2nd Edition Cover Art - Thoughts?

[Dan Jones]

In advance of some significant releases I've got planned for this year, I've decided to release a second edition of my non-fiction philosophy book, "Eat Yourself, Clarice!" This is to give it a more professional look so it sits well alongside my newer releases.

This is the updated cover, and I wondered if anybody had any feedback on it. I realise that the subject matter won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm more after thoughts about the cover design.

 

[Boneman]

I think Clarice's bum was smaller than that... A scholarly tome with a pulp-fiction (for want of a better description) cover. No concerns that you'll fall between two stools - attract thrill seekers by the cover, but put off the scholarly?

 

[Dan Jones]

Pulp fiction?! That's Goya, you... you... osteopath!

 

[Wruter]

The perfect Valentine's gift!

You can quote me if you like.

I'm not exactly au fait with the market you're going for here but the only things which caught my attention design-wise were the gap at the bottom between the line and the author name, and the italics of the main title -- but perhaps if it's a quote you're sticking to correctness in the formatting.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

As someone who might actually be attracted to the subject matter, the cover says nothing about philosophy to me...

 

[Dan Jones]

@Wruter good spot about the gapping, I'll try to move my name lower down. And yes, nothing screams romance like a Titan devouring his own offspring, does it?

@Jo Zebedee Do you think a short subtitle would be in order? They are fairly common on NF covers, and might help bring some clarity. Having said that, any subtitle would be all but unreadable on a thumbnail...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

yes, it might help.

 

[HareBrain]

I think it's pretty attention-grabbing (if not actually pretty). My only comment would be the author's name is not only bigger than the title, but brighter (or so it looks). An illustration of the book's thesis, perhaps?

 

[Dan Jones]

@HareBrain no, it's not pretty, is it? But it's art, so it's art. I think that's how art works. As for putting my name in lights, I got the colours wrong (he says!).

Tweaked slightly in light of the above comments.

 

[RX-79G]

Between the "Banal History...", the new subtitle and the back cover, I really can't get a sense what the book is about. Probably the back cover discussion, but the front cover verbiage gives two other very different impression.

"The study with help the reader understand:" sounds a bit presumptive, as if the author isn't submitting a theory for consideration, but is the keeper and purveyor of a "truth" which the reader needs "help" to understand.

I like the art, outlining and black background. I just have doubts about the impression what's written on the cover conveys.

 

[Juliana]

I think Clarice's bum was smaller than that...

the cover says nothing about philosophy to me...

Hmm, at first glance I'd agree, but then according to the title and to the cover quote you seem to have a slightly tongue-in-cheek approach to your subject, so perhaps the art works just fine. Did you have to pay royalties to use it? (Just curious.)

I'm not really sure about your use of italics in the title, though. Might it not look cleaner/less cluttered (and yes I know academic titles are a pain!) without the italics? Just a thought.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It's certainly very striking!

Did you have to pay royalties to use it? (Just curious.)

My question exactly. For those reading here who don't already know it: sometimes art that seems like it ought to be in the public domain because the artist died so long ago is the property of the museum that owns it, and they are entitled to royalties.

I don't know why this is so different from other parts of copyright law, but it is.

 

[Cathbad]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it's the picture of the artwork that is actually protected by copyright. No?

 

[Dan Jones]

The image itself (of the painting) is in the public domain in accordance with the countries I'll be selling the book in. The artist died over 100 years ago hence is in the public domain. The only action is to state why this piece of art is in the public domain, which I'll do in the publication details in the endpapers.

As a side note, the original is displayed in the Museo Del Prado in Madrid, and coincidentally I'll be in Madrid in a couple of weeks, so I might swing by the museum and ask an expert and catch a glimpse of the real thing.

Latest version, with subtitle added and italics removed.

 

[Juliana]

The image itself (of the painting) is in the public domain in accordance with the countries I'll be selling the book in. The artist died over 100 years ago hence is in the public domain. The only action is to state why this piece of art is in the public domain, which I'll do in the publication details in the endpapers.

Interesting! Thanks for clearing that up.

Personally, I prefer this non-italicised version.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

If the museum doesn't allow people to take photos and produce all the photographs of the image themselves, then they do own copyright to any copies of the image that you are likely to have found anywhere, and they therefore have the right to charge royalties. Which so far as I know, all the big museums do. And those royalties aren't small. (Some of those copies you might have seen around the web and elsewhere, Dan, could well have been used in violation of copyright. People can be quite generous about sharing things that aren't actually theirs. Most of them don't know the law, so they don't mean to be deceptive.)

But for all I know the Prado might be different from most other European museums. Maybe it's possible to reproduce that image without paying royalties. But to be on the safe side it's good that you are going there and can ask someone who works for the museum. It could save you some grief later on. (Or it could allow you to use the image without worrying about it, if it turns out that the museum doesn't actually mind.)

 

[Glitch]

Here are two articles I found on the subject of copyright and works of art.

Must You Pay to Use Photos of Public Domain Artworks? No, Says a Legal Expert | The Huffington Post

Copyright User – Public Domain

 

[Dan Jones]

Cheers Dave, those are two really good articles and seem to be in line with my understanding of the rules.

In fact those are so useful that you might want to add them to the self-publishing resources so others know they are and aren't allowed to use. I certainly am thinking of using some other public domain works to illustrate some other books I have in the pipeline, so this is great. Thanks again.

 

[pambaddeley]

If the museum doesn't allow people to take photos and produce all the photographs of the image themselves, then they do own copyright to any copies of the image that you are likely to have found anywhere, and they therefore have the right to charge royalties. Which so far as I know, all the big museums do. And those royalties aren't small. (Some of those copies you might have seen around the web and elsewhere, Dan, could well have been used in violation of copyright. People can be quite generous about sharing things that aren't actually theirs. Most of them don't know the law, so they don't mean to be deceptive.)

But for all I know the Prado might be different from most other European museums. Maybe it's possible to reproduce that image without paying royalties. But to be on the safe side it's good that you are going there and can ask someone who works for the museum. It could save you some grief later on. (Or it could allow you to use the image without worrying about it, if it turns out that the museum doesn't actually mind.)

Would reiterate what Teresa says. It might depend on law in Spain also or EU law. Have certainly come across a situation where a museum in the UK would not allow any photography (of paintings from the Tudor period where the artists aren't even known in a lot of cases). And some places that allow you to take your own do so only for private purposes, with commercial purposes being ruled out and requiring application to that body, e.g. the National Trust, to negotiate use for a fee which, as Teresa says, could well be substantial.

 

[hopewrites]

I note that when I was last in my favorite book sellers, wandering the shelves, slowly murdering time... The academic philosophy books ether had plain covers (color back drop, text only) or famous art that alluded to the tenor of the content. So it looks fine to me.

I do like the most current version you've posted in this thread best. Might pick up a copy, as I know someone to whom this might appeal.
When were you thinking of releasing?