Re: Negative Publicity Clause Restrictions Ross, Stuart 18 Feb 2000 18:54 EST
One standard approach (not the only one) is to give the sponsor a veto power only for specific reasons and purposes - e.g., protection of patents, or for specific audiences - e.g., the news media. They should not have unlimited power of control over dissemination. We had a similar situation recently with a three-year cooperative program (not evaluation or testing, though) -- the final agreement provides that the university has unlimited rights to dissemination in scientific journals, the sponsor has complete veto power over publicity in the media, and we mutually agreed not to try spelling out all the intermediate cases like informal talks to community groups. It seems to be working out. Stuart Ross California State University, Fullerton -----Original Message----- From: Chris Woodroffe [mailto:xxxxxx@BRANDEIS.EDU] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 11:03 AM To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG Subject: Negative Publicity Clause Restrictions I'm currently working on an agreement where the (private) sponsor has included broad language restricting the university's right to "any use of the project elements (i.e., data, finding, etc.). Our PI is carrying out a survey and evaluating the sponsor's program. Here is the language included in the agreement: "Notwithstanding the above, should xxx or anyone associated with xxx desire to make any use of the project or any of its elements (including data, findings, etc.), xxx shall first request sponsor's permission, and sponsor shall review the request within a reasonable time. Any such use shall be subject to receiveing sponsor's prior written approval." The agreement also has the use of name clause which requires that both parties obtain the other's permission in using the name of the other Party in any advertising or public relations materials. The sponsor's key concern is that they need to control negative publicity or dissemination which could be harmful to their project. Our concern is that (a) since the purpose is to evaluate the project, that our PI be able to carry out a true evaluation (i.e., the sponsor cannot influence the PI's findings/results) and (b) that the PI/university have the usual ability to publish and use for his/her work and academic purposes. I thought that one way to get around this, is to instead suggest specific language under the use of name (advertising and publicity) clause that would protect both parties from negative publicity. I'd appreciate any ideas out there on this? Thanks, Chris Christine R. Woodroffe Associate Director Office of Sponsored Programs Bernstein Marcus Building, Rm. 117 Mailstop 116 Email: xxxxxx@brandeis.edu Phone: (781)736-2120 ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ======================================================================