|
 | Report on Bibliographic Control Calls for Nimble Web Presence
There's little more than two weeks to comment on the Draft Report of the Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control organized by the Library of Congress (LC), and there's a lot of food for thought. As hinted in recent interviews with LJ after the draft was publicly presented at LC on November 13, the full report makes some frank observations and recommendations.
"The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based," reads the stark opening paragraph. "Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary—the World Wide Web—is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers."
Currently, the report adds, LC serves as "the primary source of bibliographic data for many libraries in the United States and beyond," but LC is neither mandated nor funded to be a national library, and receives no funding specifically aimed at bibliographic services for U.S. libraries. Indeed, the report notes further, LC's pricing should be reevaluated to reflect its actual costs.
While "bibliographic control" is often seen as a synonym for "cataloging," the latter refers to one access route, while the former should apply to a wide range of resources and venues. The report states that "consistency of description" within any single environment, such as the library catalog, "is becoming less significant than the ability to make connections between environments: Amazon to WorldCat to Google to PubMed to Wikipedia, with library holdings serving as but one node in this web of connectivity. In today's environment, bibliographic control cannot continue to be seen as limited to library catalogs."
To take advantage of new sources of data, bibliographic control, the report states, must be seen as a distributed rather than centralized activity. And just as the library community has relied on LC, in some areas, LC "may need to be able to rely on the work of others." The group asks "LC to identify areas where it no longer need be the sole provider of bibliographic data and to create partnerships to distribute responsibility for data creation."
The report's findings and recommendations are grouped in five areas. Some brief excerpts:
-
Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production; more flexibility in using bibliographic data earlier in the supply chain, repurposing of existing metadata, and reexamining the current economic model for data sharing.
-
Enhance access to rare and unique materials. LC should shift resources to support discovery of such materials, with the notion that some, rather than comprehensive access, may be a realistic goal.
-
Position our technology for the future. MARC is antiquated, so a new, web-friendly "carrier for bibliographic information" is needed. Work on Resource Description and Access should be suspended until more testing and analysis proves its value.
-
Position our community for the future. Just as Amazon.com and LibraryThing allow users to add or manipulate data, so should the catalog interact with records from outside sources; otherwise, users will "continue to bypass catalogs in favor of search engines." Also, while Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) "have great value in providing controlled subject access," the vocabulary "is often out of synch with common terminology," LCSH should be made more flexible and be provided for use "by library and non-library stakeholders."
-
Strengthen the Library and Information Science profession. Given inadequate measures of the costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic information, LC and stakeholders should try to provide such analysis and support ongoing research. Changes must be incorporated into LIS education.
On blogs, initial comment has been sparse thus far. Writing in iNODE, the unofficial blog of the Digital Programs and Systems Division of University Libraries, George Mason University, Wally Grotophorst cited the report's critical take on standards proliferation and expressed hope that it represents "a call for pragmatism." Rick Mason, founder of LibrarySupportStaff.Org, concludes, "The group seems to have wrapped their collective brains around the issues quite well." But "Virtual Dave" Lankes, associate professor at Syracuse University's School of Information Studies, suggests that the report could grapple more with participatory library concepts.
The period for public comment is open until December 15, 2007; the group intends to submit the final report to LC by January 9, 2008, before the American Library Association Midwinter Meeting. Comments can be submitted via the web site. Alternatively, comments can be mailed to Olivia M. A. Madison, Dean of the Library, 302 Parks Library, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-2140.
|
|
Freelance Writers "Outraged" as Appeals Court Voids Settlement in Tasini Case
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals last week voided a March 2005 settlement agreement between freelance writers and publishers following the landmark 2001 New York Times v. Tasini Supreme Court decision, a ruling that found publishers had violated freelancer's copyrights by using their works in electronic databases without permission. The Second Circuit, in a 2 to 1 decision, ruled that under U.S. copyright law, although no registration is necessary to secure copyright, registration is required to sue for damages. Because the overwhelming majority of freelance writers' works included in the settlement were not registered, the Second Circuit held that the District Court was wrong to approve payments under the negotiated settlement.
"The precise issue on appeal is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to certify a class consisting of claims arising from the infringement of unregistered copyrights and to approve a settlement with respect to those claims," the decision reads. "We hold that it did not. We therefore vacate its order and judgment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion." In a dissenting opinion, however, Chief Judge John M. Walker argued that the non-registration should not disqualify the agreement, holding that registering for a copyright was more like a "claim-processing rule" than a "jurisdictional prerequisite."
The ruling voids a deal in which publishers' agreed to pay a minimum of $10 million and a maximum of $18 million to writers. Notably, in an FAQ on the claims site for writers freelancers were explicitly told copyright registration was not needed, and both sides in the settlement had agreed to compensate writers for unregistered works. "Even if you did not register the copyright, you would still be eligible for cash compensation in the Settlement," the FAQ notes, citing a "Category C Compensation for unregistered Eligible Works." The modest settlement would've paid as much as $60 for unregistered works sold for $3000 or more and as little as $5 for works that were written for less than $300.
Gerard Colby, president of the National Writers Union, declared the second circuit decision "an outrage," saying the court essentially affirmed that "unregistered writers can't sue for anything, even compensatory damages." The Second Circuit's decision, meanwhile, does not affect the Supreme Court's ruling that freelance writers' copyrights were infringed. It could affect, however, how many writers benefit from that decision and will likely send attorneys back to the slow, costly drawing legal board for freelance writers.
|
| NetLibrary, Recorded Books Drop Lawsuits
NetLibrary and Recorded Books have reached a truce, announcing this week that they have agreed to work toward a settlement, dismissing their mutual claims. On November 12, the two sides jointly filed for the court to dismiss their lawsuits without prejudice. The parties now have until mid-January to reopen the case in court if they cannot come to an agreement. According to NetLibrary spokesman Bob Murphy, the details of the settlement will not be made public. However, in a statement, NetLibrary said it will market Recorded Books' audiobooks through August 2008, and will service library subscriber contracts through August 2009.
Recorded Books sued NetLibrary in May, claiming that NetLibrary had breached their three-year-old licensing and distribution pact by entering into agreements with other content providers, violating the exclusivity of the deal. After Recorded Books notified subscriber libraries that its content would no longer be available through NetLibrary, NetLibrary countersued claiming defamation and unfair competition. As recently as October, documents filed with the court seemed to indicate the case was headed for trial. Instead, a settlement apparently became the goal. "We are pleased to have this dispute behind us and look forward to servicing the market," Brian Downing, VP and publisher of Recorded Books, said in the NetLibrary statement.
|
| Stanford To Author New Chapter in Harry Potter Copyright Saga
In Harry Potter's latest adventure, Stanford University will embark upon a journey through the copyright realm. The Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society announced last week that has signed on as co-counsel to defend independent book publisher RDR Books' right to publish Steve Vander Ark's The Harry Potter Lexicon, described as "an unofficial reference guide" to the Harry Potter series of books and movies. Warner Bros., which owns the film rights to the Harry Potter books, and author J.K. Rowling filed suit on October 31, 2007 against Michigan-based RDR Books to block the publication of the lexicon. They claimed it violates copyright and trademark law and infringes on Rowling's plans to publish her own companion book. RDR Books contends it has the right to publish the encyclopedic reference book under fair use, claiming the work is a transformative use.
"The public has long enjoyed the right to create reference guides that discuss literary works, comment on them, and make them more accessible," explained Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project, who will serve as counsel on the case. "We intend to demonstrate that the fair use doctrine protects The Harry Potter Lexicon." Falzone will be joined in the case by Stanford copyright wizard Lawrence Lessig, founder and director of the Center for Internet and Society.
At 400-pages, The Harry Potter Lexicon is a print counterpart to the fan-created website, the Harry Potter Lexicon, commonly known as the HPL. The site includes information on the series' characters, places, animals, magic spells, and potions along with atlases, timelines, and analyses of magical theory. Created in 2000 by Vander Ark, a librarian, and numerous contributors, the site has an estimated 25 million annual visitors and is maintained by Vander Ark and a team of volunteers. RDR Books planned to release the lexicon in the United States on November 28, 2007. A month before then, however, Warner Brothers and Rowling filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District to halt the book's publication. A preliminary injunction hearing is set for February 6, 2008.
|
Library Journal Academic Newswire
Contributing Editor: Andrew R. Albanese
Phone: 646-746-6852 E-mail: aalbanese@reedbusiness.com
Editor: Francine Fialkoff
Phone: 646-746-6807 E-mail: fialkoff@reedbusiness.com
Executive Editor: Rebecca Miller
Phone: 646-746-6725 E-mail: miller@reedbusiness.com
News Editor: Norman Oder
Phone: 646-746-6829 E-mail: noder@reedbusiness.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe send an e-mail to Unsub_Academic_Newswire@email.libraryjournal.com
TO SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to Academic Newswire or our other newsletters
Subscribe to Library Journal magazine
ARCHIVE
Read past issues
PRINT
You must change your print settings from portrait to landscape to print this page.
VIEW OUR PRIVACY POLICY
Click here
ADVERTISING
Library Journal
1-888-7RBI WEB
Onlineads@reedbusiness.com
Advertising Information
QUESTIONS?
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact our
Online Support Team
Reed Business Information
2000 Clearwater Drive, Oak Brook, IL 60523
MediaSupport@reedbusiness.com?Subject=LJ-"AN"
© 2007 Library Journal. All rights reserved.
"Library Journal" is a registered trademark. "Library Journal Academic Newswire" is a trademark.
|
