The Def Guide to Zzap!64

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.

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

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

Professor Brian Strain wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:28 pm 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.

Iain wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 8:48 pm

Professor Brian Strain wrote: ↑Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:28 pm 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Don't mess with perfection!

Yeah I'm fine with things!