Re: PUBLIC PERFORMANCE NOTES

Jim Scholtz (jscholtz@sdln.net)
Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:42:57 -0800 (PST)

Lloyd, after reading Kris Brancolini's well-worded response I'd just like
to reaffirm her comments. Per showing licenses on private home use videos
are available through licensing companies such as MPLC (Motion Picture
Licensing Company) and only restricted to one site (i.e. a library, school,
business, etc) for the subscription term - a year. These subscriptions are
set up after the video purchase. PP rights that a purchaser receives from
the distributor/vendor are transferred to the user because of the Doctrine
of First Sale - as long as the item is not leased. So patrons can use them
in PP off-site situations just as athe Library could use them. There are a
few companies that lease videos in a contractual manner where PP off-site
would be an issue - upon purchase, a contract by the vendor must accompany
the item stating the conditions of the lease. This is not very common!!

At 07:51 PM 1/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Lloyd, Not to worry. Currently, I'm the Library Director of a 70,000
>vol.+ public library in South Dakota. We have a video collection of about
>3500 titles and we do put a 690 subject field in the OCLC/MARC bib record
>indicating public performance titles - Public performance rights
>videorecordings. I've been an AV librarian for 19 years in medium-sized
>city libraries with 20,000 video collections, system libraries with 40,000
>video collections, etc. and I've always kept track of PP videos by subject.
> I've also been in charge of cataloging those collections and listing PP is
>a GREAT advantage to the public and to in-house use. Also, it is an extra
>hedge against illegal use - no one can saw that they were not informed as
>to the rights utilization, if a court case would materialize. This allows
>patrons to access an alphabetical title listing by that subject, keyword
>and its used a lot by teachers and groups. Your perceptions of
>nontheatrical public performance rights might be a little askew - you're
>right that PP rights are granted by the producer/distributor on a per title
>basis, but most of the time titles from educational distributors come with
>public performance rights anyway - no need to pay extra money. Also, the
>ISBN # for the pp version, as well as the distributor is different; hence a
>totally different bib record. Take for example the Turner PBS Home Video
>line - all home use only; but PBS does dist. all of those titles with PP
>rights - instead of $19.95, they are $49.95 +. Sometimes price is not an
>indicator and even the OCLC bib record is incorrect - take Questar, Finley
>Holiday, and IVN titles - they all come with PP rights and are only $9.95 -
>$39.95. Many of the OCLC bibs say in a note field 500 - for private home
>use only, when they indeed have PP rights. To tell you the truth, the
>positive PR you'll get from having this extra subject heading will outweigh
>the recataloging mess - just make sure the video dept. markets it to
>teachers, etc. Also, the in cases of lost/damaged/extra copies, it should
>be the video selector's responsibility to make sure they get the SAME
>video, including same rights. Just my 2 worth. Jim Scholtz. At 05:24 PM
>1/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
>>After a couple of years away from VIDEOLIB I keep finding myself faced
>>with various video-related questions, so I've come back in the hopes of
>>tapping once more into your collective wisdom.
>>
>>As Head Cataloger at my library I am getting requests from public service
>>staff to add notes to the bibliographic records for videos when the
>>video comes to us with public performance rights. Staff would like
>>to be able to do a keyword search and come up with a list of those titles
>>for programming purposes. I have a couple of concerns about this. It
>>seems to me that public performance rights are granted for the individual
>>copy (or copies) that we purchase at the time. If we put the public
>>performance information on the bib. record, and a couple years later buy
>>a replacement copy of that video title that, for whatever reason, does
>>not come with public performance rights then the information on the
>>bib. record will either be incorrect, or will have to either be removed
>>or modified to remain accurate. Multiply this possibility over hundred
>>of titles and it could become a big maintenance job. It seems more
>>appropriate to put this information on the barcode record for the specific
>>item, but then a keyword search will not work.
>>
>>My second concern is whether the public performance rights granted to the
>>library transfer to the public. Reading some of the PPR statements, it
>>seems that it is alright for the library to show the video to an audience,
>>but it's not so clear whether a patron checking out this video could legally
>>give their own public performance of the video. I'm also wondering if the
>>rights granted are typically different from video company to video company,
>>so the statement in the bib. record could be correct for some titles and
>>not for others. I do not want to advertise to the public in our catalog
>>that the video comes with public performance rights if they, themselves,
>>cannot legally take advantage of those rights.
>>
>>I would think that other libraries out there may have dealt with these
>>issues. Am I making too big a deal about my concerns, or are there other
>>solutions that have worked at other institutions? I appreciate any advice
>>that you can pass along.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Lloyd Jansen
>>Head Cataloger
>>Stockton-San Joaquin County
>> (California) Public Library
>>(209) 937-8670
>>ljansen@stockton.lib.ca.us
>>SSJCPL homepage: http://www.stockton.lib.ca.us
>>
>>
>
>
>