Cover clones, movie posters, and a cover artist's opinion by Michelle Lee

WARNING:  The post ahead contains my opinions.  Read at your own risk. : )  

And hateful emails will not be read - so don't waste your time sending them.

As a cover artist, one of the things I have to try and balance is the overall look of the covers I create, the designs of the author, the needs of the publisher, and the limitations of stock art.

Let's face it - despite what a lot of people thinks - most publishers are switching from doing photo shoots for each cover to using stock art.  This includes a lot of the big boys in NY.  I have only seen a few authors, generally the big names, still getting individualized photo shoots.  The rest are using stock art.

Now this can be a good thing - since it makes costs a lot more manageable.  Instead of $200+ for an image for a cover, you are looking at $20ish for two to four images.

But it can also be a bad thing, since each image is available to anyone who wants to use it, which can results in some images being used on multiple covers.

Yes - this can be frustrating for authors, and for readers, but realistically, it is simply the way it is.  As a cover artist, I do my very best to make each cover unique in and of itself, including using more than one image per cover.  (There have been a few times, generally where I was requested to use just the one image, and add text, or where adding more images made the cover cluttered - but those are few and far between.)

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of articles out there now shaming cover artists for using images found on too many other covers, as well as warning authors of the dangers of stock art, etc.  It is the shaming of cover artists that I am going to address today.  I get having a pet peeve ... but many of the things cover artists are blamed for are often outside of our control.

I saw one post where it plainly said that if a cover artist uses an image that is already used on an existing cover - they should be ashamed of themselves.  To this I would say, how many books are published each and every month - in let's say - the romance genre alone?  How in the world am I supposed to go through each of the covers and make sure that an images hasn't already been used.  Yes, it is easy (sometimes) to find repeating images - but in most cases, it's not. So how am I supposed to find each and every image that has been used to make sure I don't use one of them?

I saw several posts that said basically that if a cover artist uses a repeated image they are robbing/lying to the author.  Most authors I know are aware that their covers are created using stock art.  In the BWL forms, in fact, we expressly state that we will be using stock art, and ask the author to select images that appeal to them.  For the commissioned covers I create via Stardust Creations (shameless self-promo plug there - visit me for your cover art needs LOL), I also warn authors I will be using stock images, and encourage them to find images they like and I will purchase rights to use them and craft a cover from them.

This website tagged one of my BWL covers in their image ... and it wasn't the poster that basically slammed cover artists, it was a few of those that commented.

Here's another image example - this time without one of my covers.

Suffice to say, stock images are not exclusive images.  Exclusive rights to images are expensive, and most publishing houses, even the big boys in NY, do not go that route much any more.  So yes, as a reader, there will be a little bit of frustrating every now and then as you look at a cover, see a familiar image, and have to double check to make sure you don't already own the book.  I have had to do this myself from time to time.  BUT, the trade off for this is that small presses are able to open, and survive, and authors who the big boys in NY rejected are able to make a go of it, which means more options for me - as a reader.  I like getting to pick what I want to read, rather than just what the big boys say is sale-able.  The whole paranormal romance genre, at one time, wasn't something the big boys would touch - yet look at how popular it is?

How many of your favorite authors have mentioned on their websites they were rejected by the big boys, so they went small press or even (gasp) the indie route?  90-95% of the books I read, and I read about 35-50 a month, are small press or indie.  They are available because small presses can operate because of stock images sites, and other lower cost options for product production, then were previously available to them.

All that said, I am curious that cover artists have been slammed - a lot lately - but Hollywood hasn't.  We may reuse a stock image seen on another, but Hollywood creates poster clones all the time and no one says anything.  By this, I mean with all the individual options available to them, the ability to shoot whatever pose they want with the actors and actresses, all of the movie stills to use, they still often create posters that look like other posters.

Case in point ...

For this one, not only did they use the same colors and basic image layout they used the same FONT style and color.

Want more?  Check out this YouTube video devoted to them.  I like the comparison at 57 seconds - the cult classic Army of Darkness and whatever that other one is.  (No nasty emails please!)

So why are we held to an insanely high standard that no one can really meet?  I mean, come on.  I know the frustration of seeming the same images used, I get frustrated sometimes because I can't find images to use but ones that I know have been used, but this 'clone' phenomenon isn't new and it isn't limited to cover artists.

So come on, give us a break already.  Most of us don't try to mirror each other, it just happens.  And limited stock art options aren't really our faults.  We do the best we can, with what is available.

~ Michelle

Black and White and Shifters all over ... by Michelle Lee

Hello all!  Michelle Lee - back again with some advice for authors who are writing outside of their knowledge set.

What is it you might ask?  It's really very simple ...

And it will make your life so much easier in the end run ...

And keep those 'troll' reviewers from having something to tear you apart about ...

Ready for it?  Here I go ... it's a wonderful things called FACT CHECK.

That's right!  Check facts before you use them.  Simple right?

If you are writing a historical - you fact check.

If you are not in law enforcement, and you want to write a suspense story - you fact check.

Right?  Right - I know you do your due diligence and the absolute best you can.

Yet sometimes common misconceptions still slip in anyways. Right?  Come one, we know they do. I think part of the reasons why so many slip by us, to grind on other people's nerves, is that we have so very many misconceptions in our common culture.  Especially when it comes to certain topics.

Now what got me going on my pet peeve tangent here?  Well - despite the whole knowing you need to fact check when it comes to historicals, and suspense, and all the other various genres - a lot of writers seem to miss the concept when it comes to the basics of biology and, gee, science.  Why? Probably because of an honest belief they have a handle on it.

As a biologist however - they jump out at me and can truly ruin a good story.  Today I am going to focus on the big cats.  Why?  Because of some of the shifter stories I have read recently (which is what resulted in this post).

Here's the first one ...

Black Panthers

There is no such thing as a species called a black panther.  It is instead a collective term for a big cat with a genetic caused melanistic (or pigment coloration of black) cat.  (This is not however what causes black household cats - I am talking only of the big cats).

So what is the correct term?  Well there are two ...

A Black Leopard and a Black Jaguar - depending upon which species of cat you are referring to.

Let's start with a black leopard.

Now for the black jaguar.

So how to tell them apart?

Well in their normal coloration, it is easiest by comparing their size, facial structure and their spot patterns.  Jaguars are a little stockier than leopards,  Their faces are fuller, but have a more streamlined jaw.

A common misconception with the black leopards and jaguars is that they lacks spots.  But it you look closely, you can still see them.    Just like their normal colored counterparts, their spots are also different - even though both have rosettes.  With a jaguar, there is an additional black spot in the middle of the rosette that is lacking in the leopard spots.

Here are a couple of info-graphics for comparison.

Here's a chart with a Cheetah's spots for comparison.

So if you are going to write about one of the big cats that has a black coat - pick one!  Jaguar or Leopard. 

Now for my second big cat misconceptions ... 

White v Albino

A white tiger is not the same as an albino tiger.

There is a normal pigmentation to tiger, resulting in a orange-brown color or cinnamon with a black strip pattern.  Then there is a mutation that results in the lack of the orange-brown-cinnamon pigment, while the stripes of black are still present.  This results in a white tiger or in some cases a snow-white tiger, and it is only found in the Bengal species of tiger.

An albino tiger is one who lacks all melanin, resulting in a lack of pigmentation. Quick way to tell?  Presence of black stripes and those gorgeous blue eyes.  Albino tigers have no pigment at all - so they lack stripes and their eyes are red or pink.

This is a goo side-by-side composite image.  First is the normal pigmentation, then the white tiger, and finally an albino tiger.

The same is true for lions.  They can have a normal coloration, a 'blond' coloration, or be albino.  The blond-white does not mean albino.

Pictured here is a normal colored lioness and a white/blond lioness.  Notice the eye color and hints of pigmentation, especially in the ears - not an albino.

What about a black tiger or lion?

So far, there have been no reputable reports of black lions.  There is one photoshopped image that keep floating around.  But when you consider the habitat of the lion, it makes sense that if there was a gene for melanism, it would quickly be selected against.  So while at this time it is considered to be possible, it has not been documented by a reputable source.

As for black tigers ... that is the results of a pseudo-melanistism, where the black stripes are so close together, they appear to be melanistic, but are in fact, not.  They have the normal orange-brown or cinnamon pigments, it is just expressed in small bands.

Well that conclused today's pet peeve and science lesson. So what is the take home?  Simply put - just because it is part out our common culture does not mean it is correct. So due your due diligence and fact check - even if you think you understand it.

~  Michelle

If you enjoyed this post, you might also enjoy this Bio. Fun Fact filled post ...