From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:56:37 -0500

Are there guidelines emerging on what should NOT be preserved?
Sandy's reference in this thread concerning self-published books gives
me pause.  Where do you draw the line?  Todd Carpenter of NISO posted
on the Scholarly Kitchen a few months ago about the impracticality of
preserving certain huge, dynamic databases--that would seem to be one
area to be carved out.  Preserving self-published consumer titles
seems to me to be a questionable allocation of resources, but I'm sure
many people would disagree with me.  And Gold OA scholarly articles
placed with services of uncertain merit?  Of course, at some point you
have to ask, Who is to judge?  But I think someone has to.

Joe Esposito


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:03:18 -0600
>
> I daresay that every major trade publishing house registers all of its
> books. It would be silly for them not to do so.
>
> Deposit is mandatory, in any case, while registration is voluntary.
> This is what the Copyright Office says:
>
> > What is the difference between mandatory deposit and copyright registration?
> > Mandatory deposit (17 U.S.C. section 407) requires the owner of copyright or the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the Copyright Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the best edition within 3 months after a work is published. Section 408 of the copyright law, for a fee, provides the option to formally register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. This registration process provides a legal record of copyright ownership as well as additional legal benefits in cases of infringement. Optional registration fulfills mandatory deposit requirements.
> >
>
> What is happening now, though, with the tremendous growth of
> self-publishing, which often includes no print copy at all, is that
> indeed no registration is taking place, no deposit copies are sent to
> the LC, and no preservation process for such books is being carried
> out by anyone, not even the LC.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> At 8:21 PM -0500 12/18/12, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:39:03 +0000
> >
> > Copyright registration (and deposit) is not required in order to
> > secure copyright. Therefore many works are never deposited.
> >
> > Furthermore, LC has never treated copyright deposit copies as
> > "preservation" copies to be kept as a "dark archive."So some copyright
> > deposit copies have, over time, been lost or damaged.
> >
> > Winston Tabb
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:31:13 -0600
> >
> > But, as required by the copyright registration process, all those
> > trade publishers send at least two copies to the Library of Congress.
> > Doesn't the LC have a preservation policy?
> >
> > Sandy Thatcher
> >
> > P.S. University presses, in addition, usually have deposit at least
> > one copy of every book they publish with their own university's
> > library.