Publication, copyright and information sharing

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Ed, John, and Franck,

I can certainly see your points and, had others not written with "incomplete" information, we wouldn't have the wealth of publications that we have today.

If your points were directed at my situation, I'm one of those that have helped numerous authors with their works over the years, but not published myself, save for one privately produced history co-authored with Richard Lutz. By being privately held, we could use whatever resources we wished without worrying about copyrights, thus a more complete history was presented than might have otherwise been the case.

As for those I have helped, as well as others, the sharing is generally reciprocated, giving me a greater depth of insight than I would otherwise have had. When I pass on, my collection will go to the Museum of Flight in Seattle where others can make use of it. I pretty studiously indicate my sources on what I have.

I've held the view that publishing on our favorite niche in history is a work of love and question whether any royalties that come from our efforts are adequate recompense when one considers the time, money, and energy put into the effort. How many J. K. Rawlings do we really have amongst us?

I view TOCH! as a gathering of experts in the field. If a book is published that is full of errors, then it likely deserves a raking over. It's the classic worm and apple situation: If there are many errors, can you really trust anything the author is saying? It is not the critics that are at fault, as the first time they likely see the book is after it is published.

Perhaps, Franck, your issue is with the glee the critics seem to exhibit in ripping a work apart. This must be balanced, however, with kudos from the same critics when a book is well done.

Regards,
Richard