Frankly, those arguments are pretty shallow. It’s a commercial use, not for parody or education or review or any of the standard ways that might constitute fair use depending upon other factors.
The idea that the missing pages do not affect whether it could be sold or not (as Walloon argues) is just laughable, as that’s the whole reason the OP wants to put the pages there. If it can be sold without those pages (and without committing fraud by not mentioning it) then he certainly could sell as it is, which is not something he’s trying to do. I mean, come on, would you buy a book with the pages at the end missing? Of course not. Use some common sense here.
Then magnusblitz, on the other hand, says he agrees with the other two that selling the book is useless without those three pages. That’s not what the other two said the argument should be – in fact they admit that argument won’t work. “You’re putting yourself in the same situation had the book not been broken in the first place.” Yeah, and people who are pirating books are putting themselves in a position as if they legally bought the rights in the first place. Pretending that things are different then they actually are isn’t fair use, not by any stretch of imagination.
Instead of just saying “fair use” like they are magic words that justifies anything you want to do, you need to follow what the law actually says, and there’s nothing in there that qualifies. Would the copyright owner bother to sue someone for doing this? Probably not, assuming it’s a one time thing, but that’s an entirely different question.
Incidentally, ripped out pages, torn off covers and other physical damage are signs that the publisher specifically took steps so that copy of the book can’t be resold. Getting around that is clearly a copyright violation. Is that why those pages are missing in this book? Hard to tell. But if you’re copying something with the specific intention to make money off of that copying, it’s pretty obviously wrong.
First, let me repeat that the fact this is a commercial use is just one of four equal factors in the law. “Amount and substantiality” is an equal factor.
Highly misleading, at best. Copies are ripped off of mass-market paperbacks to indicate returns. Hardbacks and trade paperbacks are not mutilated in any way. I know of no system in the U.S. that allows for “ripped out pages.” The OP seems to be talking about a hardcover, so nothing you say applies.
It may be true that this isn’t covered under Fair Use, because we’re obviously offering opinions on how to apply it. But you got both the law and commercial bookselling wrong. You’re going to need to make a better case to take on four people who know more about Fair Use than you seem to.
I don’t think you could get this more wrong if you deliberately tried to.
Selling a book with a ripped off cover is indeed illegal – assuming it was ripped off at the bookseller. Nothing stops me from ripping off the cover of a book and selling it myself (though it may be hard to prove) But the OP is not asking about this, so the point is irrelevant.
The torn cover only applies to mass market paperbacks. A hardcover or trade paperback with a torn cover is just a book with a torn cover, and you can sell it freely. Same for any other damage; it is damage and has nothing to do with getting credit for the book from the publisher.
“Other physical damage” is not a sign of anything. No publisher asks that people rip out the last few pages of the books for credit. It’s either the front cover, or possibly the back cover (with the UPC code). Pages of the book are never removed and returned to the publisher.
“But if you’re copying something with the specific intention to make money off of that copying, it’s pretty obviously wrong.” No. That’s only one factor. If you copy a single page in order to fill out a missing page, it’s pretty obviously fair use, even if you sell the book. The extent of the copying is always taken into consideration and, in the OP, the extent was only three pages.
The book was obviously sold at one point, since it has library stamps inside and a prison stamp (one assumes the prison library) on the page edges. So it’s not a return or extra or anything.
It is a hardcover. If the whole fix-it-up question weren’t enough, it seems that it goes for $75 on the open market–which is why I’m curious–but those listings claim “first edition” and this is a “collector’s edition” with a later date on it. Same ISBN. If it was worth $75 in good condition, I’m figuring it might be worth $30 or so re-bound and hence maybe worth fixing up. If the $75 is only for the first edition, then it’s not worth the trouble anyway.
I wouldn’t pay $5.00 for a restored non-first edition copy with a library stamp and photocopied pages. Collector’s editions are phony collectibles normally. I might pay 50 cents if I wanted a reading copy. If ever a book could be described as worthless, yours is it.
I suppose if it is an extremely rare book otherwise, by a higher collectible writer, then some interest might be paid to anything by that writer. OTOH, as you saw in the other thread, $75 is absolute peanuts for a first edition so it’s highly unlikely that’s the case here.
I guess the question is, how much would you pay for a book in the condition you’re going to sell it in, assuming it was something you wanted? What would make you think that anyone would pay $30? What are the prices for ordinary beat-up non-special copies? Price yours lower than that.
