Getting It Right

The MEDLIB-L discussion list has been tremendously valuable over the years, particularly for solo librarians.   But it's frustrating as well, and probably spreads as much misinformation as enlightenment.   Case in point, last week:

A question is posted to the list wondering if it is true that if physicians provide their personal copies of journals to the library, "we can't add them to our catalog, bind them, etc."  I'd written a JMLA editorial years ago on the topic, so I responded by referencing that, and pointed out that once a gift has been made to the library (assuming the gift is legitimate), the library can treat that material the same way that it treats material acquired in any other fashion (we've had that point verified by University counsel several times).

Later in the day, the original poster put up a summary thanking people for the many replies received and including this nugget:

Gifts should not be lended, or included in SERHOLD, Docline or other consortial list.  (even here there is some disagreement, with some asserting that gifts are the library's and should be used how we see fit, and others asserting that it would violate copyright to provide materials that we don't in fact own)

This isn't a matter of disagreement.  Somebody is wrong.

So I posted a polite follow-up, asking for more discussion from the people who feel that gifts should not be lent.  I really wanted to know what some people thought the copyright issues were.  I think they're wrong, but I thought it would be useful to get some kind of explanation for that view.

Alas.  There were two subsequent posts, both agreeing with what I'd said.  Nothing from whoever it might've been whose replies to the original request had resulted in the item in the summary.  Presumably, those whoevers would've seen my follow-up, but for whatever reasons, chose not to respond, either to the list or to me individually.   I assume they weren't very confident about the veracity of their answers.

So the original question remains unanswered, but the summary now sits there in the list archives.  I can forsee the question coming up again, when some librarian is having a conversation with colleagues about how to handle gifts.   "It's okay to accept them, but it's a copyright violation to lend them.  I saw that on MEDLIB-L."

Folklore.   We base way too many of our policy decisions on library folklore.

Comments

[Nicole Dettmar]

I agree that MEDLIB-L (or any communication channel in our field for that matter) discussion is not The Answer.

I was rather dismayed by whoever contributed "I am not sure you can participate in the NN/LM, RML, or honestly in the DOCLINE reciprocal free loan networks if you are not a member of MLA. That may be a stretch, but MLA membership IS the basis for much of the interlibrary cooperation the networks provide." to the librarian asking for membership renewal answers. MLA membership is certainly valuable but in no remote way tied to nnlm.gov or NLM products and services!

[T Scott]

Dawg -- that particular comment was dinner conversation for me & Lynn. Given that there are many people out and about (you, for example) who can give authoritative answers to questions like this, it is very frustrating to see so many librarians throw a question on to the list and then (presumably) take whatever comes back at face value. I suppose the respondents trying to be helpful... This sort of thing always reminds me of one of Lonnie's favorite quotes: "A moment's thought would have shown him the error of his ways; but thought is difficult, and a moment is a very long time."

[Mark]

Evidence-based folklore?

[David Rothman]

I stopped reading MEDLIB-L months ago. Sometimes I feel badly about this. The rest of the time I'm grateful for the time that frees up...and I don't miss seeing stuff like this.

[Nicole Dettmar]

It appears that list protocol deems the summary response to be the final contribution to a thread even if an answer contained within it is blatantly false. I can understand why due to traffic & that's part of why I prefer blog comments for continuing discussion of topics that are compelling... there's no final answer :)

[Michael Lindsay]

I posted that question on Medlib, and the responses were all over the map, as my apparently poor attempt at a summary indicated. I'm still a little confused, and I don't think I'm the only one. So, if a physician, who subscribes personally to a journal and would continue to do so regardless, provides copies to a library, then said library can bind, catalog, lend etc, as with any other gift (assuming that there was no attempt to deceive).

[T Scott]

It was a completely reasonable question and your summary was fine -- it was the responses you got that puzzle me! If the library receives a gift, you own it and can do with it what you like, just as if you purchased it.

That being said, many libraries have policies in place not to bind or catalog serial gifts, because you can't count on them continuing and they may be more susceptible to missing issues than a paid-for subscription, but that's a management decision.

I do wish that some of the folks who told you there were copyright limitations on what you could do with gifts would have responded to my second message -- I'm afraid they're confused.