Images for book covers

It's probably Stock Photo or Getty Images. Those are two of the biggest image suppliers.

Yeap, it can happen. Using stock should be the very last resort when designing covers. Some of the examples in your blog post are clear rip-offs (same image, same typography, same placement).
There is a tread about free stock sites in the cover design section. Also, Gale has a list with the most popular ones in his tutorial over there.

if you want to investigate this further, go on those sites and search for obvious terms (whatever that image represents). You're probably gonna find some of them.

Also, does anyone know if it's more likely that an artist would use the same image for multiple book covers, or if two different designers would just happen to use the same picture?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of sites out there that sell premade e-book covers and just change the book and author name. It's become a very common practice over the years. I use stock images from Bigstock then my cover designer alters/combines images to change their look. So while my model may be the same (and I know he's used often) my images are unique.

Wow, very interesting. It wouldn't make me too happy to find out that someone had the same cover as me, to answer your blog question

I went to 123rf.com for royalty-free stock photos, then worked with a graphic artist/cover designer to compose the look I wanted. We went through several iterations. The cover below is a the final result--a composite of two images. But they weren't just slapped one over the other. Both needed some artful Photoshopping on the part of the graphic artist to get the integrated look just right.

Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't get all the indignity over the same image being used twice. It's what you get with cheap, nonexclusive stock photo licensing, especially with subject matter that can't be had easily, like quality studio shots of hot models. I've seen many, many instances of certain photos (Konrad Bak is REALLY popular in erotica) on book covers. It's one of those things you have to deal with, and I have a feeling it's going to get worse as self-pub books in need of covers continue to come out at the rate they are.

Want a wholly unique and original photo or illustration for your cover? Start saving so you can afford to commission it.

Alice Xavier said:

Want a wholly unique and original photo or illustration for your cover? Start saving so you can afford to commission it.

Click to expand...

THIS. For my light novels, I've commissioned some great CG artists from DevArt. Sure, it costs me an arm and a leg and a few fingers on my other hand, but it's totally worth it. I get an art piece that won't be seen anywhere else and they get (hopefully!) exposure so it's a win win situation for everyone around.

With that said though, for stock images, I go to Fotolia. They have this neat subscription thing where you pay a set amount and get a set amount of photos to use. At least, I paid 70 bucks a month to DL 50 images and then downgraded when I came to the conclusion that I am no cover artist and had no right spending that much money on stocks. So, I downgraded to 20 bucks a month for 5 full size images and it fits my ambition/budget a lot more.

FionnJameson said:

With that said though, for stock images, I go to Fotolia. They have this neat subscription thing where you pay a set amount and get a set amount of photos to use. At least, I paid 70 bucks a month to DL 50 images and then downgraded when I came to the conclusion that I am no cover artist and had no right spending that much money on stocks. So, I downgraded to 20 bucks a month for 5 full size images and it fits my ambition/budget a lot more.

Click to expand...

I looked into Fotolia, but it was too expensive. I stick with CanStock $5 a pop, or a subscription if you want REALLY cheap images - I got 70 images for $40 - a bit over 50 cents per image. I know very well that a lot of the images I've picked up have been used a million times, but in erotica, no one cares. I can't afford to buy more exclusive photos. Luckily, I'm a good enough designer to throw unique illustrated elements into my covers if I need them so I don't have to hire out.

Speaking of CanStock, here's one of the photos from the OP's blog post:
http://www.canstockphoto.com/scared-young-man-2645256.html
Yours to use for $5 (or way less with a subscription). So yeah, with prices like that, LOTS of people are going to be picking up these images. It's a fact of inexpensive covers for self-pubbers (or even indie e-presses).

Your budget for a cover is $100 (or less) but you expect something TOTALLY UNIQUE? Ha, good luck. Just consider the cost of renting/maintaining a photo studio, camera gear, tungsten bulbs that only last for eight hours, hiring a model (good models are expensive) for a few hours, or accessing some spectacular locale, all for a special photo for your special book cover. Do you guys have any idea how much trad publishers spend on cover art? A LOT. That's how they get nice original stuff.

Self-pubbers generally don't have that sort of money to throw around, so the designers they hire have to opt for good photography on a budget. Hence cheap, ubiquitous stock photography that you see again and again in different book covers.

Michael Myers said:

I went to 123rf.com for royalty-free stock photos, then worked with a graphic artist/cover designer to compose the look I wanted.

Click to expand...

Truly free images are a challenge to find. Even at 123rf, they warn you that you'll need an extended (cost more) license if the image is for "resale". I'm not exactly sure what that means but my book is for sale so I guess I'll need to pay the higher fee.

profen4 said:

I just posted a blog post

Click to expand...

Wow, hadn't noticed some of those similarites, especially the Rot & Ruin one. I've seen some cases before, but I typically noticed them in smaller presses, where I thought the use of stock images were more common.

I know it can be a potential problem with doing cover design. I use Dreamstime or Shutterstock, depending on the publisher. They pay for the photos, and I manip them to fit what they've asked for.

Personally, I'd love to use my own photography, but unless I'm being paid for the renting of space to do the photoshoot, pay for the model, and for various clothes props, I don't think it would be a viable business option. So I typically use stock sites, as well as my own personal stock of landscapes and textures, as needed. Granted, there's a few covers I've done where I used my own photography, but generally, I'm using stock.

I haven't used the site yet, but this place was just mentioned over on a Goodreads Romance group on Yahoo.

Whether Colorful Covers is up to the other providers' quality, who knows yet. It's good to have more POC stock photos.

chris ell said:

Yeap, it can happen. Using stock should be the very last resort when designing covers. Some of the examples in your blog post are clear rip-offs (same image, same typography, same placement).

Click to expand...

Calling some of those images 'stock' images is kind of pejorative - it makes it sound like they're free clip art or something. What we're talking about is professional photographers making their work available to online image libraries for exactly this kind of purpose.

Check out the UK cover for Neil Gaiman's latest book, THE OCEAN AT THE END OF THE LANE. That's an image that was taken from an image library. The designer (the excellent Pat Insole, with whom I used to work) didn't set up a photo shoot to get that picture, and indeed designers very rarely do.

It's not lazy to use an image from a photo library, nor is it unusual. It's the absolute norm.

The one hazard is that someone else might happen on the same image and decide to use it themselves. If it's a really arresting or beautiful image, well, that's going to happen now and again, and indeed it's happened to me. That's not necessarily because the designer 'ripped off' someone else's design - it's usually just coincidence.

I actually had an experience with this recently. I designed a cover for Melange Books, and they had a picture they really liked, and we ended up using. (http://www.melange-books.com/authors/sharidare/manintheforest.html)

Recently, I went into a book store and saw that same stock image on a book cover from Entangled, and I've seen it on at least one other cover before. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B6U15OI/?tag=absowrit-20)

One suggestion I have, if you're using stock photography, is to place it in a different way than the original photo. Isolate elements, combine it with other photos, changed the coloration... When the book permits, it can prevent it from having that obvious connection when looking at book covers.

Torgo said:

Calling some of those images 'stock' images is kind of pejorative - it makes it sound like they're free clip art or something.

Click to expand...

All other points in fairness, they are actually called "stock images" and collected on "stock sites" like shutterstock, stock.xchang, and iStock. And to mention the fact that they are stock doesn't count against their quality but to the non-exclusivity of their use.

I work at Barnes & Noble and I don't think it matters whether you're with a big publisher or do your own publishing - because I've seen some very similar, if not identical covers while working there. In fact, even I considered blogging about it one day. A great one that I can't find at the moment to link to is a C.S. Lewis book that I saw one day that had a cover 99% like the Twilight cover. You know, with the two hands holding the apple?

And yes, as you show in the blog, there are oodles of these books out there - and a lot of these are with fairly large publishers! You'd think they would spring for something that isn't solely stock, but oh well. But having seen it for myself for so long, that's why it doesn't bother me.

For my cover, my artist and I actually worked together in order to find a stock image I was happy with (I found this one), and then she just tweaked it until it was how I wanted it. But I'm also well aware that the main image is indeed on a stock site - so it could pop up again at any given time. Will I ever see it? Maybe. Will it bother me? Probably not. Because really, in the end, what am I going to do about it?

Torgo said:

Calling some of those images 'stock' images is kind of pejorative - it makes it sound like they're free clip art or something.

Click to expand...

Stock is what those images are called. When I make them (which I do) I am a stock photographer. They are sold by stock agencies as stock photos. Stock means: pre-made, bought as is, royalty free and non-exclusive.

Re: the initial question, major sellers would be bigstockphotos, istockphotos, canstock and shutterstock. Mister handsome and brooding one the left < -- is from Canstock.

These images are used mainly because they are immensely cheaper than custom made or exclusive images.

veinglory said:

Stock is what those images are called. When I make them (which I do) I am a stock photographer. They are sold by stock agencies as stock photos. Stock means: pre-made, bought as is, royalty free and non-exclusive.

Click to expand...

Sure, but in the context of 'it's lazy to use stock images', I read it as kind of a slam. It's not a term I like to use when I talk to authors, in fact, because in their heads I think they often hear 'stock character' or some variation on 'clip art' or the like.

That is an issue aside from what the are called. That is what they are called because they are kept in stock. I had something of a reaction to the suggestion that "stock"--a word I identify with as a photographer--should be considered a "bad word". Taking good stock is just as difficult as using it well on covers and not ending up with a cheap- or lazy- or generic-looking result.

veinglory said:

That is an issue aside from what the are called. That is what they are called because they are kept in stock. I had something of a reaction to the suggestion that "stock"--a word I identify with as a photographer--should be considered a "bad word". Taking good stock is just as difficult as using it well on covers and not ending up with a cheap- or lazy- or generic-looking result.

Click to expand...

Sure, noted.

Personally, I have no problem with stock. I don't like it when an author and designer lack communication to let the author know that commercial stock has been used in the design and what that means. We take for granted that many people don't automatically realize that this is common practice among graphic designers and even some illustrators.

I don't have a problem with it either. And I don't think readers particularly care (which is kind of the most important point). What matters is how they are used, how they are put together. Is the end result aesthetically pleasing, and does it accurately reflect the nature of the book it's trying to sell?

I myself used two stock images on my cover (along with original artwork), and licensed another one because I had based part of the cover on that idea. And I think the result is rather original and fresh: