Forum: Author Hangout

For US residents there's a lot of images in the public domain due to being created by US government employees as part of their work. Most US federal government websites are good sources, but some images by contractors may be copyrighted.

Furthering on Ernest's point, you'll notice (once you start reading the TOSs (Terms of Service) that you can freely use anything produced by NASA, but you'll need to be careful, as several items (like images of the sun) are captured by privately funded telescopes of satellites, so the rights to those images are retained by those organization.

Luckily, in those cases, in keeping with NASA's philosophy, you're free to use most of those images, but you can't 'use them to sell' products (i.e. you can't use them for your front cover, but you're free to include them inside your books, where they'll be enjoyed after the customer has already chosen them).

It's an odd standard, trying to understand, but it works in most cases. It's like with photos of astronaughts. You're free to use the photos, but you can't include any NASA logs, despite their being a U.S. government agency, as NASA is extremely mindful of their images being used to 'promote' things in an impartial way.

Once you're comfortable with this line of thinking, it makes accessing the items easier (though you'll still have to read the TOS for every image you're interested in.

There are places you can get photos to use for free. But you must read the licensing for each photo. Some don't allow commercial use

Just as NASA does, 'free to use' doesn't mean the same thing in every instance. One classic case are 'professional use' vs. 'educational' or 'news' sources. This isn't due to the underlying rights, but the rights retained by the subjects in the photos.

Typically, when a photographer in a studio takes a photo, he gets clear authorization from each model, so the rights are clearcut. However, when a cameraman takes photos of an accident on the freeway, it's considered 'news', where the rules are slightly different. As long as the cameraman himself authorizes it as 'royalty free', you're free to use it, but only if you don't charge for it, as that violates the rights of everyone in the photo, who may never have realized they were even in the photo.

However, if the photographer does obtain the necessary model releases, and then releases the photo under a royalty free public license, the rights of the persons in the photo have still been exhausted.

Not quite. While my explanation wasn't fully detailed (as I related more in subsequent posts), the individual's rights do not mysteriously 'go away'. Instead, the various licenses separate images with model releases as 'professional use', while those without as released as 'educational' (i.e. solely non-profit uses), as most copyright laws have separate allowances for images taken of 'public events' (i.e. they grant allowances to use the images, but restrict how they can be used).

US copyright law (exclusively federal) does NOT recognize any personal image rights. Under US federal law a person whose image was published without a model release would have a claim ONLY against the photographer.

While I haven't read the specifics in copyright law (which I doubt would even apply), it's still a restriction continually repeated on virtually every photo sharing site I've encountered, so there is clearly some international law which restricts such blatant abuse from occurring. But since copyright only protects the actual words on a page, why are we even discussing this? There is nothing to copyright in a photograph!!!

Adding that it for text it only protects the actual words on a page, not the ideas those words represent, but copyright is not limited to text. Paintings, sculpture and other works of art are also protected on the plain text of both the US copyright acts and the Bern Convention.

Sorry, I was getting hung up on the 'literal' phrasing. But that doesn't mean that ALL image licensing is the same, as that's typically not covered by copyright law, but by the licensing authority (i.e. either the own themselves, or more often, the sites that purchase and promote their works). But the professional 'creative' and the 'informational' restrictions are fairly standard, given the inability to easily access and grant the rights of someone in a news 'event'.

NO, it protects music and images as well.

A lot of EU nations have laws protecting personal image rights (these are separate from copyright law that would protect the photographers rights to his work)

The original use of 'words on a page' results from music and artwork both being committed to physical substances (notebooks, songbooks and canvas or stone). With the advent of digital medium, it's often dangerous sticking with outdated terminology like that. Yet, it doesn't change how those images/songs are licensed, not how they're 'copyrighted'.

There is nothing to copyright in a photograph!!!

Photographs are copyright protected.

I have an original oil painting that I bought. I was thinking of using it for a book cover. After all, I bought it so it's mine. But although I own the physical painting, I do not own the copyright. I would need the artist's approval to use the image.

although I own the physical painting, I do not own the copyright. I would need the artist's approval to use the image.

Agreed, but the copyright law varies between visual images and literary (text) usages. Never having examined how to copyright images (other than knowing to get everything sighed and documented beforehand), I'm more knowledgable about what literary copyright covers. But you're right, I've seen plenty of copyrights (in the background text images of most photographs) to be familiar with it.

But, that's another reason to avoid using someone else's images, as each image typically has the photographer's digital fingerprint on it, and images are easily searched to determine who the 'true' owner is. Thinking that no one is looking is just asking for lawsuits.

By the way, if you do want to use an image professionally, there's (again) a different license for it. While they're typically more expensive (often covering the rights to make multiple duplicates), many photographers are more than willing to give authors liberal allowances in order to get their images wider distribution.

I believe if the cameraman is employed by a news organization, and the commercial usage of it is in a newspaper or the like, such as usage is considered "fair use" and those in the photos have no cause of action, even without permission.

Absolutely not! Instead, those are covered under a separate, non-'creative' licensing agreement. Trust me, I review a LOT of photos, considering my future books, and misusing images for the wrong purposes is like trying to drive a tank through a drive-thru. Sure, you can do it, but you'll pay for it in the end in legal fees and fines (or more likely, cancellation of your license agreements).

Like Ernest, I studiously read every ToS statement for each site, to determine what's specifically allowed and what's forbidden. Only this issue somehow falls between the cracks, and only turns up when you try to use the specific 'news' images. But they're NOT the same, and can't be treated the same either.

Whether the news organization or the photographer owns the actual rights to the image, the rules governing them are not the same as a general 'creative use' license.

I believe if the cameraman is employed by a news organization, and the commercial usage of it is in a newspaper or the like, such as usage is considered "fair use" and those in the photos have no cause of action, even without permission.

Wrong, every photographic image is owned by the photographer or the person who employs them to take the image as part of the copyright laws. You need the copyright holder's permission, usually prior permission, to use the image. Newspaper websites have a copyright statement on them about owning the images on the site or stating who the copyright owner is, which is why many media images show the 'courtesy of ...' statements with images.

The general copyright law on images of persons requires the photographer to get a signed release to be able to display them. However, most copyright laws allow an exception for photos taken at newsworthy events and for public places.

Also, stock.adobe.com allows you to get 10 free images (one time only). You sign up, download the images, but you must cancel before the next month or they'll charge your credit card (the first month is free). You must cancel before the free month ends.

Switch is right about this (as I was the one to alert him to this. Since there are multiple 'photo sites', you can often rotate between them. When you first sign up, they typically allow ten (10) 'free' downloads to try to convince you to continue paying them every month.

Thus the key is to visit the site (as a visitor), search for 10 images that you plan to use, then sign up, immediately select your ten images and then cancel before the end of the month. Then, assuming you need any more, you move on to the next site.

Just be sure to read the TOS statements, as they'll typically vary slightly with each site, and they'll also stipulate any stray clauses (like the 'news' vs. 'professional' uses of images).

I just realized your question may be bigger than images to use. Amazon has a book cover maker software. I never used it.

That's a safe case. Since Amazon doesn't 'charge' you for it's services, it's tools are essentially 'free', as long as you don't use them somewhere else.

Amazon and other 'distribution' sites make their money through royalties, or taking a portion of each sale, as opposed to the outright bogus scam sites, which charge you hundreds of dollars up-front to deliver boxes of printed books that you're unable to sell.

It won't help you, but the Mac outfit Affinity offers the exact same functionality as the extremely expensive Adobe products, but only charge a one-time fee of $49 dollars rather than the recurring $29 monthly fees. But I'd check, I seem to recall a recent announcement about Affinity opening its products for use on Linux systems too.

While their products aren't quite as easy to use as Adobe's (and are equally as difficult to learn and master), Affinity's are generally more limited (i.e. you can only save to Affinity's custom source format, not the universally accepted .tif images. You can export to .tif, but it won't preserve any layers you've saved). :(

You could always take a picture yourself, and use it without worrying over copyright issues.

Not always. Did you know any picture of the Eiffel Tower taken at night is copyrighted, even if you take the picture yourself?

Every photo you take yourself is copyrighted.

I meant it can't be used for a book cover even if you took it yourself.

Good luck enforcing that outside of France.

Where the Berne Convention holds sway or the local laws are based on it, then the restriction of the lighted images are an enforceable. The US is a bit different because they have laws different to the Berne Convention and it becomes more open for dispute there, especially after the Clinton era bullying of countries on copyright laws as part of trade deals.

Do you know if that was in effect then, or did it come after?

The Eiffel Tower itself has been public domain since 1993. However, the special lighting display set up in 1989 to mark the 100th anniversary is legally an 'original visual creation' protected by copyright. That has applied since 1989 and upheld in the courts and only applies to the lighted tower.

Another item to keep in mind is if the tower's presence in an image is incidental, say a night photo of the whole of Paris the French laws allow that because the tower is not the focus of the photo. However, take a photo of a person in front of the tower at night showing the whole tower and the person is only a minor part of the image and it is not seen as an incidental inclusion of the tower, while a photo centred on the person and the person taking up most of the image so only the legs of the tower show and it will be seen as an incidental inclusion.

From what the person responsible for managing the tower images said in 2005 about it being a way to manage commercial usage of the image, even by non-profit organisations, I very much doubt a tourist who took a night photo and only showed it at home would have anything to worry about. However, if they posted it on Facebook or Twitter or somewhere on the Internet where it will be copied and spread around, then they will likely have action taken against them, unless they paid for copyright permission.

typo edit

Did you know any picture of the Eiffel Tower taken at night is copyrighted, even if you take the picture yourself?

That's because the light display pattern is patented and thus not available for use in any form without prior written permission. Last I heard a daylight photo is the copyright of the photographer and you can take what you like until the lights get switched on.

Did you know any picture of the Eiffel Tower taken at night is copyrighted, even if you take the picture yourself?

That's because the light display pattern is patented and thus not available for use in any form without prior written permission. Last I heard a daylight photo is the copyright of the photographer and you can take what you like until the lights get switched on.

Again, this is the result of multiple, conflicting copyrights. Thus you each have your won copyrights over then same image, and any single copyright holder can restrict professional sales of the images. It's the same of taking street scenes, where the photographer and each individual subject retain separate copyrights of the image, each having to be resolved separately. :(

if you go print, it's much more complex. You have a front cover, a back cover, and a spine. All three are in one jpg.

That depends on the system you use. At Lulu there's an option where I use an image for the front cover while the spine and the back cover of the print book are done as a separate but linked part. On the back cover I can have a plain colour or themed cover with or without and inset small image.

if you go print, it's much more complex. You have a front cover, a back cover, and a spine. All three are in one jpg. And the width of the spine changes with the number of pages and thickness of the paper. And you need to account for bleed on the edges.

I routinely handle these, so can help you figure them out (hint: the requirements vary with each site, so you'll need to download the dimensions for each book from the site before submitting them). For example, Direct2Digital's beta site applies the same margin requirements for the spine as it does the front and back covers, meaning you really can't include anything easily recognizable on the spine.

If anyone wants any assistance, drop me a note and I'll walk you through the process (typically, once your book is ready, they'll provide the needed dimensions, along with a 'prototype' you can import into Adobe Photoshop, Affinity Images or even Gimp to shift your margins the proper amount).

as my first attempt in publishing, i will stick to E-form for now.
I found a site and a pic i like, now i need to learn how to modify it to fit.

Your approach is the correct one. You'll need to ensure you own the rights to the particular image (which often vary based on sales volume (i.e. if you sell over 50,000, you'll have to purchase an additional more expensive license), but once you've done that, you can then use it multiple times (though again, this varies per license).

As Ernest noted, GIMP is a widely used image editing software, though it's a it awkward to use. The Mac's Affinity apps are reasonably priced, while Adobe's are subscription based, like Microsoft's. However, there are loads of relatively easy to follow guide on Google and YouTube (Affinity's are included with the apps).

As Ernest noted, GIMP is a widely used image editing software, though it's a it awkward to use.

I switched from Adobe Photoshop 5 to GIMP years ago because my Photoshop 5 didn't work on the then latest version of Windows and the latest Adobe software was a real bastard to wo0rk with when compared to Photoshop 5. I found GIMP to be very similar to Photoshop 5 at the time and an easy switch. However, if you are used to the idiotic ribbon and tons of icon menu strips instead of a menu list, then you would find GIMP a bit different to what you're used to using.

I found GIMP to be very similar to Photoshop 5 at the time and an easy switch. However, if you are used to the idiotic ribbon and tons of icon menu strips instead of a menu list, then you would find GIMP a bit different to what you're used to using.

I myself switched over to the Mac's Affinity products years ago ($24 each for a lifetime license) for a nearly identical product to the latest Adobe products, but I still find Photoshop much easier to use, as everything else is essentially a work-around. :(

But, not having tried Gimp myself (switching directly from Windows to Mac), all I'm doing is reporting the general buzz I hear from those switching to GIMP over the years. Yes, it's easy enough to do, but that doesn't make it a painless task.

I really don't understand why you would search the internet for a cover picture to fit your book. Nowadays it's so easy to take a picture with your phone. You would have to use a photo editor anyway to make it fit so why not take a picture that truly represents your book?

I don't have a cameraphone. I don't suppose I could persuade you to take a photo of your pink poodle for me to use as a book cover, could I?

AJ

Congratulations, you're one of the very few without a smart phone

I don't have a mobile phone full stop. I don't know how the UK authorities plan to track my movements under the coronavirus emergency legislation ;)

I'm actually surprised to learn that you have a white poodle. Are they as intelligent and loyal as claimed?

AJ

Are they trying to make the corona app mandatory in the UK?

I don't think there's any chance of that. But I believe the government was mulling over asking Apple to anonymously supply users' movement data so they could assess how well the lockdown was being obeyed.

By-the-way, I don't have a white poodle, I thought you had one but you wanted it to be pink.

I was joking about your putative poodle ownership. I still have it in mind to publish a certain novel as an e-book one day despite the almost overwhelming complications. The only possible cover has to be of the inciting incident - the pink poodle.

AJ

It will cost you $33 but here's your pink poodle.
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/cotton-candy-poodle-gm140464151-3373040

That's not much to pay for the perfect picture. And if that one isn't perfect, there are more at the site.

Thank you!

However my budget is 0$ - nobody in their right mind would actually pay for a story with my title and description :(

AJ

There's plenty of people out there who aren't in their right mind.

I believe that's supposed to be because it's the right mind that works logicically. With 99.5% of the population not being able to understand basic logic or cause and effect you know only 0.5% of the people can be in their right mind.

While the specific percentage is subject to debate, ~85% of people are right handed, and therefore think primarily with the left brain aka the susposed logical side.

Sorry, but your logic, science and statistics are faulty. Right-handedness does NOT correlate with using the left hemisphere of the brain, and no reputable science has ever asserted it (though plenty of fly-by-night quacks certainly do).

Most of what's know about right/left brain thinking was discovered, NOT by analyzing what most people do, but by studying how those recovering from traumatic brain injuries recover and regain the skills they lost. Otherwise, it's like saying that 80% of people believe that women are too 'emotional' to vote/hold office simply because of the number of morons attacking them is so heavily slanted against them.

Look around this forum... You'd make a fortune...!!

I didn't actually mean in the sense left hemisphere - female, right hemisphere - male. And there aren't that many women here on SOL compared to men :(

AJ

However my budget is 0$ - nobody in their right mind would actually pay for a story with my title and description :(

There are also a LOT of free-image sites, though with those, you need to be careful about which links you click, lest you get taken somewhere you'd rather not venture!

That's not much to pay for the perfect picture. And if that one isn't perfect, there are more at the site.

iStock's a reputable site, with loads of useful images. However, their prices are more expensive than many sites (because you're paying for each individual image), and their catalogue isn't nearly as extensive. (I used them for years before finally moving to a subscription service, which is way above most authors needs!)

Are they trying to make the corona app mandatory in the UK? Here in the Netherlands they already stated that it won't be mandatory, that is to say if they ever get to select one that actually works.

At least with the newer Google and Apple apps (which are more widely used), they've gone to extremes to ensure that they retains the individual's privacy (i.e. they don't report any individual's personal identifying information, and the stipulation of who is Covid-19 positive is also a self-designation, as the government has no way to dictating it to anyone).

Personally, I'd trust Apple much more than I would Google (as Google routinely flaunts the rules, while Apple struggles to ensure it's users privacy, but both run afoul of the rules on multiple occasions). But as long as the devices are not identifying the individuals involved, it really doesn't matter whether they're also tracking your uses, contacts and movements. (Famous last words!)

Most likely, facial recognition through the forest of government cameras they have there.

We may be the most surveilled country that pretends to be 'free', but the majority of cameras are local government and such poor quality as to effectively be useless.

AJ

For the same reason that shops put cardboard policemen in their shop windows? So the public feel threatened into doing what the authorities deem is the right thing?

My local authorities often put a picture of a miscreant on the internet (fly-tippers, muggers etc) but I reckon the average person knows about half a dozen people who might possibly be the person in the image. I'm not aware of any instances when the perp was actually identified that way.

AJ

To get speeders to slow down, some departments will put empty squad cars on the edge of the interstate highways

This goes back to the 1970s. I think it was in Pennsylvania but not sure. They put cars that were totaled (really smashed up) on the side of the highways to get people to drive slower, more carefully.

I've read stories of some departments going so far as to put a dummy in the driver's seat.

Everywhere I've traveled (in the States), this is routine. In fact, rather than using easily recognizable dummies, most police cars now routinely employ 'darkened' windows, that appear dark from the outside, but can easily be viewed from the inside. But I pass the exact same 'dummy cars' every day/week, despite every (local) knowing that they don't do anything. Of course, they key is knowing when they aren't dummies!

How many pictures of sleeping calico cats or a sleeping sealpoint Siamese could you use? Free, just credit the cat.

Or, just use then same cat each time, repainting it as needed. ;)

just use then same cat each time

Wouldn't that be considered pussy porn?

I really don't understand why you would search the internet for a cover picture to fit your book. Nowadays it's so easy to take a picture with your phone. You would have to use a photo editor anyway to make it fit so why not take a picture that truly represents your book? If you don't like it you just take another photo and try again. No worries about copyright because you will own the copyright.

As someone's who's designed his own covers for years, there are still issues. I 'created' my own images to precisely fit my books, patching various images together, but these are incredibly difficult to pull off, even when you know wtf you're doing.

What's more, if you use anyone (besides yourself) as a model, you'll need to download a photographer's 'rights allowance' document and get it signed (trust me, an ex is likely to 'change their mind' once they're no longer an active girlfriend).

But, at least in my case, my personally crafted images were rarely as successful as the stock images I purchase (though a subscription service, where they only cost $4 per image). The image is that the lighting varies for each image you combine, and it's incredibly difficult to overcome those lighting/shading issues.

The key, emphasized repeatedly by designers, is that book covers are NOT literal representations of what's in the book (since professional designers rarely read the books they're hired to provide covers for). Instead, covers convey the central themes and impressions. Thus while they won't represent actual events within the book, as long as they convey what the book covers, most readers will accept it.

Again, covers sell books, they're not intended to aid the reading of the book once it's purchased.

You still haven't convinced me. Let's face it, a (front-)cover is basically a picture with some text above, below, or over it. Nothing more nothing less. That you make it yourself difficult by combining pictures and run into lighting differences is your choice, not what is necessary. If you stick to photo's without people or let the model sign a standard release it should top 90% of your cover-needs.

The point, and I did have one, however many months ago I responded to this thread the last time, is that it's typically a losing proposition to try to duplicate specific scenes from within the book. So, you're basically arguing with yourself, since I was emphasizing your point.

However, simply tacking a generic image along with some generic text and shipping it out virtually shouts "Amateur" to anyone looking to purchase it. While that's ok for some (ex: the vast majority of Bookapy books), some of prefer to aim a little higher.

The other issue with 'doing it yourself', if you've never attempted to sell photographs or other designs before, is that there are a whole raft of specific laws governing these issues, which is completely independent of literary copyright law. You can work around them, but you need to do the necessary research first. While I do the same myself, I wouldn't encourage anyone to run out and start snapping pictures with their phones to use as their covers without understanding model releases.

IMO David Baldacci's dead-tree novels have very amateurish covers. Each looks as though a photographer has taken a picture of someone running, then a techie has semi-cartoonised it so it's not a recognisable person.

My guess is that someone running is supposed to depict an action story.

AJ

As an example of what can be done, you need only look at the Table of Contents page or opening page of my stories as they all have the cover image on them.

I'll admit, you have many excellent covers, but you're continually reusing the same cover images over and over conveys a lack of enthusiasm for your books. While it's understandable, as most of those are older books you're only now posting to Bookapy, it unintentionally undermines your more recent books. Just my opinion, though. I'm sure many people never consider such things when purchasing books.

I'll admit, you have many excellent covers, but you're continually reusing the same cover images over and over conveys a lack of enthusiasm for your books.

In most cases I use the same images to show the stories are part of the same series, which is a common thing with most print books and it helps readers to connect them as a series. There are other cases where I've found and image that does a dang good representation of what I want the story to convey, and thus follow the saying of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'