Re: OCLC's New License for Bibliographic Records

[Mark Leggott <mleggott@upei.ca>]

This has been an interesting discussion, but I think some of the 
key issues are being missed:

-It is not (or should not be) about ownership of the records. The 
last group of people who should be hoarding bib records and 
preventing them from being part of the public information commons 
are librarians, whether we think the subject headings warrant IP 
protection or not. OCLC is supposed to be a collective of 
libraries, and if they truly are, we should be ashamed of 
ourselves. The Worldcat database should be part of the public 
commons and if it is not, we should support projects that make it 
so, such as OpenLIbrary. Getting sidetracked by a discussion of 
the intricacies of data and IP is interesting, but misses the key 
point with this critical issue.

-Many of us are working diligently with our faculty on open 
access, institutional repositories and other projects top try and 
transform the scholarly publishing space. The OCLC Worldcat 
record policy is a perfect example of a case where we need to 
walk the walk. How can we get faculty to commit to an open access 
model when we go in the opposite direction for our own efforts, 
as different as they may be? If ever there was a type of 
information that should be part of the public commons it is the 
bib records of the world.

-The innovation that will come from these records being freely 
available via systems other than OCLC's Worldcat is immense. The 
fact that OpenLibrary, as one example, has had the heavy hand of 
OCLC hanging over them as they attempt to do what OCLC has 
refused to do themselves points to poor leadership from the OCLC 
Members.

As Rob suggested in his original post I think this is one license 
all institutions should review carefully. In a recent session at 
the OLA Superconference in Toronto last week I went one step 
further and suggested that we reconsider our OCLC memberships if 
this license policy approach does not change. Libraries, and by 
extension their collaborative efforts like OCLC, need to set the 
bar, not try to duck under it.

Mark Leggott, University Librarian
University of Prince Edward Island
550 University Ave. Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3
902-566-0460  Fax 902-628-4305
mleggott@upei.ca


On 1-Feb-09, at 3:12 PM, Sandy Thatcher wrote:

> It depends on how non-obvious the arrangement (which can be
> copyrighted) of the factual information is. The 1991 Feist ruling
> by the Supreme Court certainly raised the bar for claiming
> copyright in certain kinds of databases.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
> Penn State University Press
>
>
>> In addition (and apologies for asking an elementary question),
>> but are bibliographic records considered factual information,
>> the kind of information that is not subject to copyright?  In
>> other words, say I create a bib record at my institution.
>> Before I submit it to OCLC, do I own the copyright for that bib
>> record, or is it in the public domain?
>>
>> --Rebecca
>>
>> Rebecca Kemp
>> Serials Coordinator Librarian
>> W.M. Randall Library
>> UNC Wilmington