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

[Rogan Hamby]

Rather than retype everything I'm going to copy and paste from IRC for this:

eeevil

dbs / RoganH: heh ... I just brought up that point on the EOB list... ;)

10:54

RoganH

eeevil: that's actually debatable

10:54

RoganH

eeevil: and unfortunately recent court rulings would be against us there

10:54

eeevil

RoganH: the fact-ness of MARC, you mean?

10:54

RoganH

eeevil: yep.

10:55

RoganH

eeevil: the descriptive versus expressive work debate is an old one.  For
example, rankings used to be considered descriptive and facts but recent
court rulings have said if a unique process discovered them then they're
not.

10:55

eeevil

RoganH: I'm behind the times, then! IIRC, it was just 2005-ish when the
consensus was "they're facts" ... but, 9 years is a long time

10:55

RoganH

eeevil: so if you have a unique process to creating a MARC .... now,
another court may rule the opposite way

10:56

RoganH

eeevil: this stuff is up in the air, there's not absolute black and white
on it

10:56

eeevil

hrm... I thought Fiest did away with the process argument... but /again/
IANAL ;)

10:57

RoganH

eeevil: no, Fiest vs Rural established that a low enough amount of original
work is not enough but each judge gets to rule what is above that threshold

10:58

RoganH

eeevil: now, me, I would rule that a MARC record is below that threshold
and I can probably find 3 judges who would agree with me at least one that
wouldn't

10:58

RoganH

eeevil: the question becomes which judge hears your case?




On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20140514/1e54af15/attachment.html>