Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

I stumbled across a real headache, and have unwound a bunch of it but it's going to take some major work:

http://www.goodreads.com/librarian/us...

This librarian, for months, apparently has been changing covers of books to the full cover art of the artists, rather than the actual covers. A lot of them are as simple as just deleting the photo she uploaded, and Amazon's is able to restore the actual cover, but a number of them seem to be older editions that no longer exist on Amazon.

So this is me flailing my arms about. Any help on this would be amazing, because wow... 60 pages of edits to slog through.

That's sort of weird.

Caroline, Did you by any chance message the librarian?

She's also been adding cover artists as secondary authors, which I think is unnecessary. To say the least.

Thank you Rivka!, and Caroline for bringing it to our attention!

Susan is a GR friend of mine. I think she means well, she is a big fan of illustrators.

Is she uploading an image that then takes the place of the cover pic?

The ones I've seen, she's added the illustration original to a comment field of hers for the particular book.

As for adding the cover artist in the secondary author position, is she putting 'Illustrator' or 'Cover Artist' in the secondary field? If she isn't then I think she just needs to be informed of that guideline.

Like I said, I think she means well - she's a very enthusiastic GoodReader!

Carolyn, I believe you. Since you know Susan, maybe you could message her and explain why what's she's doing isn't what Goodreads members are supposed to do, and why, and how it's supposed to work here. Otherwise, I'm sure Jessica or someone from GR will explain nicely.

It could be that she thinks she's "adding" the artwork rather than "replacing" it.

As a Science Fiction and Fantasy reader, I can tell you that this will likely come up again in this genre. We are very attached to our favorite artists, and have been known to buy a book based solely on who did the art on the cover.

I don't have any issue with adding them, especially since she is including 'illustrator' or 'cover artist' (at least on the few I checked).

What I do see as a problem, is using the url field to link to the artist's webpage. This edition of The Name of the Wind is one example.

Yes, I checked and she is adding either 'cover artist' or 'illustrator' appropriately.

I sent her a pm to check this thread so that we can all discuss.

Please, everyone play nice. = )

Carolyn, I don't understand. Are you saying what's being added are the actual covers or some other art? Thanks.

Well, I haven't seen what Caroline is referring to.

Per the graphics, I was referring to seeing Susan post the cover art in either the comments/reviews under a book, or as a message to a review.

Per the artist name in the secondary author field that rivka mentioned - when I went in and checked a bunch of books (after my original post), I found that she is adding either 'cover artist' or 'illustrator' appropriately after the name of the artist. Meaning, she's not just sticking the name in the second author position without clarifying their role.

Does that make sense?
Let me know...

Here is one example:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42...

She has uploaded the original artwork for the book, rather than the cover.

The cover can be seen here:

http://www.geocities.com/diva_v2000/O...

Now, in her defense, the covers that I checked are either not available on Amazon, or Amazon has a very poor user added image.

OK, see what you mean now...

Don't fix that one yet, ok?

Thanks for the example Vicki!

Its really pretty and Im fond of seeing the cover art in its original "proof" state (or whatever you call that), but of course, as a book site, we need to show what the book looks like...and having the title and author show up on the front cover *is* rather important

Thanks for all the responses, I posted that frazzled last night and hadn't had a chance to message Susan in a coherent way. I did change a bunch of covers that I knew were inaccurate, for example this title:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45...

She had the original art replacing the actual cover:

http://www.stephenyoull.com/Fantasy30...

A number of them I was able to just delete the image she uploaded, and it reverted back to the cover that Amazon.com had. I noticed on quite a few, that she had uploaded images also onto Amazon.com as customer images, so I figure that's part of where the confusion came from is the difference in the two systems.

I only caught it because I have quite a number of the edited books on my shelves and I'd noticed the images were off on some while I was fiddling with my bookshelves.

Carolyn wrote: "Yes, I checked and she is adding either 'cover artist' or 'illustrator' appropriately."

I disagree that "cover artist" is an appropriate role to be adding. But I am prepared to be overruled. ;)

rivka wrote:

"Carolyn wrote: "Yes, I checked and she is adding either 'cover artist' or 'illustrator' appropriately."

I disagree that "cover artist" is an appropriate role to be adding. But I am prepared to be overruled. ;)"

I don't think that cover artist is particularly important information to note, but there's no reason not to -- if we have the cover art*, why not have the cover artist, right?

* Qua cover, I mean, not the original artwork used to make the cover. I agree with the rest of the thread that the image of the actual cover should be shown as the cover art.

Are we also adding the person who wrote the preface? The author's agent? The copy-editor? The cover designer?

*shrug* I love Whelan's work. His name absolutely belongs on collections of his paintings/covers. I just don't think it belongs in the GR book listing for each of the Pern books.

Welllll...I do agree with Vicki who mentions that lots of sf/f readers are big fans of many of the cover artists. (There's a good reason why many of them release books of their artwork. = ) Some of them multiple times...Boris Vallejo, Michael Whelan, Louis Royo)

Making a huge generalization here, but I think you're also going to find the largest proportion of original paintings on sf/f book covers - more so than any other genre. IMHO

So, I'd say that it's not something that all librarians would take up doing - finding cover artists - but I do think that 'cover artist' is an appropriate role to be adding.

Edited to add: In many cases, the writer of a foreword is listed on a book.

I am still confused. Shouldn't the book cover be the image being added. Other art work by the artist who created the cover might be terrific but why would it be added. Or, do I misunderstand (very possibly) what's being discussed here?

Lisa, this latest discussion is about whether or not the cover artist is information to put on the book.

Ah!!! I finally get it. Thanks Carolyn. Hmm. I have mixed feelings. My first thought was to vote no but cover art is very important to me. I'm very attached to the original cover of A Wrinkle in Time for instance, and there have been many other covers since the original.

Are cover artists always even always named somewhere in books? I read all info in books and I don't think I always see who did the cover, usually but not always.

Not sure of all genres, but for the most part sf/f books list the cover artist. Usually on the copyright page, so you wouldn't see it unless you look there.

Only the actual book cover art should be added to the database, but I do think that cover artist is a valid thing to have on here, BUT it shouldnt be in the same place as the author, translator, etc. There should be an "interesting information" section of sorts that could mention that. In fact, I think the foreword, afterword people should be separated as well...maybe even the translator.

Lisa wrote: "I am still confused. Shouldn't the book cover be the image being added. Other art work by the artist who created the cover might be terrific but why would it be added."

The problem is that in certain cases the image of the book cover, which is art plus title plus author plus all the other stuff that makes a book cover layout, was being replaced with just the plain art as it was before it was turned into the cover of a book.

For a good example of cover art versus plain art, look at these two books: (1) and (2). That's the same underlying artwork but two different book covers! If you replaced both covers with the same art, how would you visually match your edition?

I would think uploading the original artwork (as opposed to the cover itself) would open us to the same sort of potential legal issues as uploading author images without their permission.

That is also a likely problem.

It should be just the actual images on the covers, in my opinion. I don't understand why anything else would be ok.

If in the book description field for an edition, someone wants to enter who designed the cover, that would be ok with me.

I agree that the description area would be a good spot for that information.

Carolyn asked me to join the group. I try NOT to delete the cover that's already there (unless it is horrible and I can't find the actual book cover) and add the "clean" image to those versions taht have been added that don't have it--or better yet add it to the item description.

I believe that the cover artist deserves credit for their work. An author writes a book, but much of the time, especially in sf/f art we pick up the book for the cover if it's an author we've never read.

Do you all feel that the artist doesn't deserve recognition for their hard work, too? We're distributing their work; I think we should always recognize all the artistic input. Like with anthologies, all the contributors as well as the editor.

If I'm doing wrong, please let me know.

Lisa wrote: "It should be just the actual images on the covers, in my opinion. I don't understand why anything else would be ok.

If in the book description field for an edition, someone wants to enter who designed the cover, that would be ok with me."

I agree with this entirely. I'm a big fan of
Frank Frazetta & his paintings are cover art for many different books. Various editions have different layouts for the work. The original artwork itself & any images of just it are copyrighted & can't be posted here, though.

Giving Frazetta credit, especially in a searchable way would be great. I've followed his work for years & don't everything published. I'd love to list it to collect it.

Giving Frazetta credit, especially in a searchable way would be great.

Unfortunately, information in the book description field is not searchable. We're back to possibly having a field for the name(s) of illustrators who create the art for the book covers, although I guess the existing author/illustrator fields could be used, so back to the original debate.

Susan wrote: "Carolyn asked me to join the group. I try NOT to delete the cover that's already there (unless it is horrible and I can't find the actual book cover) and add the "clean" image to those versions ta..."

Susan, the "clean" image is not the book cover - it's copyrightable and is not yours (or GoodReads') to publish here. Yes, illustrators deserve credit, but not in that way.

In addition to the compelling point of copyright, consider the fact that uploading original cover art belies the purpose that the book cover image field serves. The cover image should identify the book and its author, not just show off the cover artwork.

I have a widget on my website that shows people the covers of the books I'm currently reading. In most cases, they should be able to glean the title of the book and hopefully the author from the cover image. If the book's cover image has been replaced with the original cover artwork, then that information is lost, and they have to hover over the image to get a tooltip with the information.

I don't have a problem with people giving credit to the cover artist. I'm not sure if giving them a role as an "author" is the best way to do it--I lean more toward listing them in the description field.

Well said, Ben. I agree entirely with each of your points. (And you stated them so much more elegantly, too!)

Yep, I completely agree with Ben and definitely couldn't say it better myself!

Ben wrote: "I don't have a problem with people giving credit to the cover artist. I'm not sure if giving them a role as an "author" is the best way to do it"
Isn't that exactly the point? They're being given the role of "cover artist", not "author".

Given the importance attributed to the cover art when people choose books, my personal feeling is that listing the artist is a good thing for GR. I have several times been persuaded to buy or read a book on the strength of knowing that the particular cover artist does a good job and that the picture is actually relevant to the story. Cases in point: Michael Whelan as already mentioned; Jody A. Lee; Donato Giancola; Chris McGrath. Do I even need to mention Darrell K. Sweet? I would find it very useful to be able to look up an artist on GR to find a book which I vaguely recall seeing without registering the author (as has indeed happened to me in the past).

OK, so the paperback sitting next to me also lists people responsible for the "cover design" and "interior text design" which might be going a bit far, but on some books that's actually important. Who remembers the big reveal on Terry Pratchett's Reaper Man ? Absolute genius (totally ruined in the paperback edition, by the way)!

Phil wrote: "Isn't that exactly the point? They're being given the role of "cover artist", not "author"."
I'm just not convinced that the role of cover artist deserves that much weight (insert much gasping here).

The people we list as "authors" on a book, regardless of role, are people who have done something to the text itself--editors, translators, etc. Illustrators also work heavily with the text, as it's their job to translate the story into pictures, so I have no problem with crediting them as "authors". One might argue that cover artists fall under this criterion as well. There may exist covers whose artists have managed to translate the literary work into a single image. But that is not universally the case. Often the cover is simply an eye-catching place for the title and the name of the author.

Now, up until this point, I have been completely oblivious to this subculture of cover artist admirers. That's not to say that I think cover artists are undeserving of praise. I'm just confessing that I have never chosen a book based on its cover art or on the name of the artist. And the thought never occurred to me, until this topic appeared, that cover artists would have followings. This is my oversight, of course, but hopefully it explains the origin of my perspective.

It's essentially a value judgement, which is why I can see the argument for adding the cover artist in that role to the list of authors. I see your point about looking up a book based on cover artist (I've just never done it before, nor will I ever do it). I'm not going to be stubborn and insist that we can't add cover artists if that's eventually what we librarians decide is the best policy. But I can't be a proponent for such a proposal, sorry.

I, OTOH, have long been aware of the "subculture of cover artist admirers". ;) As a long-time Pern fan who was once fairly active in the fandom, I'd have to be fairly oblivious not to be. And there are definitely better and worse cover artists!

However, I cannot imagine buying or not buying a book based on its cover art. Unless it were a collection of cover art or another art book.

Or if Fabio's there (sorry, couldn't resist).

I'd buy it anyway and put a cover on it. :P

As a fan of pulp fantasy novels, I can definitely imagine buying a book based on its cover art -- if I'm holding two copies of a used book in my hands and one cover is lovely while the other one is ridiculous, I know which one I'm taking home!

Also, on the original subject of the thread, I just thought I'd throw this reminder out there: trade paperback collections of comic books are often announced with artwork in the place of the cover, but often Amazon will pick up the actual cover later so there's an easy refresh to update the Goodreads record. I ran into this just yesterday. :)

Sorry I missed the weekend discussion - I was offline...

Personally, I think it hurts nothing to add the cover artist (with proper role attribution), and would/could benefit many readers of GR...so, why not?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a significant desire for this in the sf/f genre books, so why not allow it where it is wanted? The cover artist need not be added to everything, or mandated as such, but why not allow the librarians who are fans to add this information if wanted?

As for buying/not buying a book based on the cover art, here's a whole thread of a discussion on the same topic on the sf/f book group:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

It seems like offering a second tier of authorship might solve this: searchable but not displaying on the primary byline. It seems to me that casual browsers could find having too many people on the authorship line rather confusing. Also the case of books with several successive artists on different editions. Things could get very crowded. Though I'm certainly for providing as much information as possible, and giving credit wherever it is due.

There was a very similar discussion in regards to audiobooks which now have the role of "narrator" in addition to author. Audiobook lovers frequently want to be able to listen to books read by certain narrators. If in the same way there are people who want to find books based on the cover artist, then i think a cover artist role (or something similar) should be added.
the information needs to be searchable although whether or not it appears in the primary byline is not an issue for me.

Nate, I don't think it would get crowded, as the cover artist would be specified by edition, as you mentioned. So any edition you looked at would have the author and the cover artist for that edition.

I think as long as the actual author is showing in the primary position, allowing the books to be combined correctly, that Narrator, Illustrator, Cover Artist, etc are all fine in the next position. It isn't about giving them 'weight' per se, it is just about making the info available in a searchable manner. GR is, after all, a database (and so much more, of course! = )

Elizabeth wrote: "There was a very similar discussion in regards to audiobooks which now have the role of "narrator" in addition to author. Audiobook lovers frequently want to be able to listen to books read by cer..."

I would contend that a narrator plays a crucial role in interpreting the work while a cover artist does not. This was the point of many who argued in favour of the new Kindle's Text-to-Speech capability--a human narrator adds inflection and interpretation we cannot achieve through machine-generated speech. The narrator can significantly affect the quality of the audiobook. Therefore, I understand why one would want to seek out narrators one admires or avoid those one dislikes. A terrible cover, on the other hand, does not modify the book one way or the other.

Carolyn wrote: "It isn't about giving them 'weight' per se, it is just about making the info available in a searchable manner."

That's a good point. Considering it from that angle, I'll concede that I would rather choose to list cover artists in such a role in the author field instead of creating an additional "sub-tier" of attribution for books. Keep it simple. :) But while I won't be adding cover artists to books any time soon, I'm not going to start running around removing them when they show up.

One cover artist issue is that sometimes the cover art is created completely independently of the book, that is, the artist happens to create a painting (let's say) and the publisher later pays for the right to use it as a cover. This is very different then when a piece of artwork is actually designed to be the cover of a book.

I personally give almost no weight to the cover art when choosing a book; the correlation between the cover art and the writing is essentially zero so the art says more about the publisher than the writing. In fact, in many cases the author has no say on the cover art.

And may in fact dislike it quite intensely.