Thank you Becky.  I attended a presentation at Midwinter ALA 2014 at which 
someone from HathiTrust spoke and told us that copyright dates are very 
important to know, particularly for the future when a work goes out of 
copyright.  HathiTrust has to do a lot of research on copyright dates to 
determine if a work is in the public domain, or when it will become so, so 
that they can program their data to make things available in the future.

Having heard this, we have decided to always record a copyright date when 
present on a resource.  Even if it is the same date as the publication 
date recorded in the publication statement.

Adam Schiff

**************************************
* Adam L. Schiff                     * 
* Principal Cataloger                *
* University of Washington Libraries *
* Box 352900                         *
* Seattle, WA 98195-2900             *
* (206) 543-8409                     * 
* (206) 685-8782 fax                 *
* [log in to unmask]           * 
**************************************

On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, Rebecca Culbertson wrote:

> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:28:41 -0700
> From: Rebecca Culbertson <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Copyright, RDA,
>     MARC 264: both second indicator 1 and 4 or 1 only?
> 
> Everyone-
>
> Recently I became a member of a HathiTrust cataloging support group and believe me copyright dates ARE important.  I was very happy to see it set off in its own "place" rather than having it mushed together as it was in the past.  I also just checked with a knowledgeable friend of mine and here is what he had to say:
>
> "264 4 may not be "required" but whether 264 4 is "necessary" is a matter of opinion.  Recording copyright dates may have more much to do with future preservation activities, e.g., ability to select records from the database that represent items that could be preserved because they are in the public domain or have a certain copyright date, etc.  It's a data element that can be identified by its own coding which is a good thing.  It's more than just some descriptive cataloging trivia."
>
> Becky Culbertson
> California Digital Library
> (speaking for myself, not the PCC Standards Committee-but I will bring this up there)
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dickerson, Eugene H
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:40 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Copyright, RDA, MARC 264: both second indicator 1 and 4 or 1 only?
>
> Hi, Steve.
>
> This is an example of "oh never mind" that has been part of the RDA implementation.
>
> During the U.S. RDA test and prior to implementation, it will drilled into everyone's head that unlike AACR2, RDA considers date of publication and copyright date as two separate data elements, which is OK, because they aren't really the same thing.
>
> In early attempts to use RDA with MARC, we ended up with dates in the 260 subfield c that looked like this:  $c [2014], (c)2014.
> This looked strange and didn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Then, the a ha moment was the discovery of the 264 field that would allow for recording the publication date and copyright dates as separate elements, so we ended up with:
> 264   1    $c [2014]
> 264   4    $c (c)2014
> and then we stopped using the 260 field in RDA records.
>
> The "oh never mind" moment came when someone decided we don't really need to record both publication date and copyright date if they're both the same date or if we're inferring the publication date from the copyright date.  Thus, we end up with:
> 264  1   $c [2014]
>
> I also call this the "everything old is new again" moment because we've in essence gone back to the AACR2 practice of inferring the publication date from the copyright.
>
> After all that training of people to use the 264 field instead of the 260 field, we've ended up in a place where we could have continued using the 260 field, as the practice is now the same as it was under AACR2, if you follow "Option 2".
>
> As with AACR2, we have ended up with over 90% of the publication dates recorded in square brackets, which doesn't mean anything to anyone except a cataloger. (and even then, there's the ambiguity of inferred date vs. supplied date). The average user has no idea why the date is in square brackets or why it isn't.  The average user probably does understand that (c)2014 is a copyright date because it's preceded by the copyright symbol.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the perceived advantage in inferring a publication date when the resource doesn't state one explicitly.  If the resource has just a copyright date, why isn't it sufficient to record the copyright date identified as such?
>
> I think that the confusion is now arising because the training materials featured "Option 1" and then "Option 2" emerged, at least in PCC, and now non-PCC catalogers are seeing both and not understanding why it's being done two different ways.  There may even be catalogers who see a record done with "Option 2" and think it's wrong, so they're changing it to "Option 1" which they believe based on the training materials is the correct way.
>
> I don't think that Option 2 has been widely communicated outside PCC. It looks like it's not even completely clear to all PCC catalogers as to which is preferred.
>
> I think that the desire was to streamline or simplify, but as a lyric in one of Whitney Houston's songs says "you find you've only wound up with a mess".
>
> Gene
>
>
>
> Eugene Dickerson
> Team Leader for Cataloging
> Ralph J. Bunche Library
> U.S. Department of State
> Washington, DC
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> (202) 647-2191 (voice)
>
>
> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Early
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:23 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [PCCLIST] Copyright, RDA, MARC 264: both second indicator 1 and 4 or 1 only?
>
> This is a current topic on RDA-L, which I would really like to have confirmed by PCC:
> Regarding the proper PCC endorsed way to record date of publication in MARC when the _only_ date available is copyright, which option is correct and  where is it documented? (example below cribbed and modified from the one posted at RDA-L)
>
> Option 1
>
>
> DtSt: t
>
> Dates: 2014,2014
>
> 264 _1 $a Eugene, Oregon : $b Pickwick Publications, $c [2014]
>
> 264 _4 $a (c)2014
>
> Or
>
> Option 2
>
>
> DtSt: s
>
> Dates: 2014
>
> 264 _1 $a Eugene, Oregon : $b Pickwick Publications, $c [2014]
>
> I have a 2013 AUTOCAT email from an LC employee claiming that the Option 2 is preferred and 2013 personal emails from catalogers at a PCC level former RDA-test institution strongly claiming that Option 1 is preferred.
>
> And I now see a recent email at RDA-L also advocating Option 2. But I would still like PCC confirmation.
>
>
> Stephen T. Early
> Cataloger
> Center for Research Libraries
> 6050 S. Kenwood
> Chicago, IL  60637
> 773-955-4545 x326
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> CRL website: www.crl.edu<http://www.crl.edu>
>
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~