[open-bibliography] comprehensive bibliographic database of "open" resources?

Wed Aug 18 20:39:48 UTC 2010

Additionally, with the WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities for the OCLC Cooperative (2 June 2010) at http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/recorduse/policy/default.htm,
they begin by stating:
"The purpose of the policy is to define the rights and responsibilities associated with the stewardship of the WorldCat  bibliographic and holdings database by and for the OCLC cooperative, *including the use and exchange of OCLC member-contributed data comprising that database*." (my emphasis-JW)

Later in the "Glossary" section, we find something even more interesting:
"WorldCat Data. For purposes of this policy, WorldCat data is metadata for an information object, generally in the form of *a record* [my emphasis-JW] or records encoded in MARC format, whose source is or at one point in time was the WorldCat bibliographic database.

You have received WorldCat data when (1) you have extracted it directly from the WorldCat database using one of OCLC's services for members (e.g., Connexion, WorldCat Cataloging Partners, CatExpress, the OCLC Z39.50 Cataloging Service, Batchload services) or under the terms of a non-member agreement with OCLC; or (2) you have extracted it from an online catalog or another source to which extracted WorldCat data has been transferred or made available.

Identifying WorldCat as the source of data that has been transferred or made available downstream of the initial extraction from WorldCat can sometimes be complex. A combination of the following data elements in a bibliographic record can help determine if the record was initially extracted from WorldCat:

    * An OCLC Control Number along with
          o the 001 field that includes value characters "ocm" or "ocn" and/or
          o the 035 field that includes the value "(OCoLC)" and/or
          o the 994 field"

I think all this must be read together. Even though your library is not, and has never been, an OCLC library, you may still be in possession of what is defined here as "WorldCat Data" and therefore subject to this policy. This also clearly includes single records. Although I am not a lawyer, from what I read here, it seems that once something has touched OCLC in any way at all, and no matter what you have done with it, OCLC claims ownership (i.e. that it is WorldCat Data) and that it falls under this policy. 

How this deals with, e.g. a record created by the Library of Congress, perhaps even as CIP (i.e. public domain), then being downloaded and updated by another library, finally, I would take this record directly from e.g. Yale, through Z39.50 and update it myself, according to this, this record would still fall under OCLC's policy. 

Would this hold up in court? Who knows? Although I am a fan of many of OCLC's projects and services, this seems to be overreaching to me. And as Karen points out, it could be that metadata, even including subject analysis and standardized headings, are considered to be facts and are not subject to copyright.

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinheimer at aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
________________________________________
From: open-bibliography-bounces at lists.okfn.org [open-bibliography-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [kcoyle at kcoyle.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:01 PM
To: open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] comprehensive bibliographic database   of      "open" resources?

Quoting Adrian Pohl <ad.pohl at googlemail.com>:

>
>> WorldCat as
>> a whole (database, UI, services) should be copyrightable, but the data
>> itself, even the entire set of data, probably is not.
>
> The phrase "WorldCat as a whole" confuses me. I wouldn't say the whole
> is copyrighted but certain components or aspects of it. E.g., there
> most probably are property and related rights associated with the
> technology behind WorldCat (which probably aren't owned by OCLC), the
> logos and design and other things. But that doesn't sum up to WorldCat
> as a whole being protected.

I probably said that wrong. You can claim copyright in a web site,
which has design elements, some created content, etc. So, for example,
the site of Amazon.com has a copyright notice ("© 1996-2010,
Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates"), but that does not mean that
Amazon claims to hold a copyright on every bit of data that appears on
their pages. A newspaper can claim copyright in its web site but may
not hold copyright in every article that displays. Copyright can cover
design elements, look and feel, etc. In the cases of web sites I think
it's often unclear what is being covered.

There is a similar copyright notice on the WorldCat home page:

        Copyright © 2001-2010 OCLC. All rights reserved.

What does this refer to exactly? I don't know. It links to a page that
says simply (but not clearly):

"OCLC users are hereby granted permission to reproduce this
publication for their internal use. Reproduction of substantial
portions of this publication must contain the OCLC copyright notice."

I find it very confusing when OCLC refers to "WorldCat" in their
documents because I'm not sure exactly how they are defining it.
What's "this publication?" Sometimes they seem to mean the database,
other times they seem to be mainly referring to the services. Is it an
OPAC? A cataloging service? An ILL service? Where do they draw the line?

kc

>
> Adrian
>
> 2010/8/18 Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
>> Quoting Adrian Pohl <pohl at hbz-nrw.de>:
>>
>>
>>> "OCLC claims copyright rights in WorldCat as a compilation, it does  not
>>> claim copyright ownership of individual records".
>>
>> Adrian, OCLC claims the rights, but that does not mean that OCLC *has* the
>> rights. Anyone can claim rights in anything, but until it is settled via a
>> legal procedure it is just a claim. So do not assume that this claim = legal
>> rights. That is why the lawsuit between SkyRiver and OCLC is so interesting
>> to some of us: it may be the first time that some of our assumptions are
>> actually scrutinized in a court of law. I don't know if this particular
>> issue will be part of that discussion, but many of us think that WorldCat's
>> bibliographic data does not meet the minimum US legal requirements for
>> copyright protection. (The key point of which is "creativity." A mere
>> compilation of facts does not meet the creativity requirement.) WorldCat as
>> a whole (database, UI, services) should be copyrightable, but the data
>> itself, even the entire set of data, probably is not.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-bibliography mailing list
>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>

--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

_______________________________________________
open-bibliography mailing list
open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography