The New York Times on self-published Beatles books
The article. "Some authors report surprisingly brisk sales. Published in August, 'Recording the Beatles,' a 540-page study of the equipment and techniques used to make the Beatles' recordings, has sold out its first run of 3,000 copies at $100 apiece." *Blink, blink.* "All told, Mr. Spizer said, he has sold 37,000 copies of his six books, which have brought in more than $1 million since the first was published in 1998." *Blink, blink, blink.* Okay, stop it. These are the types of anecdotes that cause heartbreak to the average self-publisher. But boy, talk about finding a niche audience.

Yep. One of the thing that seems to work is any area with a big nerd audience (ad I say that with love). I think Sherlock Holmes material would also do very well, and it's mostly out of copyright.

The Beatles are an evergreen market. I'd imagine if Paramount and Fox didn't have such a tight hold on Trek and the X-Files respectively you'd see more published fan fiction around.

I believe one of MJ's friends did quite well with a self-published 'the Phantom' book