Any clearer on catalog copyright?
In my recent posting When is Data not Data? I raised the issue of catalogue records and if they were subject to copyright.
I’m going to dip my toe in legal waters here and I’m no expert on intellectual property laws, so correct me if I’m wrong. It is my understanding that you cannot copyright a fact; a fact such as J. K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone; or the fact that it was published in 1997; or the fact that it has an ISBN of 0747532745; or the fact that NYPL has a copy in its Reference only section. In fact [excuse pun] I fail to see anything in a library catalog record that is not a fact, and therefore come to the conclusion that catalog records are not copyrightable.
The post attracted some comments, including a clarification on a couple of points from my colleague Rob Styles. But apart from a feeling that much of a record consists of facts which in themselves are not copyrightable, it is not clear if things like subject headings or notes fall in to that category or not.
The issue has been raised again, this time on the NGC4LIB mailing list in another thread that is a spin off from the one I mentioned earlier. Tim Spalding provides Nine legal arguments that OCLC has no copyright over MARC records which make interesting reading.
So are we any clearer - maybe a bit, but as most of us are not experts we need to circumspect on these things like Jonathan Rochkind is. What is needed is someone who understands the library world and its history, and is an expert on copyright law. If you are that person put your hand up!
(Photo taken by herebox displayed in Flickr)
.
Technorati Tags: Talis, Library, Open Data, Catalog, NGC4LIB, OCLC, Copyright
April 30th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I think the arguments are weak, but if the fact-expression argument is to be overcome it is by arguing that while Harry Potter’s title, author and place on the shelf at the NYPL are facts, the way you describe that is not. For example, the items in a cookbook recipe cannot be copyrighted, nor the ideas involved in their combination. But if I say “Fold the browned peas and garlic truffle oil into the now-soft arugala compote,” my expression of these facts and ideas can be copyrighted. In the case of MARC records, there is not, however, a great deal of latitude about how you express, say, a title.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Good example Tim.
The question being: Are subject headings and notes fields, recipe or description?
April 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
One of those people is Mary Minow. http://blog.librarylaw.com/
There are surely others as well. Some of whom write about this stuff in journals that then none of us read.
Some of these questions are simply Not Yet Answered—in the US. The law is still evolving. You can get legal advice on your chances, but there are no guarantees–if there ever are in a law suit. For better or for worse, most of our employers are unwilling to do anything that carries any risk of lawsuit whatsoever (which is of course an impossibility, since anyone can sue you for anything, with or without merit).
And of course, copyright law is different in every country, although they are ‘harmonized’ to some extent by international agreements such as the Berne convention etc. The answer in the US is not neccesarily the answer in the UK though, especially if it’s a question on a matter that comes up because of new technology and hasn’t been entirely settled.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Hey, and wow, check it out. I don’t actually read Mary’s blog regularly, but maybe I should start. Hadn’t noticed before I referenced it, but going to look at it now, her second to most recent post is on this very issue.
“Can catalog descriptions be copyrighted? Maybe, at least according to a recent article in the Maine Antiques Digest”
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2007/04/can_catalog_des.html