Zzap!64 107 reprint permission

[CraigGrannell]

A possibility of a Zzap!64 107 reprint has come up, perhaps as a perk update to a Chris Wilkins project (as in, he of the Zzap! annuals). 107 originally got those two very limited digital print runs and has been long out of print. I only have one slightly bashed up copy myself. My question is whether anyone would object to a reprint being done, in a not-for-profit capacity.

For those who aren’t aware, Chris owns the rights to the Zzap!64 brand now, and has long worked with Roger and Oli on a modern incarnation of the magazine that has to date spawned three hardcover annuals and an ongoing A5 bi-monthly magazine that some people here and the odd ex-Zzap! staffer contribute to.

Honestly, I’m not sure who would need to grant permission for this to happen. Zzap! 107 was a collective endeavour, led my Cameron Davis, Gordon Houghton and myself. But there is intentionally no copyright on the publication itself. Although I sought permission from Roger and Oli at the time, they could only give their blessing on things they owned (like the logo, which I redrew) but nothing more. Beyond that, for example, Ant Stiller would have the rights to the reviewer heads.

My assumption/hope is that no-one would be against this, though. But the terrifyingly long full roll call is: Chris Abbott; Mat Allen; Iain Black; Lee Bolton; Cameron Davis; Paul Glancey; me; Andy Haywood; Craig Hesmondhalgh; Robin Hogg; Gordon Houghton; Demetrius Kiminias; Jason MacKenzie; Paul Morrison; Umer Pasha; Warren Pilkington; Maff Rignall; Ant Stiller; Stephen Stuttard; Andrew Williams; Robert De Voogd. Well, and Lloyd Mangram and Paul Sumner, obvs.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

[Iain]

Well, I'd have no problem with it. Might reduce the value of the couple of copies I have left though!

[Professor Brian Strain]

To me it would make most sense as an update/remake rather a straight reprint.

[Iain]

To me it would make most sense as an update/remake rather a straight reprint.

How do you mean? In another format e.g. A5 or a graphic redesign? I don't see the any need to change the content though.

[Professor Brian Strain]

To me it would make most sense as an update/remake rather a straight reprint.

How do you mean? In another format e.g. A5 or a graphic redesign? I don't see the any need to change the content though.

I was thinking in terms of adverts and feature content, to reflect how many years have passed.

[CraigGrannell]

I see it more as a historical artefact. With Chris doing new issues, I’m not sure what value there would be in updating the one we did. (Plus: time. Plus: no idea where the source files are.) I like the idea we could get it back into print. The thing is, after all, hen’s teeth rare.

[Iain]

I think I got a copy of the source files from you, although I'm not 100% what was on the CD, but I think leaving it as is, would be the way to go anyway.

[CraigGrannell]

I think these days it would be viable to print straight from the high-res PDF as well, although I’m not sure what output I did that at. (So very long ago!) I probably have the original InDesign docs knocking around somewhere, but it would be quite a hunt to find them—and I’ve no idea how well they’d work in the current version, all these years later.

I guess it’s all moot anyway without a flurry of emails to see what people think. Although it’d be an odd contributor that stamped out any chance of more people getting a copy in print.

[Lloyd Mangram]

Hi all, no problems with a reprint. Just leave it like it is/was.

[Iain]

Don't mess with perfection!

[Mayhem]

Yeah I'm fine with things!