In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:39:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Where a reasonable fair use justification can be made book covers are usable under existing policy.>>
------------------------------------
That has not been the actual experience. "Reasonable" is an added herring. Fair use is fair use. Book covers should be allowed to be used, without restriction. All book covers are fair use.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 23/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
"Reasonable" is an added herring. Fair use is fair use. Book covers should be allowed to be used, without restriction. All book covers are fair use.
I regularly see *immensely* silly uses of book covers - the cover art of randomly selected contemporary editions of classic novels used as an illustration for the article, which seems to have little or no practical benefit to the article and *certainly* have no 'uniqueness'. In such cases, there are a dozen different images we could use, neither of which has any merit over the other.
The last case I remember - an Oxford World's Classics image on [[Tom Brown's Schooldays]] - also turned out to have been used as an illustration for an article about cricket, because he was playing it on the book cover.
I find myself doubting that *that* is automatically presumable to be fair use...
On 23/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That has not been the actual experience. "Reasonable" is an added herring. Fair use is fair use.
Yes but because we are not a court for the most part we are dealing with fair use cases. Why we think something is fair use. These reasons should be at least broadly consistent with both statute law and case law. So no reasonable is not a red herring.
Book covers should be allowed to be used, without restriction.
That would be a descision for the courts and frankly I can't see them producing a ruling that broad. In addition since both playboy and playboy and Scientology have published books I really really would not like to rely on a universal "they will never sue"
All book covers are fair use.
Fair use is about use. So closest you could ever get to that would be along the lines of "Use X would be considered fair use for any book cover". There are many uses for which a book cover would not be considered fair use.
WJhonson@aol.com schreef:
That has not been the actual experience. "Reasonable" is an added herring. Fair use is fair use. Book covers should be allowed to be used, without restriction. All book covers are fair use.
ITYM All book covers are fair use on an article about the book itself. Which is probably true; I can't really think of a counterexample. But that does not mean you can use the image without restriction; a fair use claim always refers to the exact use we make of it.
Can you point us at book covers that were tagged as fair use, used on an article about the book, and still were deleted?
Eugene
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:00:10 +0100, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com schreef:
That has not been the actual experience. "Reasonable" is an added herring. Fair use is fair use. Book covers should be allowed to be used, without restriction. All book covers are fair use.
ITYM All book covers are fair use on an article about the book itself. Which is probably true; I can't really think of a counterexample. But that does not mean you can use the image without restriction; a fair use claim always refers to the exact use we make of it.
Can you point us at book covers that were tagged as fair use, used on an article about the book, and still were deleted?
There are plenty of counterexamples actualy. Quite a few old "clasics" have first edition covers that have lapsed into the public domain. In such cases it would not be apropriate to use a still copyrighted cover for a more recent reprint of the book for ilustrative purposes.
Also creating large galleries of various alternate covers for different versions/translations of the book wold not be considered apropriate (people tried this with varios Harry Potter books for example), even in the article about the book. So no, all book covers are not automaticaly fair use even in the article about said book. It still needs to be used in a very spesific way, and then only if there is no free alternative (wich I'll grant there rarely is for contemporary books).