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

Wed May 14 12:34:42 EDT 2014

Andrea,

Appreciate you flagging this alternative approach. Suspect it may well be a strong preference for many.
Would be interesting to know what % of the Evergreen community's libraries/institutions/consortiums/governments have existing relationships with OCLC.
Will get a revised agenda out to the group later today.

Cheers!
Ben

Ben Hyman 
Executive Director | BC Libraries Cooperative
ben.hyman at bc.libraries.coop | 1.855.383.5761 ext 1001 | cell: 250.889.2738
bc.libraries.coop | Twitter: @BCLibrariesCoop

On May 14, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Andrea Buntz Neiman <aneiman at kent.lib.md.us> wrote:

> It's more time-consuming to retrieve, but LOC also has RDA records.  Their new interface seems to support a batch download, and they use the 040$e RDA designation, so if you go here 
> 
> http://catalog2.loc.gov/vwebv/searchKeyword 
> 
> and enter 
> 
> 040E RDA
> 
> as your term, it should return a set of RDA records.  Looks like you can export them one page (up to 100 records) at a time into a  UTF-8 or MARC-8 file.
> 
> Some appear to be without subject headings, but they have the RDA 264, 336, 337, and 338 tags.
> 
> IIRC as LOC is a federal government entity, these records are free to use & in the public domain -- anyway not a perfect solution, but it keeps us from having to deal with OCLC and its complications.
> 
> A.
> 
> Andrea Buntz Neiman, MLS
> Librarian II, Public Services
> Kent County Public Library
> 408 High Street
> Chestertown, MD 21620
> 410-778-3636 x2115
> 
> www.kentcountylibrary.org
> On 5/14/2014 11:07 AM, Rogan Hamby wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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