[DCRM-L] Background on Treatment of Copyright Dates in DCRM(B)

[Manon Theroux]

Last week, at the ALA Midwinter meeting of the RBMS Bibliographic Standards
Committee, I provided some background information relating to the DCRM(B)
instructions to exclude copyright dates from Area 4. The DCRM(M) editorial
team has been struggling with this issue and has expressed a desire to
deviate from the DCRM(B) instructions:
http://jfletchr.bol.ucla.edu/DCRM/DCRM(M)copyright_Jun08.doc<http://jfletchr.bol.ucla.edu/DCRM/DCRM%28M%29copyright_Jun08.doc>

Several people asked me to send this background information to the DCRM-L
list, so here goes. Excuse the length!

The decision not to include copyright dates in Area 4 in DCRM(B) was not an
easy one. The issues were complex and opinion was divided, much more so than
the DCRM(M) position paper suggests. I hope this background information will
help to explain how the decision came to be made. And, should the DCRM(M)
editorial team go ahead with their plans to deviate from DCRM(B) on
copyright instructions, I hope it will help them to identify specific issues
that the DCRM(M) rules might address.

-Manon Théroux
(former chair, DCRM(B) editorial team)

------------------------------------------
Background on Treatment of Copyright Dates in DCRM(B)

1. DCRB
2. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft
3. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft Discussion Questions
4. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft Discussion: RBMS/BSC ALA Annual 2005
5. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft Discussion: Public Hearing ALA Annual 2005
6. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft Responses
7. DCRM(B) Zeta Draft

Please note that many of the documents cited below are no longer available
on the RBMS/BSC website (and links to the documents in relevant DCRM-L
messages thus no longer work).

------------------------
1. DCRB

DCRB was the base text for the DCRM(B) revision. It instructed:

4D2. Copyright dates[superscript 8]:

Add the date of copyright following the publication date if it differs from
the publication date.

, 1967, c1965
(Copyright date printed on verso of t.p.)

, 1896, c1894
Note: Publication date from verso of title page

4D3. When the date of publication or printing does not appear in the
publication but is known, supply it in square brackets from any source,
preferably a reliable bibliography or reference work, if possible. Give the
source of a supplied date and any needed explanation in the note area.

, [1876]
Note: Publication date from BAL

4D4. Give the date of copyright as a substitute for an unknown date of
publication or printing.

, c1894

4D5. Give a conjectural date based on any information available. Give
necessary indications of the basis for the conjecture in the note area.

 [4D2 Footnote 8: When applying this and other rules, use only copyright
dates appearing in works published in a country after the enactment of
modern uniform copyright legislation (in the United States, since 1870). A
date of copyright that precedes the enactment of such legislation may be
recorded in the note area, if desired.]


The DCRM(B) editors found the DCRB instructions problematic on numerous
counts:

-- DCRB gave no instructions for the faithful transcription of copyright
dates; rather, it implied that copyright dates should be silently normalized
to lower-case "c" and an arabic-style date

-- The copyright symbol had not yet been approved for use in catalog
records.

-- Instructions in 4A2 prohibited the combination of statements belonging to
a single element when they appeared in different sources in the publication;
they did not identify 4D2 as an exception. Thus, 4D2 conflicted with 4A2.

-- The footnote to 4D2 resulted in an inconsistent approach to copyright
dates: pre-1870 dates were treated one way, post-1870 dates another way.
Would catalog users be confused by sometimes finding copyright dates in the
260 field and sometimes in a note, if at all?

-- The footnote to 4D2 only gave a cut-off date for the United States.
Catalogers were given no guidance on copyright dates appearing in
publications from other countries. Were the DCRM(B) editors going to have to
research the history of copyright law in each country and come up with a
reference table?

-- The instructions did not address questions of multiple copyright dates,
copyright renewal dates, and dates of deposit (which are not necessarily the
same as copyright dates and may differ). The LCRI for AACR2 1.4F6 says:
"Ignore copyright renewal dates for works first copyrighted before 1978.  If
the copyright dates vary, give the latest date for works copyrighted after
1977." [Regarding dates of legal deposit appearing on French publications, I
highly recommend this article: Edmunds, Jeff. "Le Depot Legal: Implications
for Cataloging" CCQ 21.1, 1995].

-- The LCRI for AACR2 1.4F5 instructs that, for printed books and serials,
catalogers should not record a copyright date in addition to a publication
date. [There is no prohibition against recording copyright dates for music
materials].

-- DCRB's use of copyright dates in Area 4 was limited to two situations:
first, if both a publication date and a copyright date appeared on the
publication; second, if the publication date was unknown. If the publication
date was known from other sources, 4D3 called for supplying the publication
date in square brackets (rather than recording the copyright date).

-- The first example in 4D2 did not include a note indicating the source of
the copyright date even though the editorial comment in parentheses make it
clear that the source was not the title page (such a note was required by
0D, 4A2, and 7C8); the second example in 4D2 and the example in 4D4 might
also have needed such notes, but it wasn't clear from the information given)

--------------------------------------
2. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft:

https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2005-June/000929.html
https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2005-June/000930.html

The DCRM(B) epsilon draft was issued 3-4 weeks before ALA Annual 2005,
together with a list of discussion questions, one of which concerned
copyright statements. Notice was sent to the DCRM-L discussion list and
various other lists and the deadline for comments was Aug. 31, 2005. The
draft was discussed at the RBMS BSC meeting and at an official RBMS public
hearing specifically devoted to DCRM(B).

The epsilon draft instructed catalogers to transcribe copyright dates
faithfully, but only if no publication date was present. It did not limit
the transcription of U.S. copyright dates to post-1870 dates; rather than
trying to come up with dates for the enactment of uniform copyright
legislation in multiple countries, it took a "transcribe what you see"
approach:

4D4. Copyright dates

Transcribe a copyright date as part of this element only if a date of
publication, distribution, etc., is not present in the source. Transcribe
the date as found, including any accompanying words or phrases. Use a
lowercase "c" to represent a copyright symbol.

, copyright 1894

, c1982

If the copyright statement cannot be transcribed succintly, either abridge
the transcription, using the mark of omission, or supply the copyright date
in square brackets. If supplying the copyright date, provide details of the
fuller statement in a note.

, copyright 1912 ...

, [c1850]
Note: Copyright statement dated 1850 on t.p. verso

, [c1866]
Note: "Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866 ... in the
clerk's office of the Dist. Court of the U.S., for the Southern District of
New York"--T.p. verso

If the date of copyright is not the probable date of publication, supply a
probable publication date in square brackets before the copyright date and
provide an explanatory note.

, [1912?], copyright 1911
Note: Dedication dated Aug. 1912

, [1976], c1953
Note: Date of deposit in colophon: 1er trimestre 1976

If the publication contains multiple copyright dates, transcribe only the
latest one. Use the mark of omission to indicate the omission of any
intervening words. Transcribe the full statement in a note if desired.

, copyright ... 1899
Note: Copyright date from t.p. verso; full statement reads: Copyright 1883,
1887, 1888, 1890, 1891, 1894, 1896, 1898 and 1899 by James Whitcomb Riley

If the publication contains a copyright date that differs from the date of
publication, it may be given in a note if desired.

, 1892
Note: Copyright 1887 on t.p. verso

, 1880
Note: "Copyright, 1878, by F.B. Greene"--T.p. verso

If the copyright statement contains a date that duplicates the publication
date but features additional information deemed important to the cataloging
agency, it may be given in a note if desired.

, 1879
Note: "Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1879 by J.M.
Cataldo"--T.p. verso

---------------------
3. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft Discussion Questions

The discussion questions on the DCRM(B) Epsilon draft prepared for the BSC
meeting and RBMS public hearing included the following:

4D4: Copyright statements often include the name of the copyright holder; do
we want to specify that these should be omitted from the date of publication
when transcribing? Using a mark of omission or not? Does it matter if the
name comes after the date, before the date, or between the word/symbol and
the date?

In source: (c) Editions Gallimard, 1966
Possible transcriptions:
c1966
c ... 1966

In source: Copyright 1953 by Librairie Plon
Possible transcriptions:
copyright 1953
copyright 1953 ...

Copyright statements often include both the word and the symbol. Will it be
confusing to transcribe both?:

In source: copyright (c)1980
Possible transcriptions:
copyright c1980
c1980

----------------------------
4. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft Discussion: RBMS/BSC ALA Annual 2005

http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/conference-docs/bsc-200506-minutes.pdf

The minutes of the BSC meeting record the following discussion; given a
choice between 2 options (transcribing "difficult" copyright statements
using the mark of omission and supplying "difficult" copyright dates in
square brackets), the majority preferred transcription. Note that the option
of simply "dropping" copyright dates from Area 4 altogether did not emerge
during this meeting:

4D4. DCRM(B) has rationalized transcription in rare book cataloging to a
greater degree, and the editorial board is looking for advice with regard to
copyright statements. Currently, DCRB instructs the cataloger to type "c"
followed by the year presented in the copyright statement. Often, however,
early copyright statements contain more information than just the date.
Currently all of this information is being silently omitted, which conflicts
with the principle of transcription in this transcription field. Larrabee
voiced concerns that inserting a mark of omission for omitted copyright data
will render the date information unintelligible to users, suggesting that it
makes more sense to bracket the date if the whole statement is not to be
transcribed: the bracket will indicate that the information is not as it
appears on the piece, but indicates this concept in a clearer fashion than
using the mark of omission. Schneider favored transcribing the whole
statement. Théroux noted that transcription is good, unless it doesn't make
sense to the user or is extremely complicated. The group engaged in a
discussion of the pros and cons of transcribing versus using the mark of
omission versus making no change to the rules. The majority favored
extending the transcription principle to copyright statements, which would
result in transcribed data with any omissions indicated by the mark of
omission, while others preferred to keep the current practice. There were
suggestions for steps in the middle, such as c[opyright] as a replacement
for the copyright symbol, which is currently not part of the cataloging,
typeset. Théroux noted that there was no cohesive opinion in the group, but
that the editors would carefully consider all arguments when making a
decision.

----------------------
5. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft Discussion: Public Hearing ALA Annual 2005

https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2005-August/000959.html

It was during this meeting that the option of not transcribing copyright
statements in Area 4 was raised; it received 18 out of 29 votes. Stephen
Skuce served as recorder at the hearing; his notes are below:

djl: [Ending the discussion and beginning a new topic]: The issue of
transcribing copyright statements vs. just summarizing them when there is no
publication date. DCRB now follows AACR2; use the copyright as the date with
"c."  But we want to hold firm with transcribing the date area, not silently
changing these data. Thoughts? Do you agree that the copyright date should
be [more fully] transcribed?

cc[?]: The copyright symbol as well as the word copyright spelled out?
"Copyright c1982" looks funny.

djl: What about using "sic" as we do elsewhere?

lc: It's no more an error than a printer name plus a printer's device.

[several voices]: But we don't transcribe a printer's device.

[brief yapping about the meaning of "sic"]

rn: This opens a can of worms.  Copyright information often provides
information of a different kind about the genesis of the text.  It is often
entirely separate from the actual production and dissemination of the piece.
"Copyright 1881" in a 1905 edition. It's probably better to bail, and retain
the practice of defaulting to a second standard with the option of a note
quoting the copyright statement.

es: What does rn mean?

rn: I'm saying we should continue the practice of "c1966" as in ordinary
AACR2 practice because the information does not always present itself well.
This is extracted information, very distant from the notion of imprint.

ecs: [agrees with richard].  If it's important, put it in a note. We're not
gaining enough by transcribing it.

djl: How do we justify not transcribing in a transcription area?

jg: I would put c1966 all in brackets; this says you've normalized it.

rn: Look at normal bibliographic practice. It's just not done. [Unclear: "it
adds information regarding the possible date of issue" [?]]

djl: [expresses firm opposition to silent normalization in a transcription
field]: When we've used DCRB for such materials, we've bracketed the
copyright date and added a note with the actual transcription.

rn: For purposes of $c in the 260, it is not imprint information at all.
It's different altogether. You can infer information from it, but all
information from it IS inferential.

djl: It is a transcription field.  We don't normalize there.

rn: But copyright is different.

djl: But silent normalization is wrong.

rn: Follow AACR2.

lc: We have a tradition of not regarding the imprint as necessarily a pure
transcription field, especially the date, which explains the Roman numerals
in DCRB.  There have been problems all along. If we try it we'll likely go
back to redo it when we revise these rules yet again.  It can help for
identification of states and issues, whatever. But I remember an LC
statement: "don't worry about consistency in this area."

ja: Do you express copyright by the symbol or not? is the question. But
remember, this area is for date of publication, and a copyright date is NOT
a publication date. You can record it as evidence, sure.

vb: I'm working on Longfellow now. The copyright date is clearly and
demonstrably not the publication date of volume 1 of the set. I infer the
[actual publication] date, and leave it at that [i.e., she does not record
the misleading copyright date]

ja: But we are trying to preserve transcription. The fact that it isn't a
date of publication gives you permission to put it in a note.

es: We do treat the date as transcription.

rn: Copyright statements are about registration, not publication. It may be
good, or it may be misleading, data for determining the publication date.

djl: Another poll. The options are:

1. Leave text as it is, and work out some difficult issues
2. Silently normalize copyright data when there's no publication date (the
AACR2 rule)
3. Drop out any instruction regarding copyright dates in this element. Only
record the publication date, whether actual or inferred.

[Results:
1 = 3
2 = 8
3 = 18

mt: That isn't compatible with DCRB, another consideration informing the
construction of these rules. [mt addition to the minutes: I think I actually
noted that the 3rd option wasn't compatible with either DCRB or AACR2, both
of which were DCRM(B) principles].

rm: Is there a "rare books" reason for treating this differently [than AACR
does]?

es: In modern publications, the copyright and publication dates are usually
pretty close.

[Muttering in the room: Not really!]

rn: Again, it's just not a publication date: it's evidence of the history of
the text.

jg: I voted for #3, but I still think copyright has to be addressed. What
about the notes area?

ja: Add something regarding "how to conjecture"?

lc: There's a fundamental problem with what AACR2 is doing. We can lead the
way. The evidence for current practice is weak. Every year, there's an
Autocat discussion along the lines of, "It's December 2005, what do I do
with this c2006 book?"

rm: That's because they faithfully transcribe.

vb: Recording all these copyright dates doesn't help with Longfellow, for
example. I now have 5 "title issues" and all are identical except for the
t.p.; they're from the same stereoplates.

Penny Welbourne (pw): What about bracketing a copyright date, but adding a
500 note?

jd: This concerns being required to record copyright dates that are just
printings. Go back to the DCRM(B) introductory matter, under pre-cataloging
decisions. Number 4: exercised judgement, and be consistent.

jl: Throwing out the copyright is OK, but if your only basis for a bracketed
date IS the copyright date, and if you have a reasonably strong copyright
date, why not put it in the 260?

djl: (ending discussion): Now for another departure from DCRB

--------------------------
6. DCRM(B) Epsilon Draft Responses

CPSO Response (includes references to the discussion questions): 4D4: CPSO
feels the supplied date is not the way to go. Perhaps reorder the paragraphs
in this order: 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 4th. The rule needs some indication that the
copyright date is serving as a publication date substitute. Include the
discussion question examples (or others similar to them) in the code itself
at the second section of the rule. We think the third example of the
discussion questions can be transcribed as both "...c1980" and "copyright
c1980".
[mt note: I think the first sentence of the CPSO response referes to the two
options in DCRM(B) Epsilon 4D4 paragraph 2 and therefore expresses a
preference for an abridged "true" transcription rather than a normalized
copyright date supplied in square brackets].

CC:DA Response: 4D4: Given DCRM(B)'s stated rationale of allowing for more
complete transcriptions, the TF doesn't understand why 4D4 limits the
transcription of copyright dates in Area 4 to cases where a date of
publication, distribution, etc. is not present in the source. If the
cataloger wishes to include both the publication date and the copyright date
in Area 4, why not have an option allowing this choice, rather than limiting
the transcription of the copyright date to a note?

CILIP Rare Books Group BSC Response: no mention of copyright

Yale University Rare Book Team Response: 4D4: Transcription of copyright
statements? As occurred in the public hearing, our discussion ranged beyond
the question of transcription of copyright statements to the general use of
copyright dates in the publication date area [the 260 $c]. One thing we
agreed on was that transcription of copyright statements is unacceptable to
us. Otherwise, we discussed the options below and realized that we disagreed
about which one we each preferred. Thus we decided that we do not have a
Team response to this issue (although some of us might send individual
comments to you).
1) Infer date of publication from copyright date, which would mean keeping
the copyright date out of the 260 $c altogether?
2) Follow AACR2 and continue with putting the copyright date in the 260 $c?
3) Put the copyright date in the 260 $c but bracket it?

Individual Responses (Windy Lundy, University of Colorado at Boulder; David
Woodruff, Getty; Kate Moriarty, Saint Louis University): no mention of
copyright

--------------------------------------
7. DCRM(B) Zeta Draft:

The DCRM(B) Editorial Team met in Sept. 2005 to discuss the Epsilon Draft.
The decisions made at this meeting were reflected in the DCRM(B) Zeta draft,
issued prior to ALA Midwinter 2006:
https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2006-January/000982.html

The Zeta draft was accompanied by a document detailing changes made to the
Epsilon draft, including this summary of the new instructions regarding
copyright in 4D4:

4D4: revised so that copyright dates cannot be transcribed in the
publication, distribution, etc., area; they can only serve as the basis for
supplied dates (per editorial team decision); included dates of deposit

The Zeta draft was also accompanied by a list of possible discussion points,
including copyright:
https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2006-January/000996.html

Minutes from the ALA Midwinter 2006 meeting of the BSC show that the change
in treatment of copyright was summarized thus:

4D4. Copyright dates are no longer to be recorded in the date of publication
element. They may be given in notes and they may form the basis for supplied
dates of publication. The instructions now deviate from both AACR2 and DCRB
but they resolve the problems associated with transcribing copyright
statements.

The minutes show no further discussion of the new copyright rules:
http://www.rbms.info/committees/bibliographic_standards/conference-docs/bsc-200601-minutes.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20090203/2639fe7c/attachment.htm