Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!lll-lcc!ptsfa!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor
From: shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: Restrictions on Stargate
Message-ID: <1301@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Mar-87 12:01:01 EST
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1301
Posted: Thu Mar 19 12:01:01 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Mar-87 06:00:10 EST
References: <103@stargate.UUCP> <998@rpics.RPI.EDU> <4470@columbia.UUCP> <1290@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1224@sfsup.UUCP>
Reply-To: shor@sphinx.UUCP (Melinda Shore)
Organization: University of Chicago Consternation Center
Lines: 20

In article <1224@sfsup.UUCP> shap@sfsup.UUCP writes:
>Are you sure they copyrighted the entries, and not the compendium? Also, I
>believe that OCLC adds a respectable amount of informatoin to each
>reference, and consequently may be in a position to claim that the
>reference is a derived work. StarGate can certainly copyright derived
>works, but only if the relevant copyright legislation isn't violated.

OCLC copyrighted the individual records.  Here's a question for you
legal types -- when a library enters a record into the database, they
assign MARC tags and subfield indicators, which are entered as text.
OCLC stores the records in MARC format, which is basically a directory
with pointers to field beginnings.  Does converting the text into this
format constitute sufficient alteration to the data for it to be
considered a derived work (esp. since the library gave the instructions
for the conversion by adding field tags)?

This is rather far afield from Stargate, so mail to me.
-- 
Melinda Shore                                   ..!hao!oddjob!sphinx!shor
University of Chicago Computation Center         shor@sphinx.uchicago.edu