So, I’ve noticed that more and more children’s/YA book covers use photographs from the online image collection Getty Images. Although it is not “wrong” and I should not feel judgmental about it — I feel “cheated” whenever I see that copyright note at the back jacket flap, stating that the image is not created specifically for or inspired especially by the text of the book.
I DO judge books by their covers, since I am a physical/materialistic book lover and care deeply about every creative aspect of the book, as an object of art. And I must admit that even though so many of these covers look quite pretty and pristine and attractive, they lack a depth, or “soul,” that speaks to me as a reader — especially AFTER reading the stories contained within. One recent example is the cover for Miss Spitfire: a blurry child’s hand holding a green apple… WHY an Apple? I guess Apple is a “teachery” symbol — but apple has little connection to Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan’s emotional journey… the DOLL (Helen’s first word) or the PUMP/WATER (Helen’s final breakthrough objects) would have served so much better, or a powerful scene with the two main characters having one of their many conflicts — and artwork INSPIRED by the story would have been so much more affective than Found Photos.
What gives? Pricing alone? Lack of hired talent? Anyone can shed some light on this?