[Eg-oversight-board] Agenda suggestion: Research if EG community can use OCLC records

[Mike Rylander]

IANAL, nor on the EOB, but I've been following this discussion closely
and I just want to inject a small point.

The OCLC policy documentation, when discussing what is allowed or
permitted, refers most often to "our catalog" or "the catalog".  That
implies (in the legal sense) that it is speaking of the collection (or
a substantial portion thereof) as a whole, as opposed to a single
record.  Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that individual MARC
records are considered facts, and thus not copyrightable in the US
(and, indeed, many of OCLC's records derive substantially from record
created by LoC, which are public domain by definition in the US).  It
seems, then, that OCLC's policy concern is with the wholesale
harvesting of library catalogs, and not the distribution of individual
records.  This may be because they can't legally assert any control
over individual records, or may be because the don't have any desire
to do so; or I may simply be reading what I want into their policy
statements ...

For a little layperson background on compilation (database, catalog)
vs underlying data (MARC records as facts), you can see:
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html

With that, I'll go back to lurking!


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.hamby at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can easily imagine confusion playing a significant part in this.  But, if
> the policy Yamil pointed us to does in fact supersede the old one in full
> then it's the one we have to make a decision based on in terms of it being
> OCLC's position.  Context is valuable but in legal matters only when there's
> ambiguity in terms of an agreement to show intent or if there is an attempt
> to show a party acting in bad faith.
>
> Their FAQ further tightens down on their intent pretty clearly.
> http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/community/record-use/policy/questions.en.html
>
> #10 on their FAQ further clarifies what is implied elsewhere that "[OCLC]
> does not claim copyright ownership of individual records."  The conservative
> legal thing to do would be to gain access from a library who owns said
> records to use them.
>
> However I do a possible avenue in question 7 "A nonmember or agent
> (commercial or noncommercial) is seeking permission to harvest or receive a
> copy of our catalog that includes our extracted WorldCat data so it can
> incorporate the data into its product or service."  This would include the
> subset in question though it would only include instances where the library
> had holdings associated with those records.  Neither descriptions 1 or 2
> would apply to the Evergreen project as a legal entity.  However,
> description 3 of type of nonmember or agency lists criteria for allowing
> entities excluded by 1 or 2 and among the terms lists terms "comparable"
> (which lets a lower legal standard) and allows it when it further's OCLC's
> public purpose, there are limitations that essentially prevent it from
> harming WorldCat and additional exchange of value.  Note, that this does not
> have to be approved by OCLC and only has to be comparable (which is why I'm
> not quoting whole sections).  While there is not an exchange of services
> there is a comparable exchange of value based on improved ILS QA.  The
> limitation would be the limited amount of records used.  Clearly, we don't
> need enough to come anywhere near to duplicating WorldCat for test data.
> And OCLC's public purpose states that "we will work together to improve
> access to the information held in libraries around the globe" which I think
> Evergreen and Koha both do as open source projects.
>
> Now, would I feel comfortable going forward with this argument?  I would be
> but I also tend to lean strongly towards the side of "information wants to
> be free."
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Dan Wells <dbw2 at calvin.edu> wrote:
>>
>> The new policy does supersede the old, but I still feel the old provides
>> important context.  The original version of the new policy was much more
>> severe, and raised quite a stir, and the language we have now was meant to
>> be a compromise to the many (myself included) who felt we were losing
>> significant freedoms the old policy allowed.  Of course, in the process, the
>> language became quite complicated, and I doubt even OCLC itself truly knows
>> what is allowed and what is not (and hence their apparent unwillingness to
>> give a straight answer).
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel Wells
>>
>> Library Programmer/Analyst
>>
>> Hekman Library, Calvin College
>>
>> 616.526.7133
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eg-oversight-board mailing list
>> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing list
> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>



-- 
Mike Rylander
 | Director of Research and Development
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com