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.|
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.