[Updated 12/23 from an earlier version to include OCLC’s response, below.]
The National Library of Sweden ended five years of negotiations with OCLC without an agreement regarding participation in WorldCat, citing issues surrounding OCLC record use policy, according to a press release posted today on the National Library’s website.
The release, entitled “No deal with OCLC,” states that negotiations centered on conditions for uploading the Swedish union catalogue Libris database into WorldCat, and “the question of license/ownership for copying bibliographic records from WorldCat for use in Libris.”
The release says that OCLC’s “conditions for how bibliographic records taken from WorldCat for cataloguing were to be used in Libris…could not be accepted by the National Library.”:
A fundamental condition for the entire Libris collaboration is voluntary participation. Libraries that catalogue in Libris can take out all their bibliographic records and incorporate them instead into another system, or use them in anyway the library finds suitable…. Bibliographic records exported from WorldCat cannot be used and further exported in just any way, according to the OCLC agreement…. [A] library that took a bibliographic record from WorldCat for cataloguing in Libris and transferred it to its own system would have to accept OCLC’s terms of use…. A library that wished to leave Libris would not obviously be able to do this, since it is not self-evident that the bibliographic records could be integrated to other systems.
Such conditions are “[n]ot consistent with Libris principles,” the release says. The National Library also expressed concern about being unable to deliver bibliographic data to the European digital library project Europeana, as “Europeana aims at only obtaining data that can be made available under open license.” (Europeana program director Jill Cousins, during the Digital Public Library of America plenary meeting in Washington, DC, in October, stressed the need for open data and open licensing in digital libraries.)
The National Library and OCLC have been negotiating since 2006. They have had a continually extended “test contract” since 2007, with the National Library paying a monthly fee to OCLC since 2009, according to the release.
The current OCLC record use policy went into effect on August 1, 2010, following a year and a half of proposals, withdrawals, and revisions, which included engagement with the library community.
OCLC’s restrictions on record use have long been a point of contention. In an unrelated, ongoing antitrust lawsuit filed in July 2010 against OCLC by SkyRiver Technology Solutions and Innovative Interfaces, the plaintiffs singled out OCLC’s prohibition on members sharing bibliographic data for criticism. SkyRiver, OCLC’s competitor in bibliographic services, “imposes no restrictions on subsequent use of bibliographic metadata that its customers obtain from the SkyRiver database,” according to SkyRiver’s online FAQ.
[Update 12/23:] LJ received the following statement from OCLC today, by Jim Michalko, VP of the OCLC Research Library Partnership:
“OCLC is in discussions with the National Library of Sweden about the Library’s recent post to its website. We believe that the National Library and the Libris union catalog it supports can be made visible in WorldCat in a way that meets the library’s expectations and is consistent with the norms of the OCLC cooperative. We were disappointed that they chose to end the talks.
“While we look for other ways to work with Swedish libraries in the future, it’s important to correct the Library’s characterization of OCLC’s position regarding data contribution to the Europeana project. When we were asked by the National Library of Sweden about their participation in Europeana, we conveyed our interpretation of the WorldCat Rights and Responsibilities (WCRR) guidelines that the ‘public domain dedication license’ required by all participants of Europeana would be inconsistent with the community norms identified in the guidelines. We explained our reasons for this interpretation in an earlier post to the Open Knowledge Foundation blog. In our discussions with the National Library and Europeana we characterized these guidelines, which were written and ratified by the members of the OCLC cooperative as a code of good practices. It is a discretionary guideline and ultimately the library’s decision to release WorldCat derived records to another institution. In that same blog post we suggest a licensing approach that would be consistent with the WCRR. This approach was discussed with both Europeana and the National Library of Sweden as the basis for moving forward. OCLC has since used this licensing approach in our releases of data (FAST, OhioLINK). We are working to make this a standard recommendation to OCLC members in managing their own catalog data.”
About David Rapp
I suppose all libraries are under extreme economic press, especially as of late. However, as a representative of an academic publisher of unique titles that really no-one else offers, I’ve noticed that libraries handle the situation differently. Some do it more gracefully and respectfully (to both the reader and content producer communities) than others. Working with cataloging and orders, you get to know your national libraries around the world. And KB (as we call it) has been one of my greatest disappointments both as concerns their acquisitions politics and level of competence/service. So I am not surprised at all that from the very nation of the “Pirate Party” we hear moaning about OCLC’s rights management terms.
We’ve actually gone ahead and made both ONIX and MARC content available free of charge since 2006 through our “Libraries” page. Interestingly, from the information on use, I can say that those libraries that are NOT out there complaining about OCLC (i.e. “Why can’t we get it all for free?”) have made most efficient use of our FREE cataloguing data! The complainers such as KB, despite being informed already in 2006 have made NO USE of the data, even though it is FREE! Go figure, I say! Speaking with other (Canadian, US) publishers, I can hardly find anyone in our network who has a book at KB that was actually acquired through purchase!
Thus, I believe we are here recounting a tale of our old friend (or foe)- open vs. fair compensation (through rights management). And again, I will raise the “fair compensation” banner and declare- Someone did the work to produce the content and records. Someone paid them a salary or fee to do this. Someone is using their infrastructure and buying software or subscriptions to standards all and sundry, calling back repairmen who didn’t get it fixed the first time and taking countless criticisms and suggestions on how the format or record could be better! And, incidentally, would the readers want vital information or infrastructure handled on a “volunteer” basis and provided “as-is with no warranty” ?
My experience has been that most often (not always) those who feel that services and products should be entirely free of charges and restrictions have little or no idea of the sweat and tears that goes into them or they receive state funding. And if anyone out there has found a way to survive and run a business for free, please be so kind as to offer that information… free of charge or any restrictions on use, naturally!