Talk:Donald A. Wollheim

message: Guys, I seem to remember credible people telling me that Wollheim's thinking in the Tolkien debacle was -- he was unaware of the Houghton Mifflin editions until after the Fellowship came out.  Since at the time any book not published in America within a year of its English publication entered the public domain here, he acted believing these books to be in the public domain and had one of those horrible 'oops' moments when Houghton Mifflin contacted the publisher.  I do not believe in objectivity, and frankly admit to being biased in this matter, and most of my sources on this subject are either dead or explicitly not talking to me for reasons irrelevent here (Don D'Ammassa).  Does anyone have information which would explicitly contradict this?  What is on the article page is speculation as to his motives, I'm not -- given my biases -- about to challenge without more concrete evidence than I have.  I think there should be more evidence or it should be dropped.
--Jplatt39 18:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus in the industry is that he knew there was no loophole (which was the courts' ruling, too) and just hoped to get away with it. The current version of the article is much more polite about his role than some of the earlier versions, which were less polite/forgiving and more denuncatory in tone. --Orange Mike 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that any such consensus existed when this occurred and imputing criminal motive, as the earlier versions of this text did, without specific facts skates close to defamation. People played a lot more fast and loose with copyrights back in the 60's. The court case referenced here was almost 30 years after the fact.  Beamdriver 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to check the fanzines of the era, but the people I know who were active back then seem to agree that he thought he'd get away with it, rather than he thought he was right. We're agreed, I see, that the current version is much safer and polite than the earlier versions. (The court case was 30 years after the fact because of "the law's delay"; but that's irrelevant to the question of the original act and motivation.) --Orange Mike 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terry Carr, who was working for Donald Wollheim at Ace at the time, published a lengthy, complicated and detailed explanation of what happened in one of the major fanzines at the time: it may have been Lighthouse or Warhoon, I don't now (50 years later...) recall. His points were, if I remember correctly, that: 1) Ten years had passed and no US paperback edition had been licensed, although attempts had been made by US paperback houses to acquire the rights; 2) During this ten year period the necessary steps to secure a valid US copyright were not taken.  Houghton-Mifflin did not really publish a US hardcover edition--what they did was to sell the Allen & Unwin edition sewn in a Houghton-Mifflin binding; 3) Tolkien's contract with Allen & Unwin failed to anticipate the possible sale of US paperback rights (perhaps based on their experience with the Hobbit, which up to that point never had a US paperback and was a perennial strong seller in the Houghton-Mifflin hardcover edition, which kept going back to press for endless printings--mostly Christmas gifts to children). Consequently they completely fouled up the licensing of any US paperback edition, since somebody who was in a position to block the sale (either A&U, Houghton-Mifflin, or Tolkien himself, I don't recall which) would not have received any of the money if the sale went through, so that it was impossible to get the parties to agree; 4) Wollheim was fairly certain that Allen & Unwin had imported more than 500 copies (either in sheets or bound, I don't recall) into the US, and believed that this triggered an obscure loophole in the US copyright convention with the UK which was in effect at that time, because no separate steps had been taken to protect copyright in the US; 5) Wollheim therefore believed that he was cutting an insoluble Gordian knot by forcing the issue and presenting them with a fait accompli.  At any rate, that is my recollection of Carr's defense. Perhaps someone can dig up the original article and correct my vague memory of it?  71.183.15.246 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:     Postscript to the above: I may be thinking of an article by Donald Wollheim (not Carr) entitled "The Ace Tolkiens" which appeared in Lighthiouse #13 (August 1965), edited by Terry Carr. In Lighthouse #14 (October 1966) Carr says that he has letters about the matter on hand but he is not going to print them and is cutting off all further discussion, because the debate was going on elsewhere. By "elsewhere" he may have been referring to Niekas #15, where remarks Wollheim made at a party were (evidently) quoted and commented on: apparently Wollheim said something to the effect that he couldn't approach them with an offer first because in order to have had something to negotiate with he would have had to let the cat out of the bag about the screwed up copyrights, which he believed they (and everyone else) were completely ignorant of. 71.183.15.178 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Wollheim's legal claim has never been tested in court.  The court ruling to which hostile amateurs keep referring was made under later, changed law.  The changes (effected to meet treaty obligations) allowed some lost copyrights to be recovered. —SlamDiego←T 02:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tolkien debacle

message: We mention "mass market" in section 4, DAW Books. Somewhere we should link mass market paperback, probably in the preceding section re Ace Books. (or Avon?)
We should also mention and link paperback original where it is first appropriate. (Ace? not Avon, i infer from reading what we say here) 
And perhaps the combination mass market paperback original. --P64 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass market, paperback original 

message: : second new section posted in one session
I created section 5, Recognition, comprising 
* brief reiteration of Silverberg's argument that leads sec 3, Wollheim as editor and publisher
* the last two paragraphs of sec 4, DAW Books, which were tacked on there after "his death"
* mention of "several special awards" with Locus ref
with hidden WP:COMMENT: including one at the 1975 World SF Convention and runner-up to Ian & Betty Ballantine at the 1975 World Fantasy Convention. This source lists four more during the 1980s. A laundry list is not appropriate but another editor may be able to choose wisely.
* 2002 hall of fame induction with official ref 
with hidden comment: apparently he was the third person inducted primarily for his work as editor or publisher, after the inaugural 1996 pair Hugo Gernsback and John W Campbell. This is a hidden comment because only apparent, not yet EVIDENT.
Someone may be able to cover what the comments indicate, using the same sources (not to mention doing better with other sources, of course). 
--P64 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Donald A. Wollheim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908022929/http://www.tolkiensociety.com:80/tolkien/tale.html to http://www.tolkiensociety.com/tolkien/tale.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016202202/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit154.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit154.html#5713
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521070009/http://www.midamericon.org/halloffame/ to http://www.midamericon.org/halloffame/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116123441/http://www.violetbooks.com:80/don-wollheim.html to http://www.violetbooks.com/don-wollheim.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified