Forum:Print version

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Print version

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6338 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

See here. Synopsis: Uncyclopedia anthology book.

Ideas so far: Three versions varying by amount of objectionable content (age appropriateness): Mild, Hot, Fire

Mild

This version will be non-commercial and suitable for ages of around 10-13 and up. It can be distributed to libraries and hospitals and such free of charge.

Hot

For older audiences while not being too shöcking. Any questionable articles should not be in Mild, but in Hot or Fire.

Fire

For Cancer porn, Holocaust Tycoon, etc. These we are asking to be relicensed since they are often the work of a single user and one or two accomplices. There is no censorship here and the book can be sold for profit.

Concerns

1. Complying with licenses and allowing for the sale of goods under our corporate overlords.
2. Attribution; how best to do it.
3. All images must be kosher for use under all copyright laws where this is published.
4. Lots of work, etc.

To do

1. Figure out what to do.
2. Compile a list of wanted articles for each edition.
3. Figure out fundraising.
4. Clean up articles; verify authors; polish everything.
   1. Suggested: Off-site wiki with login only editing and a different license for the profit version.
5. Formatting and layout.
6. Find a publisher/printer.
7. Distribute.

Also needed

• A name.
• Cover art.
• Other stuff.

And so. Do we orchestrate this here, or do we take it somewhere else? I'd like the Uncyclopedia community involved in every step they wish to be, but there are legal stuffs involved. Input pls. --KATIE!! 05:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments, etc.

I actually don't have much of an opinion on this one way or the other, but this was brought up back in February (see this archive section), and it seemed like the consensus at the time was to nix the idea. Things change, though... And we probably are more in need of public exposure now, at least to some extent. I guess if everyone really wants to do it, I'd be willing to throw some money at it - though personally, I'd recommend waiting a couple more months for this Wikia-takeover thing to shake out a little bit.  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Something Chron said back then is an interesting idea: "If you wanted to do a commercial version, what we can definitely do is simply ask the authors to write a final version of their pages for the book. It could be possibly to split proceeds a couple of ways in that manner, which both fulfills our license, and makes everybody happy." I think it would be great for the main author of each of the featured pages to write a final version, based off the last version before another user's significant edit. That would distinguish credit and make the legal side of it much easier (plus, then we could PROFIT!) -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I remember this. I was thinking at first more along the lines of WikiReader, and making a PDF version which we send to a publisher. The thing is that it takes a long time to get everything together, and we're not going to be printing in a week. So while waiting for the Wikia stuff to settle, we could get this all begun, at least. As for funds, I'm putting merchandise together and I was wondering initially if this were something it could fund, though I doubt the profits are going to come rolling in anytime soon. I was just throwing out ideas, and the response has been overwhelming, so I'm just going with the flow.... --KATIE!! 05:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its a great idea, but then I'm looking forward to Uncyclopedia THE Movie. I've already asked Liam Neeson to play me (despite a bit of an age difference) and I think he sounds keen to take on the part. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Since most of the articles are the work of one person or just a few people, this is actually feasible as far as the text goes - just get permission from the authors. Pictures are possibly more of a wrangle - how much fair-use abuse can you get away with in print? Remembering that "fair use" is not a legal permission, but a defence in court - "fair use" is legalese for "c'mon if you think you're hard enough." - David Gerard 13:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Depending what's in the pictures, it might be a good idea to grab a camera and shoot them properly? We need far more resolution for print than what we've been getting away with in wiki thumbnails.

I likes it, I likes it a lot. However, I wouldn't worry about having different versions, because the super-offensive stuff you mentioned (Holocaust tycoon, cancer porn etc.) aren't funny anyway and shouldn't be included. It would be great to have the featured versions of our best articles, with a main author credit for each and additional credits to others who contributed on the pages. Also, admins and especially ones who specialize at writing articles (me, Todd, Rc, Katie, etc.) could write essays and introductions and the like (sort of what America: The Book did with Daily Show correspondents). Cool idea. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Because being an admin is synonymous with editorial brilliance. No, wait ... Possibly there is this thing called "difference in taste". I made Category:Tasteless for those of us who like this sort of thing, after all. I know you'll be forced to subject yourself to it, rather than ignore it, but hey, it'll be good for you. And if it isn't, it'll be funny - David Gerard 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Premises

If we're going to be realistic about this, then in my opinion we have to start with four basic premises:

1) If we don't find an established publisher for it, the cost and effort of doing it ourselves, in such a way as to get the book into brick 'n' mortar bookshops, is just going to be prohibitive. We can certainly write it, design it, and even print it, but distribution is by far the larger problem. Personally I wouldn't even bother moving on the idea at all until we can get at least an expression of interest from somebody with a distribution network (doesn't have to be a major). Indie distribution might get the book into a few big stores, but it's also a very good way to throw away money. Ultimately, I don't think the project is worth doing unless the book can be found at major retail chains - otherwise there just isn't enough exposure. Call me a negativist...

2) We'd be better off taking a thematic approach rather than publishing a "Best Of Uncyclopedia" book - the theme can be highly generalized, such as The Uncyclopedia Guide to Modern Life, or Uncyclopedia Presents: Where Humanity Went Wrong, Vol. I — but I just happen to believe that an unthemed random collection probably has little or no chance of shifting enough units, much less of being picked up by a publisher in the first place (though just to be redundant and repeat myself some more, that's just my opinion).

3) We can't (or shouldn't try to) simply reprint articles verbatim. For one thing, most of them are too dependent on links and other forms of cross-referencing, and for another, there are too many inside jokes and there's too much internet-specific terminology. We'd have more success choosing a subset of articles whose primary authors are willing to rewrite them (or have them rewritten) specifically for print, grant the necessary rights to their submissions, and if any lawyers insist, indemnify the "project" against any libel or copyright-infringement actions brought specifically because of their content. Which leads to the Fourth Premise:

4) Never try to have a book published without having an attorney lined up in advance, preferably in the country we're publishing in. We'd have to think of that as part of our printing expenses, I'm afraid.
 c • > • cunwapquc? 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)