Repro Dust Jackets?
Tom Kraemer
Tom
paghat
Kraemer" <tkra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> I've just returned to the rare book market after an absence of some =
> years. In some listings I see reference to reproduction dust jackets. =20
>
> Since so many books have lost their DJ, using a reproduction would be a =
> nice treat for the low budget bibliophile as long as they are properly =
> noted as reproductions in a listing. =20
>
> Is this a growing trend? Are there dealers who provide these to order =
> from originals?
There are indeed a growing number of dealers putting color photocopies of
jackets on unjacketed books. It seems to have gained some acceptability
chiefly among juvenile series books -- collectors being willing to settle
for a photocopy as a stopgap. Still, as a general rule it is considered a
sleezy practice restricted to low-end dealers who're essentially admitting
they never have good authentic stock, or the only good books they get in
they keep in order to sell & resell & resell photocopies of the jackets.
This behavior ought to induce book buyers to wonder what other "tricks" a
seller is pulling, & the assumption that the seller is a big wanker will
probably eventually prove to be correct.
I know a dealer who will run off a canon photocopy of jackets from his
Arkham House books for a fee, & another dealer who has in his computer all
the Tom Swift Senior dustjackets which he will print out on computer paper
for a fee. To some degree it does seem a goodly service (a service
intended to help low-end budget collectors dress up copies they already
have). Yet if this became widespread & acceptable to serious booklovers,
then more & more dealers would keep jackets so as to sell & resell
photocopies. I also occasionally get requests from budget collectors
asking me if I will make a color photocopy of a jacket I have in stock,
because they don't want to spend that much money for the jacket, but
they'd like to have the jacket for, say, $5 if I will please make them a
facsimile. I always just say politely that I don't provide such a service,
but inside I'm thinking what a bozo. It's like a stamp collection
consisting of color photocopies of stamps, a coin collection with the
coins molded from feemo clay, a flower garden full of plastic flowers, or
a brainless Mickey Mouse-Eared Helium Balloon serving as president of the
united states. And when I accidentally find myself in possession of some
brodarted dustwrapper that turns out to be a photocopy, I know it is
either from the collection of a moron, or once passed through the hands of
a crooked bookseller. It could unfortunately but very easily end up resold
a couple of times before anyone removed the brodart protector & realized
the fraud.
Part of me nevertheless wants to obtain print-outs of those Tom Swift
Senior jackets for my unjacketed stock. If clearly marked as facsimiles &
if no premium value were put on the book for the sake of a gawdamn
photocopy, it might be pleasant enough. But I fret that the penciled
"facsimile jacket" is too easily erased & I could be inadertently causing
some future rube to be ripped off by someone knowingly or unknowingly
reselling the book as though with actual jacket. I know I've been stung in
just this way. Last year I obtained an ERB title off eBay with a lovely
illustrated scan of an extremely nice dustjacket, clearly a splendid copy
from the scan, but what they'd scanned upon receipt turned out to be a
canon copy. I got it for a fair price had it been real, but as it was, I
was defrauded. Yet such sellers always cry "I'm not a professional
bookseller, I didn't know," because admitting they're butt-ignorant &
plug-ugly is always the best excuse for ripping people off.
There used to be a creepy old bastard who sold ERB books in Seattle
suburban antique malls with poor photocopies from his personal collection
on the books, nicely brodarted to disguise them. Some of them were copied
on standard typing paper so part of the flap would be missing on the copy.
They were such poor color copies no one would mistake them for real, but
even being baited across a room thinking "ERB jackets! Cool!" only to find
them to be photocopies is like promising someone a nice cup of Robusta as
they take a deep sip of worsteshire sauce. And he did price those copies
as though the fake jackets meant something. The dumbass became notorious
around the city & once you started looking for reasons to dislike him,
there were plenty, but if he hadn't been selling fake jackets his other
eccentricities might've been amusing. I think he's dead now & nobody
misses him. What a legacy:
He sold fake dustjackets." Nothing much else memorable about him.
I never quite have the heart to throw away such facsmiles when I find
myself stuck with one, just as I have trouble tossing even the most
fragmentary & worthless dustjacket. Nine times out of ten when I find one
of these coming into stock, it's a juvenile series book -- the
acceptability of fake jackets hasn't yet filtered through to collectors of
adult books, but for vintage juveniles, often they're never actually read
by anyone, because the majority are unreadable; it's exclusively the
amazing jackets people are after, & definitely not enough of the real ones
to go around. Some booksellers do discard that kind of crap (badly damaged
or facsimile jackets) as being more harmful than helpful to an otherwise
very good copy of something. And even though I can't bring myself to toss
them, dealers that refuse to be associated with these fake jackets are
probably making the wiser decision. At the other extreme are dealers whose
stock is so dreadfully low-end that a photocopied dustjacket that cost
$1.00 to run off at Kinkos could well be worth more than any book in the
place.
I'll admit to a stunt I pulled a once, but will probably never do again.
I've had jackets that were 80% complete but with big gouge out of the
illustration. I've placed a "complete" color copy underneath the authentic
jacket to fill in the missing part. Actually I've only done this on
personal copies, not to dress up a book for sale, but I was embarrassed
once to have "culled" my own collection & accidentally passed on to a
dealer one of these partially fake jackets. He didn't seem angry about it,
but he sure wanted to let me know, as well he ought. I similarly had put
gorgeous Japanese papers on several volumes of Japanese medieval history
I'd collected for myself while researching a couple novels; when the
project was done I later sold much of "the bakufu collection" never
imagining anyone would mistake the Japanese papers for dustjackets, but
someone did. I right now have cool marbeled papers with hand calligraphed
labels that I made for sevral volumes of old midrashim & pseudepographa
which I never intend to sell, yet when I'm dead, or at least feeble, good
chance someone bidding on my old books will at least momentarily mistake
these covered items for dustwrappered copies & be at least momentarily
annoyed to discover some old dolt tricked them out in wrapping paper.
paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/
William M. Klimon
news:paghat-0103...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> Nine times out of ten when I find one
> of these coming into stock, it's a juvenile series book -- the
> acceptability of fake jackets hasn't yet filtered through to collectors of
> adult books, but for vintage juveniles, often they're never actually read
> by anyone, because the majority are unreadable; it's exclusively the
> amazing jackets people are after, & definitely not enough of the real ones
> to go around.
This seems a bit paradoxical. If the jackets are the main draw, why would
any collector be satisfied with a facsimile? Except, I guess, as a locum
tenens.
These are very interesting questions for collectors. I have a couple of
books that I want to restore at some point--i.e., make up a page or two with
facsimiles. This doesn't bother me. One book, a late 17/c first edition,
is missing about 8 lines from the last page. I got the book for $125--and
the only other copy I've seen for sale, a much better copy I'll admit, is
still listed for $1800--so the frugal collector in me is quite content with
my slightly defective and easily made-up copy.
But at what point do facsimile repairs overwhelm the authentic item? I have
an 1786 Philadelphia edition of one of Richard Challoner's apologetic works
that lacks 2 dozen pages--the dealer refunded a significant portion of my
money when I pointed the flaw out to him--I kept the book, though, because I
don't think I'll see another copy and my copy, though in poor shape, has
some interesting ownership marks. These pages can easily be made up because
microforms were made of this book as part of the Early American Imprints
series. But when you get to that many pages, I start to wonder.
But I am quite happy to take on a book in fair or poor condition to serve as
a place holder until a better copy comes along, provided the calculus is
right--i.e., I don't have to pay too much for the bad copy and the chance to
get the better copy is remote enough. And with the Internet now, one often
doesn't have to wait too long for a better copy to come along. In the last
few years, I've even been able to replace a couple of photocopied books on
my shelves with actual copies.
But sometimes one still has to get the xerox for reference. I just got from
Georgetown's library a photocopy of Joseph Finotti's *The Mystery of the
Wizard Clip* (Baltimore, 1879), probably the most important book on the
Wizard Clip, aka the Livingston Wizard:
http://www.prairieghosts.com/wizard.html
This is exactly where my interest in early Catholic Americana, convert
literature, and my small fortean streak all collide. I'm still hoping to
get a copy of the book--but the information is not generally available
elsewhere, so I had to settle for a photocopy for the time being.
William M. Klimon
http://www.gateofbliss.com
Christopher & Barbara Roden
David Anderson
David Anderson
Arthur Nelson
editions of Appointment in Samarra, To Have and Have Not, The Beautiful and
Damned, Death in the Afternoon, and a Sherlock Holmes mystery The Valley of
Fear. I have them listed for sale with the listing specifically stating
that the book's dustjacket is a facsimile. I do not charge for the
dustjacket. It is strictly for aesthetic purposes and if someone buys one
of those books they can do whatever they like with the dustjacket. I
personally like the look of a book in a DJ and I know I will never find a
true dustjacket of the above titles so if you purists think it's a sin,
don't buy my copy. Art
"John A. Stovall" <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s4b26v4j509r2555v...@4ax.com...
> Did you bother to read the Groups FAQ before posting a 1.1K HTML
> attachment in an ASCII news group?
>
> http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/rcb/
>
>
> ****************************************************
>
> "The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men."
>
> Samuel Johnson
> "Life of Johnson" (J. Boswell), Vol. I, 1756
Hardy-Boys.net
widespread and, for the most part, accepted.
Perhaps this is because of the high mortality rate of juvenile series DJs.
The practice seems to be mainly limited to those books produced prior to
WWII.
One fellow I know of has 100s of old series DJs scanned into his computer.
He touched up the imperfections and standardized the spine/back cover within
each series. I have several of these on my Don Sturdy series collection.
As long as a DJ is stated to be a copy/repro during sale, I don't see any
ethical problem.
Having examined 1000's of juvenile series DJs both original and copied, I
can safely say that it would be virtually impossible to pass off a copy as
an original to anyone but the most inexperienced collector.
--
Bob Finnan
The Unofficial Hardy Boys Home Page
http://www.Hardy-Boys.net
New & Out Of Print Books, Books-On-Tape, Videos, DVDs, CD-ROMs For Sale
http://users.arczip.com/fwdixon/hbsale.htm
John Pelan
<tkra...@optonline.net> wrote:
My name is John Pelan and on occasion I use facsimile dustjackets.
There, I feel much better. Seriously, I have a total of four books in
my personal collection with facsimile jackets: Two G & D DRACULAS,
Alan Hyder's VAMPIRES OVERHEAD, and Edward Lucas White's LUKUNDOO.
As to selling books with facsimile jackets, the only time this comes
up is with DRACULA as there are seemingly a lot of folks (like me) who
want a bargain basement copy of the Photoplay edition and are fond of
the dj, but would never pay the $500+ that decent copies command.
I'll admit that I've looked at all Walter S. Masterman jackets that
B&W but have resisited temptation. Mastermans in jacket do show up
from time to time, whereas the Hyder repro is from the only known
copy.
Now if anyone has a copy of the jacket for Charles Lloyd's DEVILS'
SPAWN, that's one I'd pay for... The idea that there would be much
market for facsimile Arkham House jackets is odd as there are numerous
dealers that seem to have acquired plenty of the originals.
Cheers,
John
Mike Berro
first edition book instead of the real thing. It might look good, but it
won't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling. It will also hide the objects of
my affection.
Posting the HTML is probably just a setting on your news reader program. Set
it to Plain Text.
---Mike
"Tom Kraemer" <tkra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:MF98a.638881$HG.118...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
MindElec
declared:
>...also:
>http://www.abebooks.com/home/BWBOOKS2/
i've used him for a repro of fellowship of the rings, nice work.
i've also gotten a few winston sci-fi djs from this guy
nice looking and only $10 (a few years ago)
robert
"If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them.
The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills.
It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially.
If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
braves-lady
Fer-de-lance and So Blue Marble. I get them at abe for $22.00 and they say
'facsimile dust jacket', it's printed on the top of the inside flap, so no
one would ever be misled.
Braveslady
"Mike Berro" <mikeb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zzr8a.4781$aq6.3...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
Kris Baker
"Hardy-Boys.net" <fwdixo...@hardy-boys.net> wrote in
message news:b3t2gm$1p4i2j$1...@ID-182835.news.dfncis.de...
> Having examined 1000's of juvenile series DJs both original and copied, I
> can safely say that it would be virtually impossible to pass off a copy as
> an original to anyone but the most inexperienced collector.
> --
> Bob Finnan
But it wouldn't hurt to have the words "REPRODUCTION DUST
JACKET" be part of the original scan and positioned in a "no
harm, no foul" location on said jacket.
Kris
paghat
<kris....@prodigyy.net> wrote:
Canon copy dustjackets can look exactly like the original if one doesn't
look closely. The widespread use of brodarts further disguises them. I for
quite some while had a cannon copy on Carl Jacobi's first book before I
noticed something odd about flap coloration coming to a sudden end a
quarter-inch from the edge, & looked under the brodart to see it was done
on copy paper. If someone buys something from a trusted dealer, it's easy
to believe it just isn't necessary to be on guard for that sort of thing.
Then there's the problem of these photocopies getting scanned & put up on
eBay, where even a wary soul who doublechecks under brodarts won't be able
to handle the book & check authenticity before bidding, so ends up
hornswoggled by a "forgetful" juveniles dealer who neglected to mention he
made that jacket himself. Fact is one has to be on-guard about this as
it's quite easy to go with the assumption that booksellers aren't crooked
enough to sell facsimiles unlabeled, but many are either crooked enough or
careless enough to do just that. And even if it were someone
"inexperienced" who passed on a fake jacket, the fact remains, they do get
passed on as authentic, it's a real problem. And I'm pretty sure many a
buyer (whether or not naive) has failed to read the lightly pencilled fine
print before just grabbing a book & buying it, only to be disappointed
upon closer scrutiny when they get it home. If the practice continues to
increase in occurrence among booksellers, they'll have to come up with a
method of declaring the inauthenticity of the jacket which is as clear &
definitive as when forged paintings, antiques, stamps, & coin dealers are
sold -- among whom it is insufficient to point out afterward there was a
small notation SOMEwhere that it wasn't real & besides anyone who wasn't
stupid would've known. It smply has to be said out loud: "I Hope You
Realize The Dustjacket Is A Worthless Fake."
-paghat the ratgirl
Jon Meyers
> I have no interest in a repro jacket. To me it'd be like having a photo of
a
> first edition book instead of the real thing. It might look good, but it
> won't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling. It will also hide the objects
of
> my affection.
I couldn't have put it better. The idea of a repro dj leaves me cold: "This
is what the dj would look like, if I really had one."
It reminds of that Dilbert strip when D is shown a vendor's demo product
that turns out to be an empty box, and he's told: "The product would look
just like this--if there were electronics inside." D: "You brought me all
the way out here to look at an empty box?!" V: "Don't forget the blank
CD-ROM!"
--
Jon Meyers
cath...@gtw.net
MindElec
<kris....@prodigyy.net> declared:
the place that david mentioned does just that, it's across the top of
the front flap instead of the price. if it were snipped it would look
unusual and not like a normal "price-clip"
Hardy-Boys.net
: Canon copy dustjackets can look exactly like the original if one doesn't
: look closely.
If you purchase a book without "looking closely", you deserve whatever you
get.
Even the most cursory examination will disclose a copy DJ.
paghat
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:11:00 -0500, "Hardy-Boys.net"
> <fwdixo...@hardy-boys.net> wrote:
>
> >"paghat" <pag...@BADSPAMnetscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:paghat-0203...@soggy72.drizzle.com...
> >
> >: Canon copy dustjackets can look exactly like the original if one doesn't
> >: look closely. The widespread use of brodarts further disguises them.
> >
> >If you purchase a book without "looking closely", you deserve whatever you
> >get. Even the most cursory examination will disclose a copy DJ.
>
> What ever happened to the idea of an "honest" seller? I would expect
> that sort of statement from an eBay seller but not a bookman.
Yep, I had ended that bit with:
--It simply has to be said out loud: "I Hope You
Realize The Dustjacket Is A Worthless Fake."--
The desire of any bookseller to shift the burden
such honesty away from sellers, & to blame
customers as simply stupid therefore justly duped,
underscores that these occurrences despite all
after-the-fact disclaimers often as not are
intentional frauds.
The argument that requires the buyer
to already be knowledgeable & wary enough
to know a fraud by even "a cursory look"
seems the more suspicious from dealers
who would sell mainly from catalogs, the
web, or eBay, with increasing percentages of
sales being sight-unseen. Maybe a TELEPATHIC
cursory look is what he meant, & anyone
whose telepathy isn't up to snuff deserves
to be hornswoggled.
I hate to think of specialist booksellers as
adding up to an especially troublesome
"buyer beware" environment. But perhaps
that's indeed where things have arrived &
it's time to admit its all too swiftly boiling down to
another Used Car Central where getting a good
one is strictly luck of the draw.
Hardy-Boys.net
news:kbu66vc71pi0vmn22...@4ax.com...
:
: What ever happened to the idea of an "honest" seller? I would expect
: that sort of statement from an eBay seller but not a bookman.
When selling a book with a repro DJ, I state it as such, as should any
decent seller.
I never said that this shouldn't be mentioned.
I merely stated it is virtually impossible to pass off a copy DJ as an
original to anyone but the most novice collector.
Hardy-Boys.net
:
: And by treating a novice collector that way, a seller many turn off a
: person who if shown respect and guidance become a serious collector
: and more important a long term customer.
:
And where, may I ask, did I ever suggest treating a novice in any manner?
Pointing out that only a novice is likely to be fooled by a repro DJ
certainly is no advocacy of attempting to do so.
braves-lady
news:3e62...@bothawui.gtw.net...
> "Mike Berro" wrote...
> > I have no interest in a repro jacket. To me it'd be like having a photo
of
> a
> > first edition book instead of the real thing. It might look good, but it
> > won't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling. It will also hide the objects
> of
> > my affection.
>
> I couldn't have put it better. The idea of a repro dj leaves me cold:
"This
> is what the dj would look like, if I really had one."
>
> It reminds of that Dilbert strip when D is shown a vendor's demo product
> that turns out to be an empty box, and he's told: "The product would look
> just like this--if there were electronics inside." D: "You brought me all
> the way out here to look at an empty box?!" V: "Don't forget the blank
> CD-ROM!"
> cath...@gtw.net
Which has nothing to do with the fact that there is a genuine first edition
with an almost or positively unobtainable dust jacket inside the admittedly
facsimile dj.
Mike Berro
news:v7U8a.118276$4F3.8...@news2.east.cox.net...
> Which has nothing to do with the fact that there is a genuine first
edition
> with an almost or positively unobtainable dust jacket inside the
admittedly
> facsimile dj.
Which has nothing to do with why one person likes 'em and another doesn't.
No one is claiming you shouldn't like them, and I'll bet you're not claiming
that I should. Heck, you can wrap them in tinfoil for all I care.
I just like looking at my first editions, with or without jacket, and even
if they are "ratty." Sometimes, especially when they're ratty. Every book
tells a story, besides the ones inside, but the facjackets generally don't.
Plus, when I show the books to someone who appreciates them, I'm sure they
would try to hide their disappointment that the jacket is fake. If I had a
repro of a cool jacket, I'd have no compunction against framing it and
putting it on the wall, but I simply don't want it hiding my book. (I do
make clear jackets for some books and proofs to protect them.)
Finally, (this for Bob) even professionals can be fooled by a high-quality
repro, even for older books. It's not hard to duplicate aging. Remember, you
only know about the ones you happen to catch!
---Mike
Hardy-Boys.net
: Finally, (this for Bob) even professionals can be fooled by a high-quality
: repro, even for older books. It's not hard to duplicate aging. Remember,
you
: only know about the ones you happen to catch!
IMHO, I think it highly unlikely that an experienced bookman could be fooled
by a repro DJ, even if someone should attempt to age it (a practice I have
never witnessed).
There are just too many clues that give away a fake.
Lee Temares
> "Mike Berro" <mikeb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:G5X8a.5038$aq6.4...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>
> : Finally, (this for Bob) even professionals can be fooled by a high-quality
> : repro, even for older books. It's not hard to duplicate aging. Remember,
> you
> : only know about the ones you happen to catch!
>
> IMHO, I think it highly unlikely that an experienced bookman could be fooled
> by a repro DJ, even if someone should attempt to age it (a practice I have
> never witnessed).
> There are just too many clues that give away a fake.
I am an experienced bookperson, with a specialty in children's
series-and I have been fooled! At the Conference in Charlottesville in
October, I had a "discussion" with a person selling repro jackets. My
fear is that a jacket which is not marked as a repro will be assumed
to be the real thing by the time the book is sold multiple times. I
agree with the statement that all repro jackets should be so marked on
the jacket-as part of the printing process. Why should any of us put
our reputations at risk? There are laws on the books for political
buttons and glass, why not for jackets? I hope to see many of you at
the Phantom Friends and Nancy Drew Sleuths Conference in April in NY.
Lee Temares
Lee and Mike Temares Books
50 Heights Road, Plandome NY 11030
Wochak Pnutz
Temb...@aol.com (Lee Temares) wrote:
> There are laws on the books for political buttons and glass,
What does this refer to? I'd appreciate a URL to read more on this.
Thanks. :)
Steven Schend
"David Anderson" <nboo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d12da66d.0303...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.facsimiledustjackets.com/cgi-bin/fdj455/
Wouldn't this be considered illegal (photocopying and resale of a
copyrighted work) or just sleazy, given the price tag this guy's put on
repro dust jackets?
Steven
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> Wouldn't this be considered illegal (photocopying and resale of a
> copyrighted work)
I wondered about this too. There used to be an excellent website featuring
Steinbeck's first editions that closed down because the publisher said it
was breach of copyright.
That, in turn, got me wondering about sellers broadcasting scans of book
covers on eBay, etc.
Does anyone know what copyright law (US or elsewhere) says about unlicensed
reproduction of dust jackets?
William M. Klimon
news:b45aek$1r61ne$1...@ID-169501.news.dfncis.de...
We had a thread on this a couple of months ago. I actually did quite a bit
of research on the question under U.S. law (and may actually publish
something on this--my outline follows).
The common sense answer is that the jacket is part of the book and there is
a doctrine in copyright law that the parts all have the protection of the
whole. (If that were not the case, then every pre-1976 dust jacket that did
not have a copyright notice would be in the public domain because copyright
notice was required under the former law.) There is no case law directly on
this question, but there is some case law on magazine covers, for example,
that is pretty definitive.
Playing devil's advocate, however, one can still raise some questions, like:
(1) One can sometimes find dust jackets that have a different copyright
notice than that found in the book itself--clearly two different copyrights
are indicated.
(2) If the d.j. is simply part of the book for copyright law purposes then a
lot of publishers have transferred a lot of intellectual property to their
authors--i.e., if the book notes that the author is the copyright holder and
the jacket falls under the book's copyright, then the author is the holder
and all the effort that the publisher put into design and execution of the
jacket go to benefit the author (this is the case under the pre-1976 law
that required copyright notice). Was Scriber's, e.g., in the habit of
giving valuable property to Hemingway (apart from what his contracts called
for)?
(3) The Copyright Office has separate procedures for the deposit of dust
jackets--indicating that dust jackets are considered a different kind of
work (pictorial works?) than books (which are literary works).
MindElec
<william.m....@alumni.upenn.edu> declared:
it makes sense to me that the dj would be copyrighted as far as repro
sales went.
but johns second point about ebay, those pictures are being used to
sell the sctual book in the original dj. isn't that a whole different
matter?
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> sales went.
So people who just photocopy a dj and sell it are in breach of copyright,
right?
> but johns second point about ebay, those pictures are being used to
> sell the sctual book in the original dj. isn't that a whole different
> matter?
I've had a bee in my bonnet about this ever since that Steinbeck site went
awol. It wasn't even a commercial site, and the publisher stymied it, and
yet eBay auctions feature this copyright material for commercial purposes
all the time. Well, I've raised this matter before in this newsgroup, and it
isn't going to bring the site back, so I guess I'll just have to lump it.
Nice that the Japanese aren't so touchy about copyright, which means there
are great pages like the ones on this site:
http://www.geocities.com/osakabe_yoshio/indexE.html (check the links, which
take you to pages showing the djs of nearly all Murakami's works)
...Come to think of it, though, some of the djs shown are translations,
published in the West; I just hope the long arm of copyright law doesn't
extend to this site!
William M. Klimon
> > it makes sense to me that the dj would be copyrighted as far as repro
> > sales went.
>
> So people who just photocopy a dj and sell it are in breach of copyright,
> right?
Yes, assuming as I think we probably can that the d.j.s are
copyrighted one way or another (either as part of the book or
separately).
> > but johns second point about ebay, those pictures are being used to
> > sell the sctual book in the original dj. isn't that a whole different
> > matter?
>
> I've had a bee in my bonnet about this ever since that Steinbeck site went
> awol. It wasn't even a commercial site, and the publisher stymied it, and
> yet eBay auctions feature this copyright material for commercial purposes
> all the time. Well, I've raised this matter before in this newsgroup, and it
> isn't going to bring the site back, so I guess I'll just have to lump it.
Booksellers who use images of or excerpts from books are not violating
any copyrights--because they are not selling or attempting to sell any
unauthorized copies of the works. We must recall that copyright
holders' rights are limited to what's called the "first sale." After
the copyright holder (or his licensee) has exercised his right to sell
a copy of the work, he has no further rights and cannot interfere with
the further distribution of that copy.
As for the Faulkner site, I don't know all the circumstances. It
seems to me that if it were a completely noncommercial site that
simply included images of Faulkner d.j.s that that would be a good
example of fair use. From the sounds of it, the Faulkner estate
barked and the www site backed down without a fight (probably a
rational thing to do, unless they had extra funds lying around to pay
lawyers). On the other hand, maybe some trademarks were at
issue--another area of intellectual property law that raises a host of
different questions.
Steven Schend
"William M. Klimon" <william.m....@alumni.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:mSA9a.146547$4F3.9...@news2.east.cox.net...
> > > Wouldn't this be considered illegal (photocopying and resale of a
> > > copyrighted work)
> >
> > I wondered about this too. There used to be an excellent website
featuring
> > Steinbeck's first editions that closed down because the publisher said
it
> > was breach of copyright.
> The common sense answer is that the jacket is part of the book and there
is
> a doctrine in copyright law that the parts all have the protection of the
> whole. (If that were not the case, then every pre-1976 dust jacket that
did
> not have a copyright notice would be in the public domain because
copyright
> notice was required under the former law.) There is no case law directly
on
> this question, but there is some case law on magazine covers, for example,
> that is pretty definitive.
I was even thinking more along the lines of "Since a person is making money
based on graphic work and/or a cover painting, isn't it illegal to reproduce
that image / graphic work without payment of print rights to the artist
and/or owning entity of said graphic work?"
I worked enough with artists at TSR & Wizards of the Coast to know they
really hate it if people make color photocopies of their art and/or book
covers and sell them. After all, that's why they have prints of their owned
work. Most if not all artwork done for the above companies was bought first
world print rights only, and after that, ownership returned to the artist.
Steven
Steven Schend
"William M. Klimon" <William.M....@alumni.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:13e4b03e.0303...@posting.google.com...
> "John Yamamoto-Wilson" <j-ya...@sophia.ac.jp> wrote in message
news:<b474qb$1s1bju$1...@ID-169501.news.dfncis.de>...
> any copyrights--because they are not selling or attempting to sell any
> unauthorized copies of the works. We must recall that copyright
> holders' rights are limited to what's called the "first sale." After
> the copyright holder (or his licensee) has exercised his right to sell
> a copy of the work, he has no further rights and cannot interfere with
> the further distribution of that copy.
As long as a bookseller makes it clear the dj is a facsimile or copy and
doesn't outrageously inflate the price of said book because of it, I don't
have a problem personally with the practice. In fact, I'd be willing to pay
an extra buck or two to have the cleaner look (and then have another book
hunt in the future to get the true dj).
I'm not accusing booksellers who reproduce djs of violating any legalities.
It's more a question of someone making pure profit by copying a dustjacket
and selling it separately. That smacks of stealing from an artist as much as
selling PDF files of an e-book you paid to download steals from a writer.
Steven
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> We had a thread on this a couple of months ago.
My time-frame's hazy - I think it came up here a year or so ago, and more
recently on the Exlibris mailing list - whatever - I still haven't got it
clear!
> Booksellers who use images of or excerpts from books are not violating
> any copyrights--because they are not selling or attempting to sell any
> unauthorized copies of the works.
Well, you've done your homework on this and I haven't, but speaking as a
total ignoramus on the subject, it doesn't *look* as if whether the
reproduction is sold or not is the issue. A typical copyright statement (I
just picked up a book at random) reads: "All rights reserved, including the
right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form". It doesn't say it's
OK to reproduce it if you're not planning to sell it - in fact, if you were
planning to give it away free that would worry the publisher even *more*,
since that would take away people's motivation to pay for legit copies. Now,
I know that leeway is given as far as short quotations and extracts from the
text are concerned, but - at least in cases where the dj is separately
copyrighted - we're not talking about an extract.
I can't see it's really an issue, myself, because the publisher doesn't
really lose anything by it. The fact that the image of the dustjacket is
freely available on the internet isn't going to lead to people saying,
"Heck, why should I buy it? I can download the GIF (or JPG, or whatever) any
time I want." But technically, surely, the publisher (or copyright holder,
if it's not the publisher) would have a right to object and could (if they
wanted) chase up and prohibit people from broadcasting images of djs? It's
not *just* a case of
> the Faulkner [*Steinbeck*, Bill!] estate
> barked and the www site backed down without a fight
It seem to me that if the cover is copyrighted, and if all rights of
reproduction are reserved and if those rights are backed up by the law, then
the publisher (however unreasonably) has a case. But then, if there's a
bigger ass than the law it's probably someone trying to make rational sense
of the law - especially someone who knows as little about it as I do!
William M. Klimon
> > Booksellers who use images of or excerpts from books are not violating
> > any copyrights--because they are not selling or attempting to sell any
> > unauthorized copies of the works.
>
> Well, you've done your homework on this and I haven't, but speaking as a
> total ignoramus on the subject, it doesn't *look* as if whether the
> reproduction is sold or not is the issue. A typical copyright statement (I
> just picked up a book at random) reads: "All rights reserved, including the
> right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form". It doesn't say it's
> OK to reproduce it if you're not planning to sell it - in fact, if you were
> planning to give it away free that would worry the publisher even *more*,
> since that would take away people's motivation to pay for legit copies. Now,
> I know that leeway is given as far as short quotations and extracts from the
> text are concerned, but - at least in cases where the dj is separately
> copyrighted - we're not talking about an extract.
(1) There is a statutory right of distribution after first sale--i.e.,
I have the right to sell my copy (assuming my copy comes from those
that the copyright holder has authorized for sale).
(2) Advertising (that makes use of the copyrighted work) to accomplish
that sale is implied in the distribution right and in the doctrine of
fair use. A little skepticism is due those copyright statements that
you quoted--one doesn't gather to oneself rights one doesn't have
simply by proclaiming them. The sign in my yard that says "Kingdom of
Bill" will not make my property a sovereign territory.
> It seem to me that if the cover is copyrighted, and if all rights of
> reproduction are reserved and if those rights are backed up by the law, then
> the publisher (however unreasonably) has a case. But then, if there's a
> bigger ass than the law it's probably someone trying to make rational sense
> of the law - especially someone who knows as little about it as I do!
I guess I have not understood what this Steinbeck site was all about.
If it contained full-sized images of the dust jackets and encouraged
their copying, then that seems clearly to be a violation of the
copyright holder's right of reproduction. If, on the other hand, it
contained images of the jackets for the sake of study, even if someone
could manage to download and print out a copy, then there would be a
stronger argument for fair use. I think it's the difference between a
library, which legitimately makes available a copy of a work, even if
some people photocopy it, and a copyshop that churns out xeroxes of a
work without regard for the copyright.
P.S.: One other factor (which I failed to mention) that I think weighs
against the copyright of dust jackets as a part of books under the old
law is the then current practice of many people of simply throwing the
jackets away--indeed, in some cases of doing that and then having the
books rebound in leather, etc. This is NOT the strongest argument,
but I would include it if I had to argue the case.
John Yamamoto-Wilson
[snip]
Thanks, Bill. I think I understand it all a bit better now!
> I guess I have not understood what this Steinbeck site was all about.
> If it contained full-sized images of the dust jackets and encouraged
> their copying, then that seems clearly to be a violation of the
> copyright holder's right of reproduction. If, on the other hand, it
> contained images of the jackets for the sake of study, even if someone
> could manage to download and print out a copy, then there would be a
> stronger argument for fair use.
In that case I would say the Steinbeck site was fair use. It had scaled-down
pictures of first issue djs & title pages, and gave brief details of issue
points. Irritating that it was removed when a comparatively useless site
(from a collector's point of view), such as
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/authors/John_Steinbeck.htm (which gives
pictures of covers of paperback and recent editions) is untouched.
I guess it just underlines the transient nature of the internet. At that
time I had quite a lot of Steinbeck first editions, and it helped me
identify and describe them correctly. They've nearly all gone now, so I
guess I should just be glad that a valuable resource was available at the
time that I needed it!
Tim Doyle
> William M. Klimon wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
scaled-down
> pictures of first issue djs & title pages, and gave brief details of issue
> points. >
Sounds exactly like what Firsts magazine does in every issue, and I don't
see anyone trying to shut them down.
Regards, Tim