Sarah Weinman has a really great discussion/explanation of imprints going on at Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind. See:
Publisher Imprint Report Card, Part I
And
Publisher Imprint Report Card, Part II
(To which I must confess, that Imprints drove me nuts as bookseller and still have the power to confuse me today.)
JA Konrath debunks “The Myth of the Good Book.”
Penguin has created its own "Peguin Authors Guide to Online Marketing." It's a large PDF so careful about clicking if your downloading speeds are, shall we say, insufficient. The guide has some very useful information in it, but it also lingers a bit in some unnecessary areas. I'll blog more on this later.
Just in case you missed it everywhere else, Cory Doctorow on why "Publishers should have a /covers directory." One of the arguments against this, in the comments focuses on the image rights and whether or not publishers have said rights to display without payment. This got me to thinking how the whole rights system when it comes to cover art is very last decade. With so much focus given to online marketing a cover is necessary for the process. If bloggers can't find the image from the publisher they'll just get a poorer version from Google or Amazon, circumventing the system. Sure, they could be hit with a take down notice, but wouldn't the use of the cover by a blogger constitute fair use if said blogger wasn't making a profit? Where do you draw the line?
1 comment:
I recall an appellate court decision indicating that a thumbnail size (something 200 by 200) was fair use. It might have been the Perfect Ten v. Google case. In any event the determination of the court was that the small size of a web image did not affect the marketability of the image.
Post a Comment