Barnes & Noble Forbids Photos & Word Of Mouth Promotion With Bogus Copyright Claim
from the and-this-is-why-you-fail dept
Simon alerts us to yet another story of a big company doing something that is against their own best interests, and blaming copyright for the decision. The story comes via a blog post by Kristi Dosh, who is a lawyer, who notes that she recently went to a Barnes & Noble with her boyfriend to pick up some books. There was a full display of books about Ireland (for St. Patrick's Day) and since the two are planning a trip to Ireland, they decided to pick up some books... and to take a snapshot of the display and tweet it out to friends. As they did so, however, an employee came over and told her no photography was allowed. At first, Dosh thought he was joking, but upon realizing he was serious, asked why. The employee claimed it was store policy and that it was because the books were covered by copyright.Dosh, of course, knew that this argument was specious. She points out that B&N, since it's not the copyright holder, cannot take action. I actually don't think this argument is all that compelling, really. B&N, as a private actor, certainly has the right to agree with a copyright holder that it will block photographs of their books or to decided, just as a private store, to block photography. Still, it appears the reason is somewhat misleading, and Dosh's later calls to B&N confirmed that they consider this a copyright issue. I'm a bit surprised that Dosh doesn't mention fair use, as it seems like there's an amazingly strong argument that there's a fair use claim here that would protect her from any copyright issue.
But, really, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal arguments one way or the other. As happens so often in copyright issues, it's about the common sense situation, and the fact that blocking photographs in the store makes no common sense. Basically, B&N is barring attempts by people to promote the in-store display for free, and that's silly. Stopping word of mouth marketing is a bad idea. Dosh digs in:
When I was in San Francisco last fall, I tweeted about the best winery I visited, Jacuzzi Family Vineyards, and encouraged my followers to visit. It's four months later and that winery still tweets back and forth with me, which has added to my positive experience with them and caused me to continue to order wine all the way from back at my home in Atlanta.And yet, Barnes & Noble makes sure this is not possible... because it's afraid of some nebulous, questionable "copyright" claim. Of course, part of this demonstrates the problems of basic copyright law today (even if there isn't a valid copyright claim here). It's designed for a world where nothing is shared, where people aren't promoting things for you, and where all "content" is professionally produced for "consumption" by the riffraff. But reality is more complex. We talk to each other. We share. We promote. It's what we do. It's how culture works. It's how communication works. And copyright throws a wrench into all of that, which is really unfortunate.
Also while in San Francisco, I had the best meal experience of my life at Forbes Island via the recommendation of a person on Twitter who I've never met. Turns out they do absolutely no advertising, they simply exist on word of mouth and their fabulous product and service.
Last month, my boyfriend and I went to Asheville and got more good restaurant recommendations from our Twitter followers. We then proceeded to tweet pics of each and every gorgeous plate of food we had to encourage others to eat at these wonderful locations. I know of at least one follower who has already dined at one of these establishments based on our tweets.
For as long as there has been commerce, word of mouth has been a powerful advertising tool. Now instead of being able to reach the twenty-five other people in Jane’s sunday school class, you can reach potentially millions of people on Twitter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: books, copyright, promotion, word of mouth
Companies: barnes & noble
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not an issue for me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I worked at a record store, and to get an endcap, generally the label had to reimburse the store (either directly or through some sort of product price reduction).
I've never heard of anything like this. I mean, you could be asked to stop if you used a flash, but that was because you would be disturbing other customers. Then again, the only people I ever saw take a picture of an endcap were label reps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a shame, b/c I usually snap pix of books that look interesting so I can come back and buy them when I have ready money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I recall a story where people also used such apps to identify books to buy for resale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still, the same issues should apply, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No photo policy could just covers too much
If that is the case the policy is just too simple and B&N probably thinks the risk/cost/benefit analysis works in their favour over all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No photo policy could just covers too much
Hey, that's how I got my copy of War and Peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No photo policy could just covers too much
Slacker. I copied mine by hand, like the monks of old, complete with fancy picture-like capitol letters at the beginning of every paragraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No photo policy could just covers too much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No photo policy could just covers too much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No photo policy could just covers too much
I did end up with the complete works of William S. Burroughs, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No photo policy could just covers too much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No photo policy could just covers too much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could be worried about display "theft"?
Whatever the excuse, it is a bad one because you can easily sneak pictures so a competitor can still do it. So just like with DRM, the policy only hurts the consumer and ultimately the store/label/movie studio/publisher/insert digital content producer here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could be worried about display "theft"?
More than likely, the typical scenario of, an employee is told pictures are not allowed, never told why, so they fill in the blanks themselves. I've worked in enough companies to know that even unrelated parties will back a stupid claim, thinking it looks better for the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could be worried about display "theft"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Could be worried about display "theft"?
Oooo *ping!* Lightbulb moment! That's how all those lost sale stats are made up!"
[/sarc]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could be worried about display "theft"?
Amazon doesn't do floor displays...
Local small shops? Maybe, but they aren't big enough to really care about.
Maybe there are other chains, but around here B&N is the only option.
Ironically, one of the brick and mortar B&N stores biggest competitors is the nook. Why go to the store when you can shop from home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess B&N wants to join Borders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "FEAR" Mentality
As to the "private property" issue. The proprietor is making their business OPEN to the public. As such, the proprietor can not assume police powers or punishment over legitimate customers. It is fair use to take pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liability
From Borders' perspective, it's better to chill that speech than face a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why bother with copyright?
Again, I wouldn't see much sense with such a policy, but it would seem like a much easier way for them to handle the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why bother with copyright?
The oddity was that the employee and later a corporate representative cites copyright as the reason for the policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why bother with copyright?
Another commenter threw out the "competitive" angle. Again an unenforceable policy. Once something is out on display, it is public knowledge. People do have memories, maybe not as good as a camera, but good enough. I suppose every store could institute a background check before someone enters the store to see if the "customer" is really a corporate spy for a competitor.
The extent to which people toss-out the "law" today as giving them a "right" to intimidate people and deprive them of their civil liberties is absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why bother with copyright?
> "law" today as giving them a "right" to
> intimidate people and deprive them of their
> civil liberties is absurd.
Yep, just as absurd as the way people today equate their every whim and desire with a "civil liberty".
I think the store's policy is silly, but it's their store. They can set any rules of behavior they like, so long as they don't discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc.
Bottom line, you have no "civil right" to take pictures inside my private property, even if I open that property up to the general public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond that, it may also be an effort to limit the use of camera phones and low price locator apps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B&N has to enforce copyright *somewhere*
i'll bet B&N is doing these things to alter their image with their publishers. i imagine the conversation goes something like this:
publisher: B&N y u no love copyright? nook makes pirates out of loyal readers.
B&N: ORLY? we love copyright so much we forbid photographs in our stores!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: B&N has to enforce copyright *somewhere*
I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they don't want us to find better deals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How hard is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironically ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just for fun, I'm going to swing by B&N on my way home from work and see how many pictures I can take before someone says something. If there is an altercation, I will get it on video... I'm sure it'll be quite entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can they do anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's gotta be a (Some-moron's-name-here-) -"law" about this, no?
And, predictably, we have the all-purpose "Generation Filter"© solution:
Shop somewhere else, browse somewhere else, worship somewhere else, ect. "somewhere else."
"Generation Filter"© can't conceive of the possibility that the modern person's version of grandparents' "changing the channel" isn't always a practical possibility.
According to this nostrum, the attractiveness of which is patent-- it absolves everyone from responsibility for opposing the spread of rampant and dangerously stupid nonsense--nobody has to do anything actually effective to oppose some noxious habit in the non-digital civic sphere (where actual bodily functions occur). Avoidance is the all-purpose solution. In part, that's because, utterly gob-smacked by their fascination with "cyberspace" and the "blogosphere", "Generation Filter" © is disinclined to even consider the possibility of such a thing as the non-digital civic sphere even exists except as a now quaint idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's gotta be a (Some-moron's-name-here-) -"law" about this, no?
> possibility that the modern person's version
> of grandparents' "changing the channel" isn't
> always a practical possibility.
And when that happens, you're shit out of luck. You can't always have everything you want just the way you want it. It's called life. Get used to it.
The store has every right to make this stupid policy. It's dumb and bad for business, but they can do it if they want to, and if you don't like it, and you don't have another book store to shop at, well, then it sucks to be you, I guess. You're just going to have to live with your frustration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's gotta be a (Some-moron's-name-here-) -"law" about this, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Do Not Disturb" ?
Wikipedia's notes:
"rationalization"
..."a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, to differentiate from the original deterministic explanation, of the behavior or feeling in question."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As has been pointed out a 'No photography' is understandable and completely within their right as a private company. B&N doesn't even have to give a reason, and for every argument against such a policy there is an equally valid argument for it.
For example, my phone has an app on it to scan barcodes. It then looks them up and finds the best deal online, which at B&N usually mean Amazon. I can go directly from the app to Amazon on my phone and buy the book right there. By doing this I am using B&N in a way that is contrary to their maintaining a successful retail business model. I don't get the instant gratification of being able to go home and read the book right away, but who does that anyways. Also, with Amazon Prime I get the book two days later anyways, which is close enough to instant gratification for me.
I wouldn't be able to do this if my phone did not have a camera and B&N did not allow me to do it. Of course, if the store manager knew that I was doing this, they would probably ask me to leave and never come back. The only thing that currently holds me back is the somewhat sleazy feeling I get when I do it. I still spend over a hundred dollars at the store every month (family of 5 rabid readers), so the sleaze washes off easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes Pictures are OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There were two sales clerks at a "Nook" sales kiosk, of course they couldn't leave that area to help her out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If any store employee tells me no to do this, I immediately reply that they have made my decision for me, and I will be buying something else from someone else. They can make the decision on their end, I get to make one on my end... and I'm not shy of pointing out why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) google barnes noble upskirts. A lot of these stores have stairs and escalators that creeps like to hang around.
2) competitors often do go and steal merchandising ideas from other stores. If your job depended on coming up without new ideas would you risk leaving it to your memory?
3) last year a customer posted Obama as hitler posters all over a barnes and noble and took photos and posted them online.
4) security reasons ( people recording cash register routines)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B&N Vlogging
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fear of competitors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fear of competitors
What do you mean "as your own"? You took the photo, so it is your own. You hold the copyright, so you can publish it.
Besides, they don't ask before taking your picture in the store, but if they publish it, then you can sue them...
You can sue them no matter what, but depending on publicity rights laws in your state, you may or may not have a case. You certainly would not have a copyright claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just visited the B&N at my college
I will not purchase it now seeing how I was treated and probably won't go back until it's time to return my books. I refuse to be treated like scum. Especially because I want to represent my school in a positive way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Store Workers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]