Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

40 views
Book Issues > Anthology vs. Standalone vs. Expanded

Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Steelwhisper (last edited Jul 29, 2014 12:04AM) (new)

Steelwhisper | 30 comments I have a difference of opinions with another GR librarian over a publication of mine.

As I see it, and as it is handled obviously by other librarians as well, there is a difference between the publication of a standalone book, an anthology and e.g. an extended version. All are different "entities" even if the same story is at the base of them all.

First let me give examples for what I am talking about:

Dracula Publication in 1879, standalone
Classics of Horror: Dracula & Frankenstein Publication in 1960, anthology
The New Annotated Dracula Publication in 2012, extended version

I could cite a couple of more such occurrences, but I hope this suffices to illustrate what I am talking about. It's always the same story, but as a publication the books themselves have different "1st publication dates" from the original first instance of Dracula in 1879.

Now to my problem.

A short story version of my story "George" was published in 2011 in the Circlet anthology Like an Iron Fist: Dystopian Erotica.

I yesterday published (for the first time!) an extended, changed version of this story as a standalone book George, giving the correct date of first publication as 24th of July, 2014.

The anthology and this standalone book are not different editions of each other. They are not even the same publications. They don't even have the exact same stories. I do mention--out of politeness to the readers--in blurb and in my own review that the stories in this book and in "Like an Iron Fist" share the same basic narrative, and that there have been re-editing, changes and additions. Still doesn't make them belong to the same publication.

The other librarian however has now twice adjusted the date in the standalone (of 1st publication) to the date of the anthology. At first I changed it back thinking she may have overlooked we're talking different books and publications (and not editions), but it has been edited back and I really don't want to start some editing war.

I need a definite ruling whether the policy which is followed with "Dracula" and many other such occasions is valid, and whether I can ask for the first publication date of 2014 to be left alone, or not.

I have looked for info on this, but alas, other than finding many, many stories treated the way I explained above, I didn't.


message 2: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41062 comments Mod
It's a tricky issue, but for an anthology containing only items which have been previously published, we would generally set it's original publication date to the latest date that each of the comprising stories had been published. So if an anthology published in 2000 had stories published in 1987, 1992, 1975, 1990, and 1983, the anthology's original publication date should be 1990. And the date for the specific edition would be 2000, of course.


message 3: by Steelwhisper (new)

Steelwhisper | 30 comments It's the other way around in this case Rivka.

Plus we are not talking about an anthology's second edition. We are talking anthology vs. standalone which has never been published as a standalone, nor in it's current version at all.

I nowhere see that treated as the same thing.


Karma♥Bites ^.~ (karma_bites) | 947 comments Steelwhisper, pls see rivka's post @ https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

As I explained to you in PM, the situation is not different than if you had published your short on its own back in 2011 (as opposed to in ANTH) and then re-released the current version. Moreover, unlike some re-worked re-releases, the changes/edits made to 'George' are not significant so to deemed the current version as a 'new' work.

Of course, the above is my understanding to date. To the extent that it's wrong, I would appreciate confirmation/correction. :)


message 5: by Steelwhisper (last edited Jul 25, 2014 09:54PM) (new)

Steelwhisper | 30 comments I disagree.

That story "as is" has seen no standalone publication so far at all and it is a distinctly different thing from being (an abridged) part of an anthology.

Moreover, if you closely look at my examples above, you can see that even though while "Dracula" was published as a story the first time in 1879, and appears UNCHANGED in the anthology with Frankenstein, the anthology--as an own entity--of course has an own first publication date. Dracula appears *also* unchanged in the annotated version. The annotations are separate from the story.

As to that thread, I see that Lobstergirl has the same opinion as I do. And she makes the same very logical arguments in favour of treating different entities as different.

On top of that there's the point of that "George" was NEVER before published as a standalone with an own copyright. This is the exact reverse of the (disputed already there) ruling about anthologies and their publication dates. "Frankenstein" in the anthology above also wasn't published in 1960!

As to how significant or not the changes are, I don't think that with a short story they have to be monumental. It is different and longer, and the slant it received in tone is also different. That mostly the same activities take place in it is something to warn potential owners of the anthology about, but doesn't change the fact that here for the first time the whole story was published.

The problem with all this, apart from being simply inaccurate and defying how this gets treated outside of GR, is that now Goodreads advertises this story all over the place as having been published in 2011 which it sure wasn't--with people asking me why I tell them this is a new book, which it is, when GR insists it isn't.

If you want to record a "first publication of ANY version ANYwhere" instead of a "first publication of this book", then Goodreads really should refrain from listing books by that date, because it can be patently inaccurate.

So, it can't be both ways, or rather if it is handled both ways, then I would like the standalone treated as its own entity.


message 6: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (last edited Jul 25, 2014 10:01PM) (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (karma_bites) | 947 comments IDK what part of rivka's answer was unclear. And as to Lobstergirl having the same opinion as you, do note that she got confused betn date of original publication -vs- date of current publication.

But I'm done beating a dead horse. Feel free to wait for rivka to respond.

ETA: As to the changes, your own words: while it has been re-edited, had one page added and was brushed up and changed in place, it still is essentially the same narrative.


message 7: by Steelwhisper (last edited Jul 25, 2014 10:26PM) (new)

Steelwhisper | 30 comments LOL, there's a difference between being the same narrative and being a different story entity as per copyright regulations. Which by the way is why I assigned "George" a copyright for 2010 *and* one for 2014, else I'd be self-plagiarising and this new version of the story wouldn't be covered by copyright. "Narrative" only refers to what takes place in a story, not to being the same wording. I think you'd have a hard time selling that Orson Scott Card's "Hamlet" is the same thing Shakespeare wrote, even though the narrative and even most of the wording are the same.

As to an anthology allegedly being the same as an ebook or a paperback, why then don't you see it as an "edition choice" in the dropdown? If we were talking here of e.g. a paperback version vs. the ebook version I wouldn't be here. Of course a paperback edition would be directly linked to the ebook version. Happens all the time with ebooks and their paperback versions (which is what lobstergirl meant) and the original copyright is commonly mentioned in the frontmatter.

ETA: See above, the Dracula stories in *all* these different publications with *different* 1st publication dates are absolutely identical to the last comma and period. So it's not as if that mattered in relation to what we discuss here.


message 8: by Steelwhisper (new)

Steelwhisper | 30 comments Also, this ebook does NOT have a second edition. It also is NOT a second edition of "Like an Iron Fist". Stating so would entirely muddy waters now.


message 9: by Karma♥Bites ^.~ (last edited Jul 26, 2014 06:47PM) (new)

Karma♥Bites ^.~ (karma_bites) | 947 comments Steelwhisper wrote: "LOL, there's a difference between being the same narrative and being a different story entity as per copyright regulations. Which by the way is why I assigned "George" a copyright for 2010 *and* one for 2014, else I'd be self-plagiarising and this new version of the story wouldn't be covered by copyright. ..."

Do take care to ensure that the tail and dog are attached to the same body. Inasmuch as GR book cataloging policies don't dictate copyright issues, I don't think that copyright right matters dictate what is considered a brand-spanking new work for GR's purposes.

Renewing copyright to one's work―whether due to passage of time or changes to the original―is simply smart practice. Over the yrs, laws can be amended or revised, w/ certain legacy provisions not carried forward or new provisions not made retroactive. In the case of changes made subsequent to grant of original copyright, well, of course, a new copyright is required to cover the entirety of the now-revised work. At risk of being simplistic, it's the equivalent of taking out an amendment to a homeowner's insurance to cover improvements and additions made to a house subsequent to purchase.

As for self-plagiarism, one cannot steal from oneself. (And in similar vein, can one violate one's own copyright?) Thus, self-plagiarism is an academic/ethical issue, not a technical/legal one―and really, 'serious' only when someone seeks to defraud (e.g., multiple publication). Also, IIRC, self-plagiarism can become an issue vis-à-vis any copyright interest which a publisher may have re: a certain work.


Steelwhisper wrote: "...I think you'd have a hard time selling that Orson Scott Card's "Hamlet" is the same thing Shakespeare wrote, even though the narrative and even most of the wording are the same. ..."

I refuse to engage in philosophical or esoteric debate, especially when it involves a work which I didn't read. I'll only note that your 'example' is not directly on point as it involves 2 different writers. AFAIK, Orson Scott Card is not Shakespeare. OTOH, you are you.

Again, it's best to wait for rivka's reply.


ETA: I now regret even thinking to help you w/ that notation in the blurb. Good intentions and the path to hell, indeed.


message 10: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41062 comments Mod
Steelwhisper wrote: "It's the other way around in this case Rivka."

I realize that, but it doesn't really matter. First publication date is first publication date.


message 11: by Steelwhisper (new)

Steelwhisper | 30 comments rivka wrote: "Steelwhisper wrote: "I realize that, but it doesn't really matter. First publication date is first publication date."

Is that an official Goodreads statement?

And if yes, who will be changing all those books listings not handling it "properly", like for instance those I mentioned above? Because clearly you then have to aggregate ALL instances and publications of e.g. Dracula under a single one.


message 12: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 41062 comments Mod
Steelwhisper wrote: "Is that an official Goodreads statement? "

It is a statement of long-standing policy, but like most of our librarian policies, it is subject to discussion.

Anthologies are not combined with their component parts, so I'm not sure entirely what you mean about Dracula. The annotated one possibly should be combined with the original.


back to top