The Review Board on Principles of Shared Data Creation and Stewardship has released their final report on OCLC’s proposed policy for use of records (pdf), and after reviewing the report, OCLC has formally withdrawn the policy.

This conclusion to the records policy proposal is the best that could be imagined.  OCLC has listened to criticism from the greater library community, considered both the policy and it’s criticism through the efforts of the Review Board, and has responded in a way that allows everyone to move forward with a greater understanding of how best to go about updating the policy.

I suggested early on that OCLC was a tiger, instinctively defending its territory.  This still feels like a proper metaphor:  the movement towards creating a policy without proper input from the library community, and the subsequent review and withdrawing of the policy, seems more like an organization that didn’t realize the true implications of what it was putting in place, as opposed to one that was attempting a power grab to create a monopoly.

This was, and remains, a critical issue for libraries.  The ability to use the metadata representing our collections (as well as connecting them to collections and resources beyond what we own) is critical to our future ability to offer services in ways that will serve our patrons best.

I certainly hope that OCLC sets up a policy creation board similar to the review board – one that seeks a wide a range of ideas, opinion and input.  This will ensure a policy that takes a broader and more complete view of the use of cataloging records, but will also strengthen OCLC, because a membership organization is stronger when the constituent members are consistently heard and respected.  This has happened with the Review Board, and if OCLC continues to encourage it, everyone will come out ahead.

To OCLC:  You have responded well, and in the process have created an opportunity to solidify your position as a membership organization.  Keep up the good work and you will benefit, along with your members.

To the Review Board:  The report is well-written, and does an excellent job of stating what was wrong with the policy (and the process of creating the policy), as well as providing a constructive means to create a new policy that will properly reflect the needs and desires of the membership as a whole.

To detractors of the policy:  Those who offered strong, but constructive, criticism deserve recognition.  This was an emotional debate, and keeping focused on the issues at hand has ultimately won the day.  The best, and most complete, resource of commentary and information is the Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change page.

This has been an education for all involved:  the power of sustained commentary, of constructive criticism, of listening as well as talking, and of reviewing and changing positions when necessary.  Everyone should keep it up.

resources:  ResourceShelf & Disruptive Library Technology Jester

The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) has weighed in on OCLC’s proposed policy changes.  Of note:

“The proposed policy appears to freeze OCLC’s role in the library community based on historical and current relationships. We share the concern, voiced by many, that the policy hinders rather than encourages innovation, and we urge the Review Board to carefully examine this issue. It is unclear that the policy has been constructed with a focus on an evolving role of OCLC in enhancing the missions of an international library community with diverse and complex interests.”

This may not seem like a strongly worded statement, but take a look at the list of consortia behind the statement (located at the bottom of the statement, linked above).  Is your library, or geographic region, represented by one or more of these?  Based on the consortia I recognize, this statement has thousands of libraries behind it.

“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you shall go far”, Theodore Roosevelt’s iconic statement, applies very well to this statement.

My own addition to the current state of events is that the broad-based library community needs to be strongly involved with the record use policy, especially now that OCLC has solidly entered the ILS arena with their new WorldCat functionality.  If they are able to use access and use of the records as a way to encourage/coerce/retain customers, they likely someday will.  It makes good business sense, even if it is lousy public relations.

Further reading:

blog.ecorrado.us

Thingology

Bibliographic Wilderness

Proverbial Lone Wolf Librarian

Sending OCLC on its way is a post by Peter Brantley on his Thoughts and Speculations blog.  It focuses on the library world’s reaction to OCLC’s licensing change, and cautions against our overreacting.

He is not an apologist for OCLC, but someone who is pointing out what he sees as the dangers in pushing OCLC too far off of its business model.  In this I agree; OCLC has done some fantastic things, and is an orgainization worth preserving.  However, we need to ensure that it does not stifle innovation at the same time.

The continuing survival of libraries in the digital age requires us to be creative and experimental with our data, and having it locked up too tightly will only hurt everyone involved.

found via Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change wiki

The ARL’s Ad Hoc Task Force has submitted their final report (pdf) on the OCLC license policy change, and there is a great deal of constructive advice for OCLC to use.  The report’s Summary of Recommendations:

1. OCLC needs to develop a new policy regarding the transfer and use of WorldCat records that results from a wide  community review of issues; from member library engagement that builds understanding and consensus; and from a careful, widely discussed exploration of how the policy will achieve articulated goals, including whether or how restraints in record sharing may be needed. The currently proposed policy does not meet these criteria.
2. The policy needs to be written in a manner that can be understood and accepted by the community (e.g., as were the prior guidelines). This includes using a positive tone, a full description of Reasonable Use, and a consistent integration with FAQs that will need to be linked to, and thus incorporated in, the policy.
3. The policy statement should include explicit and specific explanation of its intent and how it carries out that intent.
4. Before a policy is implemented, member libraries need an opportunity to analyze how it impacts their operating environments, existing third-party or other agreements, and legal or regulatory environments and resolve implementation questions raised by that review. Specific issues that need more analysis and development in the current proposed policy include: its application to “data extracted from a WorldCat record,” a possible broader definition of Original Cataloging, inconsistencies between the policy and the FAQs (e.g., in allowable uses of Z39.50), the definition of “commercial” use, and the concept of binding downstream users to a separate license. The process for developing the policy with community engagement may uncover additional issues that require more analysis in order to make the policy operational.
5. The policy addressing the use and transfer of WorldCat Records should not apply to records from other OCLC services that make use of WorldCat data, such as Identities. Separate policies should be developed for these services.
6. Recognizing that the policy will be a living document applied in a changing environment, there needs to be a member-community process for ongoing periodic review of applications and interpretations of the policy, e.g., through the work of a continuing review board. Agreements (and denials of agreements) for uses of records, such as those made (or denied) for commercial use, are also integral to the interpretation of how WorldCat records should be used and transferred. Information on these agreements and decisions should be incorporated into the review process.

In essence:  a community-based organization should use community-derived methods for implementing change.

found via ResourceShelf

Open Solutions for Libraries Gain Momentum is an article on Information Today which gives an excellent overview of the current state of library data and sharing.  Not only does it present the current struggle with OCLC’s licensing efforts with a fair approach, it also presents the up-and-coming players such as LibLime, Open Library and biblios.net.

This is one of those articles that is good for updating those not deeply involved in libraryland.

found via LISNews

A few links of note:

• Library Journal has an overview of the panel session – OCLC Defends Records Policy, Faces Questions, Suggestions, and Criticisms.
• Karen Calhoun, Vice President OCLC WorldCat and Metadata Services, has posted the slides from her presentation.
• The Disruptive Technology Library Jester blog has a couple of posts well worth reading – Consideration of OCLC Record Use Policy and Further Consideration of OCLC Record Use Policy.

I sincerely hope that Karen Calhoun and OCLC are taking into consideration that a licensing structure similar to Creative Commons (to name one that many people have become familiar with) can be a win-win situation, allowing for quality control and prevent reselling of records, while still allowing for sharing and creative use of the data within the records.

Why you can’t find a library book in your search engine is an article in The Guardian.  It is a good overview of the broader issues surrounding the OCLC Licensing problem, and is written for the general reader (i.e. this is the article you should recommend to all your non-library friends (and perhaps even some of your library friends).

found on Librarian.net

Some big news from OCLC:  They are creating a review board to solicit feedback about their licensing policy (and judging from the press release, the entire concept of sharing library data).  They are drawing from the OCLC Board of Trustees and the OCLC Members Council in creating this committee, and are delaying the implementation of their record licensing until the third quarter of 2009.

I like that they are drawing from a wide range of sources, including blogs, listservs, librarians and members, as well as the ARL/ASERL Task Group (whose report is scheduled for release later this week).  One addition I would like to see would be some means of submitting one’s own commentary (or links to existing commentary) directly to the group.

This is a positive step on the part of OCLC.  I suspect that there are a few people at the organization who were surprised at the negative response to the license by many in the library community.  It has taken a bit of time, but this appears to be an honest effort to obtain input.

I still think that they are like a tiger defending its territory; but for the first time since this broke loose, I don’t feel that they are acting defensively.  This is a good thing for everyone.  The library community knows that they offer excellent resources and tools, and OCLC understands that they exist because the library community respects what they offer.

I cannot predict that the end result of this will be a fair data sharing policy, but this is how that journey should start.

found via LISNews

We are now one month away from the implementation of OCLC’s new records policy.  Tim Spaulding at Thingology has compiled seven arguments why libraries should resist the license.

Even if you don’t feel that OCLC intends to take a hard line approach towards libraries (members or not), recognize that we just don’t know who will be making specific decisions about enforcing this policy in five, ten, or twenty years.  OCLC is not static and unchanging; they don’t have to enforce all of the terms at every moment, but those terms can be enforced in the future.

These records will become more, not less, important over time, and the more involvement by the library community in their use and regulation, the better.  We don’t have to agree to the license terms, and should make an effort to create agreements that are in the best interest of all concerned.

found via LISNews

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.

Over the past few days, I have been gathering my thoughts together in order to post an essay-style overview of the issues surrounding the OCLC records policy changes.  As of now, I am going to put those thoughts aside, as Stefano Mazzocchi has posted an excellently rational and well thought-out essay on the topic.

I feel glad that I have injected some of the points he mentions into my own posts.  OCLC is a tiger (my own reference) defending its territory; this means they feel threatened.  Stefano described how OCLC can become the lady, opening up their process and becoming a hero to librarians, bibliophiles, and geeks worldwide.

Can they take a cue from the Open Source movement and adjust their business model to better fit their actual position in the biblioverse?  Stefano is hesitant about their chances; I have a lot of respect for many of the people and projects at OCLC, and feel that they can achieve nearly anything the set their collective minds towards (except to maintain a monopoly on the course they seem to have chosen).

found via Librarian.net

OCLC released their updated Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records yesterday, with implementation scheduled for mid-February.  If you see the phrase

We are reconsidering some aspects of the policy. More information will be available in the near future.

then you might suspect that it created quite a fuss.  It did, and OCLC responded by removing the policy from their web site.

Someone saved a copy of the web page; I will include the text of the policy in the next post.

The core criticism of the policy changes seem to revolve around the licensing of the records.  OCLC planned to include a license statement in a 996 field (from Terry’s Worklog):

996 $aOCLCWCRUP $iUse and transfer of this record is governed by the OCLC® Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat® Records.
$uhttp://purl.org/oclc/wcrup

Limits would include use of the records in anything that “substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat, for example for the purpose of providing cataloging services to libraries or other organizations.”  Cataloging services aside, how large does a union catalog have to be before it replicates the function of WorldCat, namely finding a library that owns a particular book?  Ohio’s Ohiolink sized?  Illinois’ I-Share sized?  Georgia’s Pines sized?

What about the OpenLibrary project?  Or LibraryThing?  Using information derived from an OCLC record without including the OCLC number and other OCLC references (like the above statement) would violate their terms, as I read them.  However, the last time I checked, the data itself is not covered under copyright and should be able to be extracted and expressed in creative ways (as long as OCLC’s creative way of expressing the data is not infringed).

We need to recognize the difference between the data held in these records and the expression of that data.  To enter into license agreements that suggest that we cannot recognize the data separate from the expression goes against core library principles.  This feels, in some ways, like the Major League Baseball statistics copyright battle from a few years back, in which the idea of the data itself being public domain was upheld.

One final note:  keep in mind the who and how behind the creation of these records.  We create them.  OCLC gathers them, disseminates them, and puts them to mostly good use.  If OCLC didn’t exist, there would be a need for some organization with a similar purpose.  They are not evil, they are not out to get us; they are, however, overreaching at times.

originally found via Thingology