New OCLC Policy on Records Use

OCLC on November 4 released a newly revised policy governing records use. It emerged after some hiccups, including a leaked announcement in October and the initial posting of a slightly different policy, followed by its removal just hours later.

The “Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records” explains what can be done with WorldCat records, listing guidelines for OCLC member and nonmember institutions, and even discusses how commercial ventures and individuals might work with the records. While restrictions on the use and transfer of records to non-OCLC member libraries have been clarified and generally relaxed for institutions like archives and museums, the policy reins in commercial usage, requiring all potentially for-profit use to be vetted by OCLC.

Even certain noncommercial uses could violate the terms. The “Reasonable Use” clause prohibits anything that “discourages the contribution of bibliographic holdings data to WorldCat, thus damaging OCLC WorldCat Members' investment in WorldCat,” or “substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat.” Considering these terms, many in the cataloging community wonder about the effect this may have on companies making use of bibliographic data, like LibraryThing and Talis, as well as on nonprofits like the Open Library Project.

Though the policy sets out some lofty goals for the evolution of libraries and their catalogs, OCLC acknowledges that economic issues also spurred the revision. The policy FAQ states, “[I]t is not economically feasible to maintain and expand WorldCat, its surrounding services and the cooperative on a completely open model.”

In a lengthy entry to her Metalogue blog, OCLC VP of WorldCat and metadata services Karen Calhoun described the revision as necessary for OCLC to remain a centralized clearinghouse and “switching place,” ideally funneling wider web traffic to local catalogs and exposing “member library collections on high traffic Web sites.” She also noted, “OCLC needs to be a player on the Web, and not just any player, but an influential one.”

One of the most significant changes is OCLC's plan to include a link to the updated policy in all new catalog records. Beginning in February 2009, the link will be automatically inserted into WorldCat records as a 996 field.

However, at least partially in reaction to criticism, OCLC retreated from the position set out in the original version of the policy posted on November 2 and now merely “encourages” libraries (rather than requiring them) to maintain the 996 field in the case of records being transferred to other institutions. Calhoun wrote, “If libraries do not wish to retain the 996 field in downloaded WorldCat records, they are free to remove it. In addition, libraries are free to either add the 996 field to existing records they transfer to others, or not, at their discretion.”

Not surprisingly, the latest news has given rise to a number of debates regarding OCLC's motives and even its legal standing in imposing the restrictions. Some of the more frequent criticisms on blogs and mailing lists concern the relative lack of transparency with which the company has handled the announcement and release of this policy revision.