>Do you currently have an idea of how you'll go about adding the various sections?
To be absolutely, totally, 100% honest . . . . no.
Some things are obvious. For example, stop baths, fixing, washing, and image permanence would probably all be separate chapters because they would have to be considerably expanded, not least because of including papers. A chapter on paper developers would probably come right after the last chapter on film developers. (Indeed, that is how I originally structured the book, when it was much, much longer.)
Paul, all your points are good. I'll take them in turn, apologizing for the length.
1. Around that time, I signed two contracts, one with Focal, one with Adobe, and in each case I said to myself, I'm not going to let a lawyer look at these. I'm happy with these people, nothing can go wrong, I don't want a lawyer messing around. Dumb move! Clearly, it was a bad idea to let Focal have the copyright. Technically speaking, while Focal held the copyright, it could fire both of us at will, and did, indeed, decide to fire Steve from the book. BUT - - the minute Focal returned copyright, they were legally obligated to return it equally to the two authors of record, regardless of any other facts in the matter. At the moment, my arrangement with Focal is that they will continue to sell FDC until I advise them that another edition is in print. Astonishingly enough, its sales rank is even better today: #36,693 versus #107,200 for DCB3. These rankings make no sense to me and are completely unexpected. FDC is, after all, 11 years old.
As to the rest of this point, Paul, there are many choices. I could simply let the book go. I've done almost all I can do! I've got plenty of other things to do -- writing fiction, designing type, classical piano -- these things take time! I've done my bit for photography! Only - - I haven't done everything I could do with Ron. I can't ask Ron to go into a legally dicey situation even if it's clear that I will accept all the legal burdens, as I am willing to do. Or who knows? Maybe with the issues aired like this, here, Ron won't feel so anxious about them? I don't know. I know what I'm scared of -- committing that much time. I think what concerns Ron is not committing time, but the fear of some legal thing happening which would waste the effort and involve him in contentious issues that he has no need to be involved in.
2. Yes, self-publishing is a good option in this case, I think. Mainly because I get the sense that we can communicate with nearly everyone who would want to buy the book. If Formulary, for example, sold it - - what more would you really need? That's assuming that Formulary was willing to take the various risks onboard. I worry about quality more than you do. For example, I insisted, every time FDC was printed, that the printer image at 2400 dpi rather than 1200. They had never done this for Focal Press before. I haven't supervised a reprint for a few years now, and they are reprinting in smaller quantities, so I don't know what the latest copies are like. I have, by the way, offered to Focal Press to update FDC without changing the page count and make the one or two corrections that have emerged since we last changed anything, but they have not so far taken me up on the offer. Everyone who was involved with the book in the beginning has since left.
3. >Have you sweetened the pot in any way?
We offered him cash. Since Steve is always famously short of cash and hasn't even made an effort to up the ante, he must feel very strongly about the issue. Maybe he's harbored a secret resentment all these years? I don't know. We offered him some money. He hasn't made any kind of counteroffer. He's written back twice.
a. "You do not have my permission to use any of the co-jointly owned copyright material from our book, The Film Developing Cookbook."
b. "You do not have my permission to use the title nor any copyrighted material in the Film Developing Cookbook."
Each of these simple sentences contains an annoying mistake which illustrates why I could not use a single sentence that he presented to me for FDC. In a, 'co-jointly owned', you can co-own, or you can jointly own -- they both mean the same thing -- but you can't do both at once. In b, nor should be or. Small things, but there are no grammatical or usage errors in FDC and I am proud of the quality of the writing there, which is all mine. Steve is a wonderful photographer and a phenomenal teacher, and, when he's at his best, a fabulous and inspiring personality to be around. But the written language is not his strong point.
I don't know what else we can offer. Steve? We know you're there - - would you like to tell us just what it is you want?
4. I am perfectly willing to go to a binding arbitration. How about you, Steve?
