From sullivan Sat Apr 13 22:45:11 1991
To: CFM@math.ams.com
Subject: Re:  Special Session Video
Cc: dhv@math.ams.com
Status: RO

I have several concerns about the license and release the AMS is asking
authors to sign for the video proceedings.

A.  I assume that 1.a. and 1.b. imply that the AMS has copyright only to
the particular compilation in question, while I as author retain the
copyright I have already claimed to my own work.  I would like to see
this latter fact explicitly acknowledged in 1.b.

B.  My Paper is a "derivative work based on" my PhD thesis.  Other
derivative works based on my thesis will not be considered based on this
AMS Paper, and the credit mentioned in Paragraph 3 will not be needed.

C.  The contract is invalid and unenforceable if the Author receives no
consideration for executing it.  Paragraph 5 claims that the Author
receives such consideration just after it denies that the Author will receive
any such consideration.  In return for publication, I expect to receive
merely a token consideration, namely five reprints of the video proceedings.
However, in the event of further republication (perhaps in some anthology)
under the terms of 2.b, it would be most usual to offer the Author royalties.

D. Paragraph 6 contradicts the last sentence of 1.a, and since the
Author is not allowed to waive this moral right of review, this paragraph
is unenforceable.


I'm sure that with minor changes to the text of the agreement, these problems
can be fixed; I have no objections to granting the AMS the right to
publish the proceedings.  I hope to hear from you soon.

John Sullivan

From sullivan Sat Apr 13 22:56:53 1991
To: almgren@math.princeton.edu, brakke@poincare, concus@csr.lbl.gov, david@smectos.gang.umass.edu,
    jpitts@maximum.tamu.edu, luskin@s1.msi.umn.edu, nelson@ramius.llnl.gov,
    parks@math.orst.edu, rfa@math16.cims.nyu.edu, ryo@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp,
    sabbagh@cs.nyu.edu
Subject: Re: Special Session Video
Cc: sethian@math.berkeley.edu, taylor@math.rutgers.edu
Status: RO

I assume you've all seen the license agreement the AMS wants us to sign
for the video proceedings.  It's not as bad as some such agreements I've
seen, but there are a couple of problems, and I think we should join in
insisting on a few changes, just to set the right precedent for the
future.

The AMS claims copyright on the compilation, but paragraph 1.b should
acknowledge that each author retains copyright to his own work.

A contract is unenforceable unless each party receives some consideration.
Paragraph 5 claims that we receive some good and valuable consideration,
but refuses to specify any.  It should promise us reprints or copies of
the video, and royalties in the (unlikely) event of republication.

Paragraph 6 is unenforceable, and contradicts the last sentence of 1.a.
We cannot waive our rights to review any editing they do to our work.

John

