My understanding is that the creative commons license is in fact a copyright statement, in which the copyright holder gives away certain rights in return for certain behavior by users of the work. So in my opinion this should be treated as a copyright statement, but as any other copyright statement can serve as the basis for a supplied date of publication. Others may have other opinions, though, of course.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
Collective wisdom, one of my catalogers is cataloging the open access titles from Knowledge Unlatched. One specific title is “Fighting for a living” accessible at http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=468734. Our question is that we find no date of publication on this piece, instead there is the Creative Commons statement shown below. We are pretty much in agreement here that we should record 2013 as the date of publication, in brackets, in the 264 _1 $c, but could the year as presented below be taken as a publication date and therefore no brackets are needed? We generally agree the date would not go in a 264 _4 as a copyright statement, on the other hand, it is a rights statement, so maybe the date should go there. And, do we record/mention the CC statement in a 5XX note, e.g. 500 “Creative Commons License CC BY NC ND” and if so, is it 500, 506, 540, 542, something else?
[log in to unmask]">
Adolfo R. Tarango
Assistan Director, Metadata Services
[log in to unmask]" alt="cid:[log in to unmask]">