Creative Commons photos books

[RodenAddison]

Is anyone using Creative Commons photos to create their covers? They say that they are free to use, modify, and use for commercial purposes, but then there is a comment about fair use. Would you consider a book cover fair use?

Another concern is that while looking through I have discovered several single posts that have CC licence indicated but they are clearly copyrighted pictures. One that stands out is a promo photo from Flashdance.

Another concern is that, occasionally, there is a user name but no 'real name' given.

So.... here's the approach I'm taking.

I look for people who have a minimum of 100 photo posts that all look legit. I email them and ask if their photo is under CC and if they would consider a book cover fair use.

Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Bramblethorn]

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.)

Is anyone using Creative Commons photos to create their covers? They say that they are free to use, modify, and use for commercial purposes, but then there is a comment about fair use. Would you consider a book cover fair use?

Two separate issues here.

#1: "Fair use" allows you to copy somebody else's work without their permission. It exists to allow things like comment, criticism, etc etc. It's a complex and subjective concept (see Wikipedia for more on this), but by default, I doubt using somebody else's copyright-protected photo for a book cover would be considered 'fair use'.

In some cases it might fall under "comment" or one of the other fair-use criteria - e.g. if I'm writing a book about the failings of Fox News, I might be able to get away with using a Fox screen-grab that's relevant to the point I'm making. But if it's just a matter of "I need a story for a book about horses and this is a picture of a horse", that's not going to be fair use.

#2: Creative Commons licenses give permission for use under certain conditions. There are several different CC licenses; some of them are suitable for your purpose and others are not.

You can find detail here, but a few examples:

- If a photo is licensed under "CC-Attribution", then you can do pretty much whatever you want with it as long as you credit the creator.

Let's suppose Joe provides a CC-Attribution photo of a horse. You copy that photo, draw a hairy-chested barbarian riding the horse, draw a Martian city in the background, and use it as the cover for your novel "Riders of Mars".

Joe's license gives you permission to do this (as long as you credit him), and you still have "derivative work" rights which mean that people can't copy your cover without your permission. (Obviously, they could still use Joe's horse photo, just like you did, so your cover might not be as unique as you'd like.)

- If it's licensed under "Attribution-ShareAlike" then you can use it for a book cover, with attribution... BUT you would be obliged to release your own work on the same terms.

So, you could still produce a cover as above (crediting Joe) but you'd have to make your own cover available for others in the same way. Somebody could use your cover art (both the bits you got from Joe and the bits you added) and use it for their own novel, which might not be desirable.

- If it's under "Attribution-NoDerivs", you're allowed to redistribute the original with attribution but not to alter it. I think this would rule out adding your name and title to turn it into a book cover, but I'm not a lawyer; it would definitely rule out drawing a rider on the horse.

- If it's under "Attribution-Non-Commercial", obviously you can't use it on something that you're going to sell.

The other licenses are combinations of the above. Assuming you want to sell this, probably best to avoid anything that's more restrictive than CC-Attribution.

 

[Handley_Page]

I ain't a lawyer, either, but

It strikes me that if you want to use a particular picture for a commercial project (ie., your book) the least you can do is to licence the picture.
After all, the photographer (or artist) put that effort in.
Putting the picture out into the world is a bit of advertising, perhaps, but it's still their copyright.
Commercial isn't the same as 'fair use', maybe?

 

[Bramblethorn]

I ain't a lawyer, either, but

It strikes me that if you want to use a particular picture for a commercial project (ie., your book) the least you can do is to licence the picture.
After all, the photographer (or artist) put that effort in.

Putting the picture out into the world is a bit of advertising, perhaps, but it's still their copyright.
Commercial isn't the same as 'fair use', maybe?

Fair use is assessed on a combination of four factors. The issue of commercial/non-commercial use comes into that, so it's harder to claim a fair-use exception on a commercial application, but it doesn't necessarily override other considerations.

In particular, fair use protects criticism. If I want to write a newspaper article about why Uwe Boll's latest film sucks, he's probably NOT going to grant me permission to quote dialogue from that film... but fair use gives me the right to do so nevertheless (within limits - I probably shouldn't quote more than I need to illustrate my point).

 

[sr71plt]

Fair use was devised for "copying of copyrighted material if it is done for a salutary [beneficial to the public] purpose--news reporting, teaching, criticism are examples"

(Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway)

I don't know if it's ever been court tested for images for for-profit dirty book covers (and don't think it has), but I wouldn't count on it ever doing so.

 

[RodenAddison]

Bramblethorn. Thanks for that, it was a great reply.

I am looking only at photos that are attribution and share alike.

Attribution (recognizing the photog/creator) allows the following:
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
to make commercial use of the work

Definitions:
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

'Waiver' seems to indicate to me that, as long as I'm willing to do the attribution, there is no point in getting permission for the use. It's mine to use.

I'm only considering photos with BOTH of these license criteria since I believe putting a title and my name on it would definately be considered a transformation or alteration. So, looks like I'm good to go.

Handley, I understand what you're saying, however, I think if the creator of the work wants it seen and attributed, why would I seek a license? It seems to me, that if this were the case, before anyone read a story on lit they should contact the author and ask if it would be all right to read it even though it was uploaded by the author to be read. An author agreeing the the use under the sites agreement is really no different than a photographer offering the use of their work under a CC agreement.

Frankly, the odds of finding exactly what I need is quite marginal. The search is clunky and it's like searching the web. 100k results at a time. It's a lot of work, though I must say that the sites that offer licenced photos for a few dollars are just as clunky.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I am looking only at photos that are attribution and share alike.

...

I'm only considering photos with BOTH of these license criteria since I believe putting a title and my name on it would definately be considered a transformation or alteration. So, looks like I'm good to go.

I'm not clear on why you're restricting yourself to ShareAlike licenses - I think you might have misunderstood what they're about. ShareAlike doesn't make it easier for you to modify the original photo; as far as I can see, ALL the CC licenses permit this except NoDerivs versions.

The difference between CC-Attribution and CC-Attribution-ShareAlike is that under CC-Attribution, you can protect your own cover from copying (or at least the elements that you've added).

Under CC-Attribution-ShareAlike, you have to make the whole cover available for others to copy under the same terms. Somebody else could write a book with the same title but different content, then slap your cover on it.

(BTW, I've been assuming that the cover is treated as a distinct entity from the story content for copyright purposes, but maybe somebody can confirm whether this is so?)

'Waiver' seems to indicate to me that, as long as I'm willing to do the attribution, there is no point in getting permission for the use. It's mine to use.

Yes, if you're following the conditions in the license, you have already been given permission for that use.

 

[lovecraft68]

Whether its illegal or not what would come of it would be nothing.

As keeps get kicked around here about story copy writing is does the photographer have the time and cake to get you dragged into court and sued?

I've only once used a photo that was not from a stock photo site and I ended up altering it so much only part of it was really original and I only did that because when I tried to "track" where it came from the thing was all over the net being used for a variety of things.

 

[sr71plt]

So, as a writer wanting to make money off of and to protect your artistic property, you are advocating stealing the intellectual property of others if that's convenient for you and you think you can get away with it? Why am I not surprised?

 

[lovecraft68]

So, as a writer wanting to make money off of and to protect your artistic property, you are advocating stealing the intellectual property of others if that's convenient for you and you think you can get away with it? Why am I not surprised?

No, when I couldn't find any sign of a trademark or trace it to someone claiming it was their property and saw it whored out all over the internet in everything from blog logo's to several e-book covers...

I used about 25% of the background and put several photos I did pay for into it.

And who says its a book cover? Could you please "cite" where I said I am making money from it?

I made it into a poster, had it framed and gave it to someone as a gift.

But I still didn't want to "jack" something and looked to see if it was "some one's" first.

Would you like to try again Pilot?

And this from some one who continuously "re boots" former books throwing in a few new paragraphs to try to sucker someone who bought it to years ago to spend money on the same lame shit they already paid for.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[sr71plt]

Copyright law doesn't work that way, LC. Your assumptions of what you tried to do to find a work's ownership don't have any bearing. It is the wishful user's responsibility to either establish clear right to use or to not use it. So, my original observation stands.

By the way, how is your journey as a full-time writer working out so far? You breathlessly told the forum that you were quiting your warehouse job in November and letting your wife support you until your writing career was established. How's that working out for you?

 

[lovecraft68]

Warning; inane babbling in the above post.

Didn't read it, but don't really have too.

Yawn.

 

[RodenAddison]

Right, Bramble. I misunderstood. Better with just the Attribution.

There's a quick video online that can be checked if anyone wants a look.

http://creativecommons.org/videos/creative-commons-kiwi

SR. If I make someone a plaque and I want them to take it and set it on the table and tell them they're free to take it, have they stolen from me if they do?

 

[lovecraft68]

Right, Bramble. I misunderstood. Better with just the Attribution.

There's a quick video online that can be checked if anyone wants a look.

http://creativecommons.org/videos/creative-commons-kiwi

SR. If I make someone a plaque and I want them to take it and set it on the table and tell them they're free to take it, have they stolen from me if they do?

You know what I have discovered is a good source is flickr. You can contact the photographer and many times they will let you use the image for a credit in the book or project. Some have been known to sell their photo outright.

Just another option and there is some amazing work on there. I recently contacted a photographer about a photo a an incredible gothic woman I am dying to use, but have not heard back.

And if SR thinks its stealing well then of course it is! So don't even think to argue!

Personally I think selling someone the same material twice is stealing, but that's called a "re-issue" apparently

 

[sr71plt]

SR. If I make someone a plaque and I want them to take it and set it on the table and tell them they're free to take it, have they stolen from me if they do?

In the world of copyright (which your example is not in), you'd have to give them a written and signed release to have any right to it, yes. Verbal wouldn't do it, unless you were around and willing to affirm it every time you were asked. When we need permissions in the book publishing world, it's the author's responsibility to produce a written release on everything that's a copyright question. The author's responsibility to provide a written release.

So, your example just may not apply. I don't understand what does apply in your current issue, because the whole underpinnings of this image service are beyond me.

But I was responding to bits and pieces others brought up--fair use and being an author and not respecting the intellectual property rights of other creators just for one's own convenience or because they think they can get away with it.

The responsibility for establishing the right to use something belonging to someone else in the publishing world is on the shoulders of the one wanting to use it. To maintain full ownership rights, the original owner need do nothing (other than, in the United States, register it, if it's a written work. It's more complicated for iamges.) Not being able to find the original owner is no excuse for not getting permission from the original owner. When you can't, you just can't use it.

 

[lovecraft68]

The above message is being ignored because sr71plt, despite his claims otherwise, is irrelevant.

 

[sr71plt]

On LC's crack about reissues (while we all notice he clumsily sidestepped my point on not honoring the rights of other artists and my question on whether he quit his job in November and went to writing full time, as he slobbered all over us about back in October), I'll note that when you have identified a work as a issue (almost always as an expansion in what I'm doing with my eXcessica back list now) and the buyer still buys it, it's certainly not stealing (and usually is because they've never bought it before), and, by the way, is just good publishing business. Not that I would expect LC to understand good publishing business, of course--unless he thought it up by himself.

Now, let's all sit and contemplate how many hundreds of times a lot of the classics have been reissued in new editions. (all except LC, of course. He's probably still thinking up a clever answer on whether he's quit his warehouse job to make big money with his writing now while letting his wife support him. I always thought the name for that was leech. )

 

[sr71plt]

The above message is being ignored because sr71plt, despite his claims otherwise, is irrelevant.

MUCH more likely because LC can't think up responses that don't continue to mark him as a jackass.

 

[lovecraft68]

And like the old biblical town by the same name he babbles on and on and on.....

Some comic books have what they refer to as an "Infinity cover"

The same image over and over again, Pilot in a nutshell.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, that certainly is responsive.

 

[lovecraft68]

And now we have the last word game.