| Revision as of 19:03, 12 August 2011 editUrbanTerrorist (talk | contribs)957 edits →Original publication: Explanation to Wolfie about how Permissions/Copyright Pages in Books work - Gilgamesh in the Outback was not listed as a reprint on the permissions page of Rebels in Hell← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:51, 17 August 2011 edit undoDokzap (talk | contribs)40 edits →Original publicationNext edit → | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| Oh, and the Heroes in Hell discussion page says that this article was merged into the Heroes in Hell article. By bringing it back from the dead you may cause Misplaced Pages's system some problems. ] (]) 19:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | Oh, and the Heroes in Hell discussion page says that this article was merged into the Heroes in Hell article. By bringing it back from the dead you may cause Misplaced Pages's system some problems. ] (]) 19:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Both publications of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" have a July 1987 publishing date. To call a work as "originally published," one would need citations of such things as printing and distribution records, appearance dates at newsstands and bookstores, all of which would be difficult. I would suggest avoiding this unnecessary controversy by simply stating the facts: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1987 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published by Baen Books." I have listed the works alphabetically by title. To claim that the work was "originally" published in Asimov's implies that Silverberg wrote it for Asimov's first and then Janet Morris, the Rebels in Hell editor, reprinted it in her anthology. This allegation requires a citation. To support a reprint in Rebels in Hell one would have to look at Silverberg's Rebels in Hell contracts and his Asimov's contracts - again, another citation. But why go to this unnecessary work when for WP purposes a statement of the actual publishing history is sufficient? To belabor the "originality" claim raises issues of intellectual property and even libel, since they raise questions of the editors' skills. This article should state the facts simply and avoid potential legal claims. ] (]) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap | |||
Revision as of 05:51, 17 August 2011
 | Novels: Short story / Sci-fi Stub‑class Mid‑importance  | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Original publication
Outside of the pages of Misplaced Pages, there's zero dispute about where this story first appeared. Note that the Locus Fiction Index, which is as about as definitive as things get for the genre, lists "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as reprinted from IASFM, while all the other stories in the volume are identified as originals . And, since you're now claiming that a second one of AgBerg's Gilgamesh novellas was original to the anthologies, perhaps you'll tell us which one. "Gilgamesh in Uruk", which appeared in IASFM six months before the anthology appeared ? Or "The Fascination of the Abomination", which ran in IASFM merely three months earlier ? This link might also be of value to you . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- xxxxx
Locus isn't consistent. To quote:
To the Land of the Living, a mosaic adapted from two novellas that originally appeared in the Heroes in Hell anthology series, is a much lighter affair, but thoroughly enjoyable.
Locus also is not a reliable source. The only reliable source is the Permissions Page or Copyright Information Page which appears at the front of every book published. I have a copy of Rebels in Hell here though any book would do, and this is exactly what is on the Permissions page:
REBELS IN HELL
This is a work of fiction. All of the characters and events in this book are fictional, and any resemblance to real people or events is purely coincidental.
Copyright © 1986 by Janet Morris
All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form.
A Baen Books Original
In Canada distributed by PaperJacks Ltd.,
330 Steelcase Road, Markham, Ontario
First Printing, July 1986
ISBN: 0-671-65577-9
Cover art by David Mattingly
Printed in Canada
Distributed by
SIMON & SCHUSTER
TRADE PUBLISHING GROUP
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, N. Y. 10020
Assuming I didn't make any typos, that is accurate. Do you see anything in the Permissions/Copyright page about Gilgamesh in the Outback being a reprint in Rebels in Hell? No you don't, because it wasn't. Now go get something like the "Science Fiction Hall of Fame" off your book shelf, and look at the Permissions/Copyright page. The entire thing says "Originally printed" for every single story. This is a legal necessity.
If the Silverberg and Benford stories were reprints the various Hell volumes would have had to indicate this on the Permissions/Copyright page. Since it wasn't indicated on the Permissions/Copyright page they were not reprints. Basic first grade logic.
Permissions/Copyright pages exist for legal reasons. They lay out who or what is responsible for what appears in a book. This allows anyone who has a complaint to know who to contact, and if necessary who to sue. Most books are published without any issues, and then you come to the odd one like John David California's 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye.
At this point I'm going to get a bit nasty. Sorry, but you've asked for it. You seem to be trying to educate Janet Morris about fine points of law on reprints, and what this requires in the way of permissions. Janet Morris has been an editor for a damned long time. Sit back and think. She's forgotten more about this than you will ever know.
Exactly how mad do you wish to make her? From her comment on the Heroes in Hell discussion page I suspect she is damned near ready to call in the lawyers.
Oh, and the Heroes in Hell discussion page says that this article was merged into the Heroes in Hell article. By bringing it back from the dead you may cause Misplaced Pages's system some problems. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Both publications of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" have a July 1987 publishing date. To call a work as "originally published," one would need citations of such things as printing and distribution records, appearance dates at newsstands and bookstores, all of which would be difficult. I would suggest avoiding this unnecessary controversy by simply stating the facts: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1987 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published by Baen Books." I have listed the works alphabetically by title. To claim that the work was "originally" published in Asimov's implies that Silverberg wrote it for Asimov's first and then Janet Morris, the Rebels in Hell editor, reprinted it in her anthology. This allegation requires a citation. To support a reprint in Rebels in Hell one would have to look at Silverberg's Rebels in Hell contracts and his Asimov's contracts - again, another citation. But why go to this unnecessary work when for WP purposes a statement of the actual publishing history is sufficient? To belabor the "originality" claim raises issues of intellectual property and even libel, since they raise questions of the editors' skills. This article should state the facts simply and avoid potential legal claims. Dokzap (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap
Categories:- Stub-Class novel articles
- Mid-importance novel articles
- Stub-Class Short story task force articles
- Unknown-importance Short story task force articles
- Stub-Class Science fiction novels articles
- Unknown-importance Science fiction novels articles
- Novel has incomplete Book infobox
- Novel has infobox needing cover
- WikiProject Novels articles