$50 for a *copy* of a letter?!
- Thread starter mjp
- Start date
BilkoJoe
Founding member
Not the right place for this post but as its free took at...
Hope you like....
http://www.atomictest.co.uk/red.htm
Cheers
Joe
Copies free btw pm or mail your address.
Hope you like....
http://www.atomictest.co.uk/red.htm
Cheers
Joe
Copies free btw pm or mail your address.
For what it's worth, the items that Water Row is selling are copies of letters that reside in a special collection at the University of Alberta. The collection contains correspondence, original manuscripts, early drafts, proofs, etc. of Black Sparrow titles (not just Bukowski) published from its inception in 1966 thru about 1970. They had a show in 2003 of this material and put together a really beautiful glossy catalog. Anyhow, all one has to do to obtain copies of ANY university archive is say you are doing scholarly work and they'll let you copy whatever you want. Obviously, the copies cannot be intended for republishing or resale.
Last edited by a moderator:
cirerita
Founding member
well, that's not entirely correct. All universites have a limit as to the number of copies you want to make. For example, at UCSB's Special Collections Department you're allowed a maximum of 100 copies or 10 percent of a given book/chapbook. I was lucky enough to circumvent that rule -don't ask me how :D- and make well over 3.000 copies.
anyway, if you manage to make those 100 copies and sell them for $50 each, then you'll make some easy -though dirty- money...
Last edited by a moderator:
mjp
Founding member
The answer is partly yes, partly no. Yes, you will see them online, no, it will probably not be soon. The backlog of manuscripts is just too huge to contemplate right now, and I want to get the database work knocked out first.
Though there is a new little feature/item coming pretty soon, before the database is ready. I'll leave you to speculate what it might be. ;) Nothing big, don't get all worked up.
Though there is a new little feature/item coming pretty soon, before the database is ready. I'll leave you to speculate what it might be. ;) Nothing big, don't get all worked up.
Like I said...they'll let you copy whatever you want.
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
I'm not an expert on copyright, but I think under the "fair use" rule you can make one copy of something like a manuscript, part of a book, etc., for your own scholarly use and that's completely legal. But if you sell it, it's not legal. For that reason alone, I wouldn't be selling copies of manuscripts. I'm sure it's also against eBay rules, but first they have to catch you and they'll probably just give you a warning. I think it falls under their intellectual property rights rules. Not that I'm an eBay cop, just someone who hesitates before jaywalking.
cirerita
Founding member
In most places, they usually stick a piece of paper which reads: "Notice: this material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code)". It seems to me illegal to sell copies with this warning. However, many of the copies I have were not accompanied by this warning and I guess this probably happens elsewhere.
I think that the letter IS worth $50. The seller was very honest and upfront about it's nature... also, am I to understand that the paper it's copied on is 40 years old? It would be nice to have a dog-eared copy of such a unique relic. If fact I think I'll try and bid now, if it's not to late...
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Hi,
No one has mentioned this, but that $50 letter is a letter from Buk and in it he talks about our own Rekrab (David Barker).
Maybe only one of two people on this forum that has letters by Buk written where he is mentioned?
Best,
Bill
No one has mentioned this, but that $50 letter is a letter from Buk and in it he talks about our own Rekrab (David Barker).
Maybe only one of two people on this forum that has letters by Buk written where he is mentioned?
Best,
Bill
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
I don't think the presence or absence of a warning makes any difference. All unpublished manuscripts enjoy the same copyright protections, if I understand what I've read on the subject. The warning is literally just a warning -- that the material is protected by copyright.
By the way, when I looked into public domain laws, I found that written material published before 1923 is in public domain...anyone can copy and sell it without pernission or royalties paid to the original copyright holder. However, unpublished manuscripts are protected back to something like 1885, and aren't in public domain if they were created after that. I don't know why that distinction is made, but it's interesting. Needless to say, I ain't a lawyer and don't quote me on this stuff...it's just the situation as I understand it.
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
The infamous yellow paper copies of Buk's letter to Wong are 20 years old...they are vintage copies made in the same year the letter was written, 1986. Old copies on old paper.
To be clear, they were made to be distributed privately to friends, as an information sharing thing, and not to be sold. Money had nothing to do with it.
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
Bill: thanks for mentioning that. Who is the other honoree, if I may ask?
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Hi,
There is a lady who had a relationship with Buk. She has not posted in a while. I have never figured out her name, although I'm sure there are others that have.
Also, he wrote about me in many of his letters. In those letters, he referred to me under my pen name....
Oh that's right. I must have been dreaming. I did not know the Buk...
It is funny, though that although there was a very negative response from some to the book "Charles Bukowski Spit in My Face", Bukowski did not seem at all upset by the book. I know that others were upset (If you read a later printing of the book, Barker talks about this), but clearly Buk was not bothered.
Best,
Bill
There is a lady who had a relationship with Buk. She has not posted in a while. I have never figured out her name, although I'm sure there are others that have.
Also, he wrote about me in many of his letters. In those letters, he referred to me under my pen name....
Oh that's right. I must have been dreaming. I did not know the Buk...
It is funny, though that although there was a very negative response from some to the book "Charles Bukowski Spit in My Face", Bukowski did not seem at all upset by the book. I know that others were upset (If you read a later printing of the book, Barker talks about this), but clearly Buk was not bothered.
Best,
Bill
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
Bill: Thanks for the info about the other poster who's appeared in Buk letters.
You're right about my "Spit" book. It didn't seem to bother Bukowski. But I took a tremendous amount of shit for it from other people. What I said in the book seemed to have nothing to do with it. It was all over the simple fact that I'd done it without their blessing. Funny, I always thought a person had a right to publish a memoir. If I don't have authority to write about my life, who is supposed to give that to me? All water under the bridge now, and the bridge has fallen down into the river and been washed away...
You're right about my "Spit" book. It didn't seem to bother Bukowski. But I took a tremendous amount of shit for it from other people. What I said in the book seemed to have nothing to do with it. It was all over the simple fact that I'd done it without their blessing. Funny, I always thought a person had a right to publish a memoir. If I don't have authority to write about my life, who is supposed to give that to me? All water under the bridge now, and the bridge has fallen down into the river and been washed away...
Hey David, you're a poet, did you know it? :D
Seriously though, I like that sentiment. Nice.
Oh.. maybe I had it confused with something else... I was under the impression that it was written in 1967...