conveying basic genre information, although the cross-pollination of genres is making things a bit more complex. I.E. horror is now mixed with SF or fantasy and romance, etc. This seems to be a result of the growth in publishing and the emphasis on niche titles.

A few years ago I wrote a story about the proliferation of women’s body parts on book covers. I am going to look this up to post for anyone interested.

None of this changes my mind about the impression the cover and topic combination of the Marr book made on ME. I will continue to reiterate that is the COMBINATION of theme, topic and cover aspects and that I still think there is a strong resemblance. For a general reader, I think they might see similarities. For a fantasy specialist or niche reader, they may seem very, very different. The book publishing industry traffics in knock-offs, similar books all the time. This is not really disputable. Harry Potter spawned a lot of knock-offs, even if the magic/wizard story also had a long history before Rowling was born.

Note also that publishers do not send every genre book out for review to mainstream, general interest publications. They obviously think Marr is something special and are giving her book special attention. With extra marketing effort comes extra public scrutiny - a professional writer knows and accepts that.

— Jane Henderson
12:12 pm January 30th, 2008

[...] here’s the bit about no apology: Book reviewers and book critics don’t just publicize books, they actually make critical [...]

— No Apology In Sight « Urban Fantasy Land
3:28 pm January 30th, 2008