Talk:Gilbert Adair

Unauthorized sequels

Shreevatsa's edit summary: let's see a reference calling both these works "unauthorized sequels". Sounds as if he's done something illegal :p

It simply means he didn't have authorization from the authors' heirs. (By contrast, Geraldine McCaughrean wrote a Peter Pan sequel which was authorized.) It isn't an accusation, just a factual description of what Adair was doing. Whether he needed authorization or not is a separate question, but since you bring it up, the Peter Pan book may have been illegal. The copyright was still active in the UK (and elsewhere) at the time, but he never got sued, so it's not our place to say. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I was also going to say something about only Peter Pan being under copyright. There's certainly no such thing as an "authorized" sequel of Through the Looking Glass — the author has been dead for more than a century, and the book is under public domain (and was, at the time Adair wrote his book), so it doesn't even make sense to talk of an "authorized sequel". So my impression is that there's no need to call attention to a sequel being "unauthorized"; it's implicit by default. Adding it there sounds odd. (I'm not even sure both books have been described as a sequel in most reviews etc.; we should use whatever phrase exists.) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "unauthorized" is implicit at all. The phrases "unauthorized sequel" and "authorized sequel" both exist in general use, indicating that people often feel a need to distinguish them. There are sequels that have been authorized by the heirs of the original author, who have certain moral rights to the work which are independent of whether the work is under copyright in any given country. Furthermore, in some countries the term of copyright is up to 100 years after the death of the author, so the Alice works were still under copyright in those places when Adair wrote Needle's Eye. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilbert Adair. 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/20120417215637/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/featuresandinterviews/features/gilbert-adair-rubicon-and-rubik-cube.php to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/featuresandinterviews/features/gilbert-adair-rubicon-and-rubik-cube.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)