20 Tanks From Kasseldown - Portfolio, 1946

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Over 1000 posts
True. I hear more about copyright now amongst my academic contacts than I did back when I was in college. In those days, if you wanted to reprint something, you just did it.
 

cirerita

Founding member
Over 1000 posts
You are right. I'm loopy from lack of sleep. Groff published "Aftermath", Stodolsky published the reprint of 20 tanks....
This is interesting. How come Groff's is listed in Krumhansl and Stodolsky's is not? Did K. miss Stodolsky's?

It's listed in Water Row Books Catalogue #64 and priced $195: "Xerox reprint of the broadside story originally issued by Black Sun Press [...] One of 25 numbered copies (total edition) signed by Bukowski [...] Very scarce."
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Moderator
Founding member
Over 1000 posts
I would have thought that Stodolsky's xerox is not classed as an 'A' item - it sounds pretty much like a nasty bootleg really, despite the signature.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
This is interesting. How come Groff's is listed in Krumhansl and Stodolsky's is not? Did K. miss Stodolsky's?

It's listed in Water Row Books Catalogue #64 and priced $195: "Xerox reprint of the broadside story originally issued by Black Sun Press [...] One of 25 numbered copies (total edition) signed by Bukowski [...] Very scarce."
Hi,
This is because Red just bootlegged this with Buk's permission. It is not a Primary "A" item any more than "My First Fax Poem " is a primary item. Red did a few of these limited edition Buk items for himself and good customers, but they are in effect, ephemeral reprints.

Bill
 

chronic

old and in the way
Over 1000 posts
Yes, what Bill said. The Groff's Aftermath was a completely separate publication and not just a reprint. It also included an article by Bukowski titled About Aftermath. Red just made a two sided photocopy which Bukowski signed and numbered.
 

cirerita

Founding member
Over 1000 posts
Interesting, indeed. I had forgotten K.'s covered "A" items only, though I think it's been discussed more than once whether some items could be considered "A" items or not.

Anyway, do you think that a bootlegged reprint signed by Bukowski can be considered a "bootleg"?
 

chronic

old and in the way
Over 1000 posts
Since Bukowski participated in this, "bootleg" would probably be the wrong word. "One-off reprint" would probably be a better description.

It would actually be a nice little item if it weren't so poorly produced. At the time that Red and Bukowski did this, Twenty Tanks had not yet been reprinted anywhere as far as I know.
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
Over 5000 posts
I think a copy of someone else's work is a bootleg by definition. My definition, anyway.
 

cirerita

Founding member
Over 1000 posts
It would actually be a nice little item if it weren't so poorly produced. At the time that Red and Bukowski did this, Twenty Tanks had not yet been reprinted anywhere as far as I know.
Richard Peabody reprinted it in 1981 in one of his cool, slick books.

I think a copy of someone else's work is a bootleg by definition. My definition, anyway.
Is a sanctioned bootleg a bootleg?
 

chronic

old and in the way
Over 1000 posts
I think a copy of someone else's work is a bootleg by definition. My definition, anyway.
But since Bukowski was in on it from the start, and it was his work, I think bootleg is the wrong word.

Richard Peabody reprinted it in 1981 in one of his cool, slick books.
I wasn't aware of that. Red's reprint would have been right around '85.
 

Father Luke

Founding member
Over 1000 posts
cirerita said:
Is a sanctioned bootleg a bootleg?
Yeah.

Pearl Jam, and the Grateful Dead, sanctioned
bootlegs all the time. Hank Three also. . .

I see it happen in music all the time.
 

chronic

old and in the way
Over 1000 posts
You have a point (sort of). In music, when a band like the Grateful Dead or Pearl Jam say it's okay for fans to record and distribute their concerts, the term bootleg takes on a different meaning. While the recordings may have been done without the express permission of the band, the band does tacitly approve of them. However, they never say that it's okay to sell them.

If someone were to make a copy of one of these band's official releases and then sell them, that would be a bootleg in the traditional sense and you can be sure that the band(s) would not be okay with that.

Bootleg usually means to copy something without explicit or tacit permission and then sell it, so since 20 Tanks was a copy of someone's work (in terms of copying the original layout), but was done with permission of the author, I guess that it's sort of a half-bootleg. Had Red done this without any permission, then yeah, it would be a bootleg.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
You have a point (sort of). In music, when a band like the Grateful Dead or Pearl Jam say it's okay for fans to record and distribute their concerts, the term bootleg takes on a different meaning. While the recordings may have been done without the express permission of the band, the band does tacitly approve of them. However, they never say that it's okay to sell them.

If someone were to make a copy of one of these band's official releases and then sell them, that would be a bootleg in the traditional sense and you can be sure that the band(s) would not be okay with that.

Bootleg usually means to copy something without explicit or tacit permission and then sell it, so since 20 Tanks was a copy of someone's work (in terms of copying the original layout), but was done with permission of the author, I guess that it's sort of a half-bootleg. Had Red done this without any permission, then yeah, it would be a bootleg.
In this case, if Red xeroxed another publishers layout, he would also technically need permission from that publisher too. Buk owned the words, but the published would have owned the layout and design...


Bill
 

mjp

Your Host
Moderator
Founding member
Over 5000 posts
That's what I meant by someone else's work.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Over 5000 posts
And it is very possible that the publisher knew of what Red did and gave permission. Either way, it is a xeroxed and signed release. I'm a completest, but have never had a desire to own this "release".

Bill
 

roni

Over 5000 posts
Springsteen also encouraged bootleggers during the 70s/early 80s.
I have a bootleg, where he even states through the mic: "Are any bootleggers out there? Roll your tape!" and then plays a song that wasn't on LP then.

Still these were bootlegs, since they were done by people from the audience and the record company didn't give permission.

Anyway, a bootleg is usually a recording made by the bootlegger on his own.
a copy of an existing work is a different thing. It's a copy.
so i don't see the term 'bootleg' matching here.
Which says zero about the legal status or collectible value of the item, of course.
 
Top