Did the NYT Just Rip Us Off?

  • SHARES

By Kathryn Comment

After reading the first three paragraphs of “With Covers, Publishers Take More Than Page From Rivals”, I coded this table in an indignation-frenzy:

GalleyCat New York Times
“Because Much More Than a Book’s Content is Prone to Unoriginality” “With Covers, Publishers Take More Than Page From Rivals”
Dec. 16, 2004 – April 29, 2005 July 7, 2005
Entry no. 1, Dec. 16: GC compares covers of The Task of This Translator and The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Paragraph no.s 2-3: The NYT compares covers of The Task of This Translator and The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
TK TK
TK TK

But, as the intact TKs demonstrate, the Times piece isn’t the play-for-play rip-off I expected. Following the opening grafs are explanations of what we, at GC, have been content to just make fun of:

Sometimes the photographs on book covers are not just similar, but exact duplicates. Rather than pay photographers’ day rates, most book designers turn to stock-photography agencies. Top agencies charge $1,200 to $1,500 a photograph, and twice that for exclusive rights, a premium publishers are loath to pay.

That’s where the trouble starts.

Still, given that webloggers *were* consulted and quoted, we’re downgrading our indignation just one notch, to resentment and displeasure.

Advertisement
Advertisement