Petition for OCLC to Collaboratively Re-write Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records
-
Author:
n/a -
Send To:
OCLC Members and Any-All WorldCat Users (whether members or not)
-
Sponsored By:
-
More Info at:
Petition Background Information
OCLC staff members were directed by the OCLC Board of Trustees to write an updated OCLC record use policy in 2008, in order to replace the 1987 OCLC Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records. The rewritten policy restricts the use and transfer of OCLC member-created cataloging records, which form the basic content of the OCLC WorldCat database, as well as restricting compilations of records that might replicate WorldCat in various features and functions. The new policy, as written, is legally binding and causes present and future litigation risk to members. The eight components of this petition, following the rationale below, state that this new record use policy should be rescinded and rewritten collaboratively with OCLC members and others. The rationale for this petition is as follows:
The policy review and re-writing process was flawed from the outset by including only OCLC staff in the research, investigation, and writing. OCLC is a member-driven organization, this policy affects all members, but none were included in its authorship. Because of this, the policy does not reflect the will of the members. Furthermore, it puts members at legal risk of contract violation, since the policy is a legal document and members have no control over how their records are used downstream over time. Given the many questions and unknowns in the legal nature and enforcement of the current policy, by OCLC over time, and the informal nature of the FAQ which is supposed to aid in interpretation but can change over time as well, this puts members at untenable risk of litigation.
Since the policy, in its current form, prohibits any use that substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat this relegates mass use of records in OCLC to only corporate OCLC, and prohibits any future possible innovative uses of records, by individual libraries or consortial groups of libraries or other cultural agents/agencies.
OCLC has, without permission and without consultation, told member libraries in a legally binding contract what they can and cannot do with the records that they have contributed, and for which member libraries have copyright. This is not permissible, not legally defensible, and is not conducive or supportive in any way to OCLCs role as a member-driven organization.
It is inappropriate, as well as detrimental to members, for OCLC to use the restriction of member-input records as a method to provide for the continuing economic viability of corporate OCLC.
Therefore, We, the undersigned, do hereby request that OCLC:
1.) Remove the currently rewritten OCLC Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records and FAQ from consideration as a policy statement;
2.) Form a truly representative group of OCLC members, non-members, and other cataloging service entities to review the 1987 policy in light of the current environment;
3.) Collaboratively work with this representative group and all OCLC members and others to re-write the 1987 OCLC Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records as a voluntary policy, not a legally binding document;
4.) State the basic premise of free and open access for all to member-contributed OCLC cataloging records;
5.) Acknowledge that these records are the property of their respective contributing members, and cannot by copyrighted or restricted in use by OCLC except for those services, records, and the WorldCat database features which OCLC has created/contributed;
6.) Maintain transparency and communication of group work during the re-writing process, via a website or other methods;
7.) Provide, consider, and act upon periodic requests for input on the policy from OCLC members and others;
8.) Present the final guideline to all OCLC member institutions, OCLC Members Council, and all others, and request final OCLC membership and Member Council ratification and approval of the guideline.
OCLC staff members were directed by the OCLC Board of Trustees to write an updated OCLC record use policy in 2008, in order to replace the 1987 OCLC Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records. The rewritten policy restricts the use and transfer of OCLC member-created cataloging records, which form the basic content of the OCLC WorldCat database, as well as restricting compilations of records that might replicate WorldCat in various features and functions. The new policy, as written, is legally binding and causes present and future litigation risk to members. The eight components of this petition, following the rationale below, state that this new record use policy should be rescinded and rewritten collaboratively with OCLC members and others. The rationale for this petition is as follows:
The policy review and re-writing process was flawed from the outset by including only OCLC staff in the research, investigation, and writing. OCLC is a member-driven organization, this policy affects all members, but none were included in its authorship. Because of this, the policy does not reflect the will of the members. Furthermore, it puts members at legal risk of contract violation, since the policy is a legal document and members have no control over how their records are used downstream over time. Given the many questions and unknowns in the legal nature and enforcement of the current policy, by OCLC over time, and the informal nature of the FAQ which is supposed to aid in interpretation but can change over time as well, this puts members at untenable risk of litigation.
Since the policy, in its current form, prohibits any use that substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat this relegates mass use of records in OCLC to only corporate OCLC, and prohibits any future possible innovative uses of records, by individual libraries or consortial groups of libraries or other cultural agents/agencies.
OCLC has, without permission and without consultation, told member libraries in a legally binding contract what they can and cannot do with the records that they have contributed, and for which member libraries have copyright. This is not permissible, not legally defensible, and is not conducive or supportive in any way to OCLCs role as a member-driven organization.
It is inappropriate, as well as detrimental to members, for OCLC to use the restriction of member-input records as a method to provide for the continuing economic viability of corporate OCLC.
Therefore, We, the undersigned, do hereby request that OCLC:
1.) Remove the currently rewritten OCLC Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records and FAQ from consideration as a policy statement;
2.) Form a truly representative group of OCLC members, non-members, and other cataloging service entities to review the 1987 policy in light of the current environment;
3.) Collaboratively work with this representative group and all OCLC members and others to re-write the 1987 OCLC Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records as a voluntary policy, not a legally binding document;
4.) State the basic premise of free and open access for all to member-contributed OCLC cataloging records;
5.) Acknowledge that these records are the property of their respective contributing members, and cannot by copyrighted or restricted in use by OCLC except for those services, records, and the WorldCat database features which OCLC has created/contributed;
6.) Maintain transparency and communication of group work during the re-writing process, via a website or other methods;
7.) Provide, consider, and act upon periodic requests for input on the policy from OCLC members and others;
8.) Present the final guideline to all OCLC member institutions, OCLC Members Council, and all others, and request final OCLC membership and Member Council ratification and approval of the guideline.
170 Signatures
-
Elaine Sanchez
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
emily brown
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Alexis Zirpoli
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Geeta Halley
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Mark R. Lindner
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- В
-
Tomasz Kalata
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Dan Nolting
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- В
-
Jeremy Goldstein
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Kristi Warab
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Evelyn Pypes
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- OCLC appears to be coercing a restricted use of libraries' records and keeping members from participating in this process. This represents my personal opinion, not the opinion of my employer.
-
Francene Lewis
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Amanda Drost
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Diane VanderPol
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Vicki Hedgecock
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- В
-
Wendy Blankespoor
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
John J. Burke
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Deanna Frazee
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Stephanie S. Kaceli
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Glenn Remelts
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
June M. Courtney
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Dr Klaus Graf
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Jacques Brenier
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- I'd like to know what the Library of Congress thinks about this policy, particularly with regard to records in its own system than have OCLC numbers in the 035. I honestly don't see how this policy is going to fly legally. Time to go back to the drawing board, I'd say.
-
Jane Olsgaard
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Donna Gray-Williams
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Christa Burns
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Tina Gross
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Jennifer Cease
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Jodi Schneider
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Ash Brown
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Michael McDonnell
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Marjorie Oakes
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- Consortium is a member
-
Jessica Goodman
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Kindree Knoepfle
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Andreas Wagner
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- I am helping with the administration and programming of an institutional repository of a large academic research organisation in Germany and while I find the thought of open data interchange fascinating and try to handle as many APIs/formats/protocols as feasible, I do fear that precisely because of the uncontrollable (but intended) use of the APIs by users and third parties, I am aiming at a system which would be (or eventually come) into conflict with your new licence terms.
-
Melanie Polutta
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- Asking us to give OCLC ownership of something we create is offensive to me. OCLC provides a service; they do not own the work that we submit to their database, no matter how useful their service is.
-
Carina Cournoyer
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Jenica Rogers-Urbanek
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
daniela busciglio
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Lindsey Hoffman
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Robert Bothmann
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Barbara Fister
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Chris Strauber
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Jeff Kosokoff
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Katie Dixon
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Kirstie Richman
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Angelo Pugliese
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Trevor Reynolds
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Rachel Clarke
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
-
Rick Mason
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- В
-
Brian Kern
- Institution is OCLC Member?
- No
- Institution contributes records to OCLC?
- No
- Comments
- В
-
170
Signatures! - View Signatures
- Sign Petition