Subject: [CODE4LIB] Free cover images?

From: "Edward M. Corrado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:37:56 -0400

Hello all,

We are reevaluating our source of cover images. At this point I have 
identified four possible sources of free images:

1. Amazon
2. Google Books
3. LibraryThing
4. OpenLibrary

I know that their is some question if the Amazon and Google books images 
will allow this (although I've also yet to hear Amazon or Google telling 
libraries that use their Web services for this to cease and desist). 
However, besides that issue, has anyone noticed any technical problems 
with any of these four? I'm especially concerned about slow and/or 
non-consistent performance.

Edward

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:45:28 -0400

I have been using all four, and they seem to be working out. None of 
them are TOO too slow.  But I haven't fully investigated or tracked for 
'non-consistent performance', not sure what you mean there, just that 
sometimes it's slow?   All of those seem to work fairly well for me.

There is another source of free _movie_ cover images, but I forget what 
it is and haven't investigated it yet. Also there are several sources 
for free musical album cover images, which likewise I haven't 
investigated yet but would like to.

Jonathan

---

From: "Edward M. Corrado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:49:14 -0400

Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> them are TOO too slow.  But I haven't fully investigated or tracked 
> for 'non-consistent performance', not sure what you mean there, just 
> that sometimes it's slow?

Thanks. I guess by 'non-consistent performance' I mean sometimes slow, 
or sometimes not working at all. We are currently using a commercial 
cover service, but the response times are not very good so we are 
looking at changing, and if we can cut out one more thing we pay for at 
the same time, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Edward

>    All of those seem to work fairly well for me.
>
> There is another source of free _movie_ cover images, but I forget 
> what it is and haven't investigated it yet. Also there are several 
> sources for free musical album cover images, which likewise I haven't 
>> I know that their is some question if the Amazon and Google books 
>> images will allow this (although I've also yet to hear Amazon or 
>> Google telling libraries that use their Web services for this to 
>> cease and desist). However, besides that issue, has anyone noticed 
>> any technical problems with any of these four? I'm especially 
>> concerned about slow and/or non-consistent performance.
>>
>> Edward
>>
>>

---

From: Tim Spalding <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:49:57 -0400

On LibraryThing:

1. Our performance should be okay, but we don't make guarantees.
2. That shouldn't matter so much, however, as the daily maximums and
our request should move you to fetch images and cache them on your
end.

Tim

---

From: "Lynch,Katherine" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:15:21 -0400

Going along with Jonathan Rochkind, Amazon does a good job of supplying
some movie images.  Also in general, WorldCat, if that's an option to
you.  For a good example of wealth/response time, check out Gabe's video
search:
http://www.library.drexel.edu/video/search

---
Katherine Lynch
Library Webmaster
Drexel University Libraries
215.895.1344 (p)
215.895.2070 (f)

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Edward M. Corrado
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [CODE4LIB] Free cover images?

Hello all,

1. Amazon
2. Google Books
3. LibraryThing
4. OpenLibrary

Edward

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:53:29 -0400

You can get cover images from worldcat? How?  I'm pretty sure the 
worldcat ToS specifically disallow you from re-using those covers, even 
if you are managing to get them via machine access somehow.

---

From: Kyle Banerjee <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:03:00 -0700

Yah, but same could be said for Amazon. From http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/

5.1.3. You are not permitted to use Amazon Associates Web Service with
any Application or for any use that does not have, as its principal
purpose, driving traffic to the Amazon Website and driving sales of
products and services on the Amazon Website.

Maybe libraries are under the radar, and maybe Amazon doesn't care,
but getting addicted to this stuff is not without risk. If the load
ever became something they cared about, they could turn it off in a
snap.

kyle

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> You can get cover images from worldcat? How?  I'm pretty sure the worldcat
> ToS specifically disallow you from re-using those covers, even if you are
> managing to get them via machine access somehow.
>
> Lynch,Katherine wrote:
>>
>> However, besides that issue, has anyone noticed any technical problems with
>> any of these four? I'm especially concerned about slow and/or non-consistent
>> performance.
>>
>> Edward
>>
>>
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Banerjee
Digital Services Program Manager
Orbis Cascade Alliance
[email-masked] / 503.999.9787

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:30:34 -0400

It would be hard for them to turn it off just for services that do not 
have "the principal purpose" of "driving traffic to the Amazon website 
and driving sales of products and services on the Amazon website."

Libraries are not alone in users of AWS who do not have this "principal 
purpose". Despite that language, it's not clear to me that Amazon 
actually has any particular interest in preventing such use. 

But they wouldn't need to switch me off technologically, if I received 
any communications from Amazon suggesting my use violates their ToS, I'd 
immediately comply with their requests.  My further thoughts on this can 
be found here: 
http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/think-you-can-use-amazon-api-for-library-service-book-covers/

However, my understanding is that Worldcat forbids any use of those 
cover images _at all_.  This is much more clear cut, and OCLC is much 
more likely to care, then Amazon's more bizarre restrictions as to 
purpose.  It's of course up to the individual implemeter, perhaps in 
consultation with the service provider and/or legal counsel,  to decide 
if they are complying or not, but that's my own evaluation.  I don't 
even know of any WorldCat APIs that would allow you to get WorldCat 
cover images other than through a screen-scrape though, so I'm curious 
how anyone is doing it, if anyone is doing it.

Jonathan

---

From: "Walker, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:40:26 -0700

> However, my understanding is that Worldcat forbids any 
> use of those  cover images _at all_. 

OCLC does return the cover image URL as part of it's Z39.50 response, so I'm guessing that it is intended to be used by external applications, or at least those that are actually searching Worldcat.

--Dave

==================
David Walker
Library Web Services Manager
California State University
http://xerxes.calstate.edu
________________________________________
From: Code for Libraries [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 1:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Free cover images?

Jonathan

---

From: Joe Atzberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:48:55 -0400

This comes up in Koha development all the time.  We support a sizable number
of libraries using Amazon images (and other content) in Koha.  Every now and
again a client reads that same clause and "alerts" us to this threatening
legal snafu.  Josh would have some protracted contact with Amazon's US legal
department and in the end, they don't object, implement blocks or send Cease
and Desist letters.

In a legalistic frame of mind, I would say that the "principal purpose"
clause needs some interpretation to make any sense.  For one, it targets
user intent rather than effect.  Then it depends on the scope of their
"Application".

Then there are simple questions like:

   - do they expect my website to be more interesting and more informative
   with AWS?
   - do they expect me as a website owner to be *more* concerned with
   driving traffic to Amazon than my own content and traffic?

The clause says yes, but can't actually mean it.  And, in fact, it isn't
enough to drive traffic to Amazon... it has to be "driving traffic to the
Amazon Website *and* driving sales".  This gives you a clue as to their real
intent: they want to prohibit commercial competition from jacking their
content.  And they don't want you to think you deserve a bigger cut, or
complain that "no, I only used AWS because I wanted to BAN that book.
Therefore you must forfeit sales from people linking from my site."

So you can still fit inside their overwrought language if you define the
jacket-images-from-Amazon part to be it's own "Application" and honestly
include the link back to them somewhere, and understand that they intend to
take linkers and try to sell them stuff.  That's the purpose of the link.

In our case, it isn't a big threat.  We know they know they get traffic from
us, including people who specifically want a given title that is currently
unavailable at their local library, i.e. high-value traffic.  If they want
to throw the switch and implement a block, clients will start driving
traffic to Google (or fill-in-the-blank) instead.

--Joe,
LibLime

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[email-masked]>wrote:

> worldcat
> with

---

From: Nate Vack <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:50:12 -0500

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]> wrote:

> However, my understanding is that Worldcat forbids any use of those cover
> images _at all_.  This is much more clear cut, and OCLC is much more likely
> to care, then Amazon's more bizarre restrictions as to purpose.

How is Amazon's restriction bizarre? As far as I can read, they're
saying "hey if you're using our data, we ask that you drive traffic to
us, OK?" That's totally reasonable; they, you know, sell books for a
living, and their API services aren't free to support.

If you're using Amazon's cover images, you should provide a way for
Amazon to capitalize on that usage. Even if they don't cut you off
(because they don't catch you or don't care), linking to them is still
the morally right thing to do.

Cheers,
-Nate

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:55:39 -0400

Interesting, I did not know that, and that changes my willingness to use 
those cover images in a pro-use direction. :)

I haven't actually _seen_ any WorldCat ToS that say what you can or 
can't do with these. So if they're in a z39.50 response, then I'd 
generally feel free to use them in any interface that's also 
incorporating a link to WorldCat for the item.

However, I suspect that after seeing this, OCLC'ers are going to write 
and promulgate some ToS that make it clear that you cant' do this. So I 
wouldn't put _too_ much energy into it.  OCLC pays a lot more attention 
to us than Amazon.

Jonathan

---

From: Joe Atzberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:59:43 -0400

The bizarre part of it is that they insist *Amazon's purpose* become the
primary purpose of *your* Application.  This is weird if you think of an
entire ILS as the Application, since nobody could reasonably argue the
overall purpose is to get Amazon more hits and sales.

It requires the terminological gymnastics I just described to control the
scope of the Application (and therefore of their Terms).  Other than that, I
think everybody here should be OK w/ the link back condition, tastefully
implemented.

--Joe

---

From: Jonathan Rochkind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:09:31 -0400

It would be reasonable if it was more straightforward about what it 
said, if it "operationalized" that restriction.

For instance, it could say: you can't use AWS unless your web sites that 
use it provide links to Amazon for any items whose details are displayed 
from AWS info.  That would be fair enough, and I think some other part 
of the ToS may say that, at any rate I generally do it as a courtesy and 
a precaution.

Or even if it said: that you can't use it if your web page provides any 
links to purchase (or even borrow) a book via a non-Amazon vendor. That 
wouldn't be 'bizarre' because I'd understand what it meant, although it 
would be so restrictive that I'd stop using AWS. (Google has tried 
similar things like that, at one point they had "ToS" that said you 
coudln't put an HTML search form pointed at Google Scholar on a page 
that offered functionality to search anything else except Google! I 
generally feel like ignoring that, I don't feel I need a license to put 
HTML pointed at Google on my page at all, and never even pressed any 
click-through 'agree' agreeing to THAT.)

What's bizarre is the vagueness and lack of operationalization (is that 
a word?) of what AWS ToS says. "

You are not permitted to use Amazon Associates Web Service with
any Application or for any use that does not have, as its principal
purpose, driving traffic to the Amazon Website and driving sales of
products and services on the Amazon Website.

Now, okay, it's really not THAT confusing in our case (although would be 
in many others), it's pretty clear that it is NOT the principal purpose 
of ANY library Application I write. However, what's bizarre is that this 
restriction is more honored in the breach, libraries far from alone in 
using AWS for Applications that don't even _arguably_ have that as a 
'principal purpose', and then there are many more where it would be a 
very tenuous argument. Yet Amazon does not seem to have any inclination 
to stop any of these people.  So I don't feel like being the stickler 
when everyone else is using AWS all over the place for applications 
without that 'principal purpose', and Amazon is telling nobody to stop.  
What's bizarre is that they have this weird restriction about "principal 
purpose", but show no inclination to enforce it in any way.

Incidentally, the GBS ToS are bizarre in other even less clear ways. 
"The Google Book Search APIs are not intended to be a substitute or 
replacement of products or services of any third party content provider. 
"  Um, okay, thanks for telling me what you do or don't intend, but what 
does this mean as a TERM in your ToS, how, if at all, is this meant to 
restrict my use?   If it actually said "You are not allowed to use this 
as a substitute or replacement for any third party service or product", 
then it would enter the realm of truly bizarrre, figuring out what that 
actually means for a developer.  Like, if someone else started offering 
very similar services to GBS but charged for it, then I wouldn't be 
allowed to use the free GBS APIs at all, since it would be an 
alternatative to a paid service? Makes no sense.

Jonathan