Moonlightaholics

PNWgal wrote:Can he do that? That looks a hell of a lot like Mick, and I've gotta wonder if there's some kind of copyright issue here.

I'd also like to note that it's very unlikely that Trevor had anything to do with the image. We've learned elsewhere on the board that authors have very little control of the cover art for their books. It was most likely chosen by the Italian publisher and I would think that the publisher would be on top of any potential legal issues.

That's true...I'm sure they've covered all their bases.

It just IRKS me that they've used Mick's image. Trevor's made it pretty clear Mick Angel is NOT Mick St. John, and to use Mick's image just seems...deceitful to me.

Lilly wrote:

PNWgal wrote:Can he do that? That looks a hell of a lot like Mick, and I've gotta wonder if there's some kind of copyright issue here.

I'd also like to note that it's very unlikely that Trevor had anything to do with the image. We've learned elsewhere on the board that authors have very little control of the cover art for their books. It was most likely chosen by the Italian publisher and I would think that the publisher would be on top of any potential legal issues.

There may be two questions here - does the image infringe on copyright and does Alex need to give his permission for using his likeness?

Legal issues aside, there's something about that face that is not quite Mick St. John. Something in the expression just looks, for lack of a better word, meaner. It's hard to put a finger on, but it's not the same. Strong resemblence, yes, but not the same.

And I'm betting the Italian publisher has the bases covered--but we also should be aware that the copyright law on such things varies wildly from country to country, and what might be illegal in the US, may be standard practice elsewhere.

It looks like a badly rendered painting of Mick St. John to me. I agree with Carol that the mouth and ears are wrong... and Lucky, I think it's that narrow mouth that makes him look meaner.

Note also that the anatomy of the neck and shoulders is weird. Look how deep the neckline of his shirt is. But I do wonder a bit about whether Alex would be entitled to compensation for the use of his likeness, however poorly done...

This is why I think there may be an Alex - likeness issue - it's the same pouty expression - although Alex doesn't have blue eyes

I vote they give Alex money. Cuz this is clearly meant to evoke him, even if it is not a perfect likeness, whether that is purposefully imperfect or just a crappy artist. It's his image, and I doubt he sold the rights to it.

Plus the Henley, the hair, and the upturned collar are owed to whoever styled Alex as Mick.

Just wrong... unless they pay.

Lilly wrote:Probably the other way around. I think this cover version of Mick Angel is actually strongly influenced by the ML promo materials.

Yes, it is. (Hi, all! )

This is the reference photo that was used... (Borrowed Lilly's link for a side-by-side.)

Looks to me like an artist's rendering using some creative licence and this well known promo photo as reference.
If so they have used "Mick's" image for the cover. Hope they cut a deal somewhere that Alex gets a cut of 'cause it's HIS face.

mwj you beat me too it sister.

Never the less I kind of wish we got something like this for the American cover

Ahhhh, no wonder it looked so familiar!!! Dang. Alex definitely deserves to be compensated!!

Of course I have no idea about legalities involved here as to rights either, but I can't get over how blatant this is! And poorly done imo.

Well, yeah... I have no idea either. I'm only talking about what seems fair in an ethical sense. I'm sure there are all sorts of contract-ish and legalistic things that make no sense to non-lawyers...

They have probably skirted the copyright issues by altering the image (however slightly)... thus our comments that the artist had no talent ('coz Bob knows we have every inch of these images memorized). In other words, what we consider lack of talent is probably intentional.

Sadly, copyright infringement on visuals is always harder to prove (as is the case here, where they've "altered" a photograph into an illustration). I remember when I was just getting started in "the journalism biz" many moons ago. The art director did a parody of the little "Operation" game guy to illustrate a story I wrote, and I asked her how she knew whether she changed it enough to avoid copyright issues. Here's what she said: 7%. I said, "Huh?" She said, "You have to change it by 7%." I said, "That doesn't make any sense... how do you know if you changed an image by 7% and where'd that 'random' percentage come from?" Her answer?

"A lawsuit."



I still don't believe her, but she did show me a school book she had with some examples of things that DID pass the copyright test (in court) and I gotta tell ya, some of them definitely looked like copyright infringement to me.

Of course, I've never heard that "7% line" ever again and once I became an editor, I just made sure we shied away from any copyright issues, since I didn't feel like going back to school to get a JD.

It's definitely easier to nail infringement when it's words. And don't get me started on libel and slander. My employer was sued over slander for an article I wrote about a despicable company once ... thankfully the judge threw it out as a SLAPP (nuisance) suit. I was pretty sure I was okay, though, I did pay attention in those classes... not wantin' to end up in jail and all.

However, I'm of two minds on this... I hope it helps Trevor sell more books, but I feel bad for Alex and also wonder whether there's a potential for fan backlash from Italian Moonlight fans who don't know the book is different than the show ('coz this publisher is clearly banking on the show selling the book).

How much input does the writer have in choosing the cover? If Trevor wanted to use Alex as a likeness, is there any possibility that he asked Alex for his permission to do so and Alex gave the go ahead?