Now that OCLC has released the policy, and the associated summary and FAQ, I have had time to fully absorb the changes between this policy and the previous (currently in force) Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records. The more I think about the policy, the more questions I have. For instance, here are a few issues that I think need further exploration and discussion:
Issue 1. The new policy states that if the library has contributed the record as original cataloging, then the use of that record is not restricted by the terms of the policy (B. Definitions, 3 and 4):
…An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the OCLC control number to the record.
A bibliographic record in WorldCat is designated as the “Original Cataloging” of the agency represented in the OCLC MARC 040 field, subfield a (original cataloging agency).
Here are my concerns with this:
1. The 040 subfield a data can be changed during lock & replace by anyone with a Full, CONSER or Enhance authorization while doing work on the record to upgrade it. So – how can a library prove (or even know) if a record’s use is unrestricted. Back in the day, DLC (Library of Congress) records regularly overlaid member-contributed records whenever they were tape loaded into the OLUC/ Online Union Catalog (WorldCat’s original name). Those records displayed with 040 $a DLC once they were overlaid. So retrospectively, how would a library know whether in the current WorldCat database, they appeared to have the right to ignore the policy?
2. The assumption that a library might do different things with subsets of their records based on cataloging source status (original vs copy cataloging) is troubling to me as well. Is it even easy to sort local ILS records this way? I know that Nylink members often ask me to report to them the number of records that they have contributed to WorldCat as original cataloging, which makes me think that this would not be a simple process for them to do in-house. And besides, given that it is possible to do, it is likely that there would be a project where the library would only need to work with the original cataloging subset?
3. As I read this, I keep coming back to the idea of ownership now being ascribed to the symbol in 040 $a. The majority of WorldCat is cataloged originally by member libraries, including national libraries. A quick search in Connexion indicates that only 39,965 WorldCat records have a symbol associated with OCLC itself (OCL, OCLC, OCLCS, etc). Would OCLC be happy following the restrictions of the policy regarding its own records, or are they saying that all records are theirs to do with as they wish, but the same does not apply to you? It does not seem logical.
Issue 2. Libraries have to submit a Proposal for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records form to get permission from OCLC to use WorldCat derived records in any project deemed to exceed “reasonable use”. What? Here is the definition of reasonable use from the policy:
“Reasonable Use” means Use of WorldCat Records that is reasonable for the intended Non-Commercial Use and consistent with the intent of this Policy. Without limiting the foregoing, the term “Reasonable Use” does not include any Use of WorldCat Records that:
a. discourages the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to WorldCat, thus damaging OCLC Members’ investment in WorldCat, and/or
b. substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat. Please see the FAQ for a discussion of Z39.50 for cataloging using WorldCat-derived bibliographic records.
OK. So if OCLC is not threatened by the proposed usage, they will likely give permission. What if they are threatened because the proposed usage is viewed as a disruptive technology? There is no process for appeal, and in the policy as it stands, OCLC is the sole arbiter of what “reasonable” means. I find this truly troublesome, because I am still in the school of thought that members built this database, and it belongs to them.
Issue 3. Enforcement of the policy:
This policy is scheduled to take effect in February, 2009, but libraries that currently have cataloging subscriptions agreed to Terms & Conditions that are valid until June 30, 2009. The T&C don’t specify limitations on use of WorldCat records, either according to the existing Guidelines or the new Policy. In Section E. “Additional provisions” of the policy, OCLC states:
“The rights to Use and Transfer WorldCat Records afforded by this Policy shall automatically terminate upon any breach of the terms of this Policy”
Isn’t this a conflict? Doesn’t this kind of threat actually push libraries to seek other solutions to avoid the possibility of paying for a service that they could find themselves denied if they are deemed to have breached the terms of the new policy? I think this is counter-productive.
Issue 4. Many WorldCat records are public documents, as are the local system record databases (or other repositories) of public institutions. Library of Congress, other US national libraries, State libraries, State Universities and Colleges, and public libraries are public agencies, funded (at least in part) by taxpayer dollars. How can OCLC, a non-public entity, limit the usage of public resources via this policy? I am sure that many public entities are scrutinizing the policy, and using valuable time and expertise to determine whether they can agree to these terms. It will remain to be seen if the policy can stand as it is, or whether special provisions will need to made for publicly funded institutions.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same)
In 2004, I was asked by then OCLC VP of Cataloging and Metadata, Gary Houk (a great guy, whose passing on August 18, 2008 was mourned by many, including me), to participate in some cataloging discussions with a small task force from OCLC Member’s Council to discuss what we were calling “Record Nabbing”. Record nabbing was basically the Z39.50 capture/download of MARC records for cataloging from any Z39.50 host, without explicit permission from the host site, and without the intention of returning holdings to WorldCat. Remember, in those days, returning holdings could cost money. Although members of the task force were concerned about the potential erosion of “the cooperative”, our final conclusion was that any firewall, filter or other software Z39.50 preventative was overkill, and that the solution was to make the presence and visibility of holdings in WorldCat critical to a library’s self interest. One initiative that followed quickly on this insight was WorldCat.org, which has had a positive impact on libraries and OCLC. Now it is 2008, and here we are again. I hope that as libraries examine the new policy they will communicate with each other and with OCLC about their concerns, so that the desire to protect the WorldCat database and collaborative does not become the seeds of its destruction.
PS Elaine Sanchez, from the Texas State University-San Marcos is currently circulating a Petition for OCLC to Collaboratively Re-write the Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records. If you are interested, please go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/oclc/petition.html
0 Comments 
