Digital Comic Museum
General Category => Comic Related Discussion => Topic started by: tbdeinc on January 29, 2011, 07:41:31 AM
-
Just came across a series of comic covers in google images called :
"WORLD AROUND US"
Are these in the public domain?
George
-
That's a Gilberton title. The same company that published Classics Illustrated. I have a few issues. They're extra thick, 64-80 pages or so. Mine date to the late 50s and early 60s.
Don't know about PD status but I'm sure one of the experts here will know.
Best
Joe
-
Sorry forgot to also post the link where I found it ...
http://www.classicscentral.com/world.htm (http://www.classicscentral.com/world.htm)
George
-
No, these are not PD so we wont be sharing any of their books on DCM should full book scans appear.
Sorry.
-
Interesting to note that the Classics site has an artists index on these issues taken from my personal Classics Index that I shared with Dan Malan during a visit 20+ years ago (word for word, artist by artist, page number by page number). As is usual, there is no credit given or shared with me or with Hames Ware who helped me compile the index. Sigh...
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Interesting to note that the Classics site has an artists index on these issues taken from my personal Classics Index that I shared with Dan Malan during a visit 20+ years ago (word for word, artist by artist, page number by page number). As is usual, there is no credit given or shared with me or with Hames Ware who helped me compile the index. Sigh...
Peace, Jim (|:{>
I know how you feel Jim. I've seen the same thing happen with comedian/comedy filmographies I've worked on. It's always nice to get credit for all of one's hard work.
Best
Joe
-
Keep in mind that for the rest of us, it's not just credit, but credibility. Seeing a random uncredited checklist, it could be...well, anything from random guesswork to actual analysis. If Jim and Hames are named, though, it makes a big difference as to how I view the information.
-
Correct on both aspects. Credit should be given where due and to add credibility
-
Well said John!
-
Thanks, guys.
(|:{>
-
That list has probably been kicking around in the comics scene for years and years and the present user probably has no idea where it came from. That they would then post it on a web page word for word without even attempting to update or verify it strikes me as the height of laziness. Wouldn't you think a site devoted to Classics would attempt to update/validate the list and add their own research?
-
The real crime IMO is the first person who shared the list and did NOT include the proper credits for it's origins.
As you say those further down the line might well have no idea who wrote it and it sometimes can be impossible to discover the writer if one doesn't know where to look. Not to make excuses for them. The first poster is still the guilty party IMO.
-
To my mind, if you don't know where the information comes from, posting it is only going to hurt. You run the risk of it being wrong, possibly maliciously so, making you the guy who fell for the hoax. In certain cases, there's also a potential copyright claim to be made, in some cases.
So, the person who "lost" the attribution might have been the most ethically wrong, but everybody else in the chain is guilty of a much broader range of sins, so to speak.
Think of information like food: If you don't know where it came from, it's a stupid idea to serve it to guests who you'd like to think highly of you. It might go over well, sure, but it's hardly the way to bet. And even if nobody dies, as Bob points out, it's a little insulting, especially when you're claiming it as a specialty of the house...
-
That list has probably been kicking around in the comics scene for years and years and the present user probably has no idea where it came from. That they would then post it on a web page word for word without even attempting to update or verify it strikes me as the height of laziness. Wouldn't you think a site devoted to Classics would attempt to update/validate the list and add their own research?
Actually, Bob, the site is quite clear about where the list came from:
"© "The Complete Guide to Classics Illustrated" by Dan Malan, adapted for web by Rudy Tambone"
I can't seem to locate my copy "The Guide" (if it was ever published and if I received/obtained one), and I simply don't recall whether or not Dan Malan credited me therein, so I don't know if Rudy Tambone knew who was behind the list.
As for validating, that seems to be a virtue sadly lacking in almost every comics history or book that I read. I've been trying to wend my way through Fire & Water and From Light to Shadow and keep gasping at the inaccuracies that a simply Who's Who or GCD search could have avoided. People keep copying other books and rewriting what they've read to avoid the appearance of plagiarism - in the process adding errors.
As historians, writers of books about comic book are great fans.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
What we need is the JVJ Complete and Accurate Definitive Comic Book History Encyclopedia. Lots of buyers here
-
Actually, my memory fails me again.
Malan's source was a list from Bill Briggs updated by Hames Ware (and me only indirectly). The credit in Malan's book is "Bill Briggs, Hames Ware, Jerry Bails and others.", a cast worth mentioning by all accounts. The list I shared with Malan was nowhere near as complete as the Briggs/Ware list (my copy of which is even more complete than what appears in Malan's book or on the website).
I have SO much data just stashed in binders, books, folders and on note cards here, narf, that finding the time to write such a book might tax even my ability to grasp at informational straws. I spoke to Hames tonight about the possibility of conspiring on such a definitive project and we both gasped at the magnitude of the research necessary and the organizational skills we'd have to throw at the task.
Who knows? Hames has notes and correspondence with people like Raphael Astarita, the second artist hired by Chesler in 1936, and Hames claims that he had a photographic memory. We're wondering if we might not HAVE to do it, since no one else really has access to the resources. Where does one find the time for such a project? We have TAPES of conversations with Astarita and who even HAS a reel to reel recorder/player any more. Even technology is conspiring against us.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
ps. Bill Jones wrote a book on CI that is probably as up to date as anything yet done. And FWIW, the second version of The Adventures of Cellini (C.I. 38) is drawn by Italian artist Dino Battaglia. I don't know if that has ever been officially recorded anywhere. I confirmed it when looking at some Battaglia reprints in Paris two years ago.
(|:{>
-
As you say Jim but if not you who. There may be a college that will give credit to students who would help you undertake such
-
Interesting idea Narf.
Something like Cat Yronwode did with Eisner for her complete Eisner listing only times 1000.
;)
-
Narrative fills space and makes more pages and takes longer to write. An encyclopedia would not be a "fun" read but would present all the information factually. Another option would be an error report. There are lots of books on comics with good facts but some errors. Crawford's appears to be so poor it would take a book to fix but others have better and a few fixes would help to stop perpetuating the fallacies. The more I think about it the more I think that would do the most to end the fallacies. Does that sound like an easier task Jim? A book or web posting "Fixing the Fallacies: Error Correction from Comic Book Histories"
-
There is already a Yahoo group based on that idea Narf:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ComicsHistoryMistakeHunters/
But it doesn't get much action much like most Yahoo groups these days with some notable exceptions.
-Yoc
-
The problem with groups is that we're back to the original issue: Where did SiegelFan0638 get his information...?
Brian Cronin does an "Urban Legends" series of articles on comics, and while I appreciate the effort that goes into it, a lot of times the answer is "yes, that's correct; I read a third-hand account of it somewhere that said so." Which...y'know, you might as well flip a coin.
What's probably needed is a way for Jim and company to dump as much information out as the motivation strikes and then set the minions (whether they're us, some literature students, comic book clubs, or whoever can be drafted) to work cleaning it up. Think Wikipedia, if Jimmy Wales cared about the honesty of the articles...
(I might have a lead on something. I just haven't had time to pursue it. Hopefully, I can give it a once-over this weekend. I'll explain what I find if it turns out usable.)
-
Sounds good Jon. I think there is a lot of interest in accuracy. I know some people do not like all the rigor involved in the GCD. But, the GCD has a very strong desire to be accurate. Yes there are mistakes, but most were made years ago and are weeded out as best we can. If you check on who does what it is a very small pool doing a very large amount of work.