I wrote a recommendation, on request, about the impact to my workplace of the OCLC license policy changes that are scheduled to start in February. I am posting an exerpt here, not because I feel it brings anything new to the debate or that I feel it is a solution for libraries in general, but because it is an example of how I am applying what I think and feel about an issue to our real-life situation.
Note that I do not set policy for my library, and do not feel that my suggestions are the end-all be-all of what we should do, and I certainly am not stating any of this as anything but my own opinion. I view my role as putting ideas into the discussion with the hope of achieving what is right for us as a library and for everyone involved through collaboration and debate. In that spirit, I decided to post part of what I wrote:
I have been following this debate with a fair amount of interest, and there are actually a couple of answers to your query:
1) In the near-term, the OCLC licensing policy changes do not have a direct impact on what we do or how we do it. One of the first changes they made in response to library bloggers (and perhaps others who responded via other channels) was to make the retention and/or addition of the license link into the 996 field, as well as retaining the OCLC number, a request rather than a requirement.
This makes the cataloging and other MARC-related activities relatively unchanged, although I have a recommendation in regards to this, which is located below.
2) In the longer view, the OCLC licensing policy changes has the potential, if OCLC is able to successfully defend them legally, to create problems for us and many other libraries. One result of this is that services such as OpenLibrary (22 million records – http://www.openlibrary.org/ ), LibraryThing ( http://www.librarything.com/ ), and the brand-new biblios.net ( http://www.biblios.net/ ) would all have to obtain OCLC’s permission for any records that have passed through WorldCat, regardless of actual ownership (likely the creating institution) or copyright status (data in the records, like Major League Baseball statistics, are considered public domain – though this has never been tested for MARC records).
More chilling is the possibility that any service that duplicates an OCLC service, and that uses records that have passed through WorldCat, must obtain permission. I see this as an issue for any union catalog such as OhioLink ( http://www.ohiolink.edu/ ), Georgia Pines ( http://gapines.org/opac/en-US/skin/default/xml/index.xml ), etc. This specific clause seems to have been removed from the latest version of the license, but seems to be implied throughout the document.
However, one aspect of the license is that the records do not fall under the license that exists at the time they were uploaded to WorldCat, but fall under whatever the current form of the license happens to be. OCLC is the sole arbiter for the contents of the license and can change it whenever and however it sees fit, with the changes affecting all records and all users of those records instantaneously. This is not a nice situation for a co-operative membership organization.
My recommendations:
1) When the 996 field begins to be used in February, we should delete the license link from every record we import; we should resist adding the field to any of our existing records as well. [Our cataloger] assures me that this process will fit into our current cataloging process very well and will not add any appreciable time or effort to our cataloging. This will allow us to continue with the same status of our records and allow us to see where this will lead (i.e. changes to the policy, legal challenges, effects of other players in the library world, etc.). OCLC may very well change the “request” back to “requirement” at some point in the future; we can re-evaluate it then.
2) We should examine ways to make it known to OCLC that they are the best at what they do, and that any organization that would replicate them at their scale would still face many of the same issues they are facing. OCLC is defending its territory, a reasonable thing for any organization to do. However, they are acting very “defensively” in regards to the license policy, and we would be much better served by their focusing on making their services so comprehensive and quality-driven that we have no desire to look elsewhere. OCLCs acting defensively has inspired many people to examine their options, and this may signal the beginning of a new effort to create record depositories outside of WorldCat. Encouraging OCLC to be more “open” will actually strengthen them as an organization, while at the same time improve everyone’s interactions with them. Defensive legal positions will only serve to alienate their users. OCLC needs to understand all of this in order to continue their dominant role; it is in our best interest to help them to understand this.
3) We should investigate and determine the ways in which the newer, open services can benefit us, and how we may benefit them (including our providing records). At the very least, the competition will encourage OCLC to be more open, and may help to reduce our payments (or at least reduce the increase in payments) to OCLC in the future.
I will stress that much of what appears above contains my opinions and attitudes; I have mixed feelings about OCLC (as I do for any tiger defending its territory, or any 800-pound gorilla) and earnestly hope that they open up their services and records in a way that will be beneficial to everyone involved.
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.libology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Powered by FireStats