I Could Make a Whole Book Out of This Stock Footage
I’ve a really really great article found via bookshelves of doom. Now I’ve always had conflicted feelings towards Getty Images. Sometimes I’ll see a great cover and think the Art Director really nailed the essential nature of the book. Like last year when I saw how lovely Jenny Han’s Shug was.
Aw. So pretty pretty. It worked with the essential nature of the book. A girl growing up. Childhood things.
Then, not two months later, this title hits American bookstore shelves:
That’s . . . . weird.
Not so weird as all that, though. As the recent piece Cover deja vu: The Dangers of Stock Photography pointed out, this kind of thing is pretty common. As a fan of John Crowley’s Little Big, I’d been pleased with the lovely cover on the new edition. Now I’m feeling less positive. But is that even fair? Just because a cover comes from a collection of images rather than a planned photo shoot, should that change my opinion of how nice it is? Shouldn’t covers share and share alike?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Nah.
Pretty much, the next time I see the name "Getty" on a book’s inside cover I’ll be watching it a little more closely. Situations like the ones in the article may be rare, but they cheapen an otherwise lovely book jacket.
Filed under: Uncategorized
About Betsy Bird
Betsy Bird is currently the Collection Development Manager of the Evanston Public Library system and a former Materials Specialist for New York Public Library. She has served on Newbery, written for Horn Book, and has done other lovely little things that she'd love to tell you about but that she's sure you'd find more interesting to hear of in person. Her opinions are her own and do not reflect those of EPL, SLJ, or any of the other acronyms you might be able to name. Follow her on Twitter: @fuseeight.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
SLJ Blog Network
9 Books About Voting and Elections for the New York Times!
DC Announces Fall 2025 Graphic Novels | News
The Seven Bill That Will Safeguard the Future of School Librarianship
How One Book Can Impact One Reader . . . For Life, a guest post by Sydney Dunlap
ADVERTISEMENT
Betsy, I share your love of Shug’s sweet jacket. But did you know the cover is being changed for the paperback? Sad but true. The paperback sports a popsicle-eating boy & girl reclining on a patch of grass. It’s cute and perhaps does more to suggest the age of the book’s audience than its predecessor, but I liked the iconic image on the hardcover, so I find the change disappointing. – alison
Actually, I like the new one. Sure, it falls into that ever increasing category of Kids Lying On Grass. But how many covers can you think of where a boy AND a girl are featured, you can see their faces full-on, and they aren’t involved in some kind of deadly peril? Name three and you win my undying respect. I see where you’re coming from, but I think the paperback deserves a thumbs up for that reason alone.
Alison, I’m sorry to hear you’re not crazy about the new cover– just look at the old one and pretend the new one doesn’t exist! : )
Bets, I was horrified when I saw the cover for Skinny– but the thing is, I think they had it first. By they, I mean the Canadians. From what I understand, the book came out a few years ago in Canada and then was republished in the US last year. See, Getty doesn’t tell you when an image you buy has already been bought by, say, another publisher. Such is the case with the popsicle image: S&S didn’t know it had been used for a cover in another country. They should really tell you those kinds of things! In any case, I love my popsicle and I love my Kids Lying On Grass.
I, too, am horrified when I see two very similar covers on the shelf. But I like the Skinny cover more than the Shug one. It might be the red (not a fan), but it also might be the layout of the yellow one. It would be nice if all covers could be original (I like Hoot and Flush), but I suspect with such access to stock images it won’t happen.