[Videolib] Cataloguing info.

Susan Weber (sweber@langara.bc.ca)
Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:03:22 -0700

We use the MARC fields 245 and 260 to denote restriction or special
Since we have a provincial database for media, a committee worked
out the specific wording and where 245 would indicate restrictions from
producers/distributors and where 260 would be used.
These are not necessarily approved by AACRII, but it works for us.
Here's where you'll find more
details: http://www.langara.bc.ca/aemac/restriction_phrases.html

Also, the individual libraries in our consortium will put labels on the
boxes that say: NOT FOR CLASSROOM USE or some such restriction.
The choice of words will vary, depending on the media collection and users.
Again, the above website will suggest the grammar for the terms. For instance,
we always begin with Restrictions:

Hope this helps,


At 01:45 PM 2004-09-07, you wrote:
>I have had this same problem with our ordering department. They were (and I
>think continue) to order the public performance rights (or the "educational
>performance rights") for videos if they are available. My problem with this
>is 1) it is unnecessary (as others have noted) and 2) even when we do
>purchase the public performance rights, we do not keep track of for which
>videos we own them and for which we don't. In the event that we wanted to
>have a public performance of something we own (or a professor wanted to show
>something as part of a film festival or other showing that was not
>exclusively part of a course) we would have no easy way of knowing if we
>actually owned the rights or not.
>Has anyone tackled this issue? I asked our tech services people to look
>into how we could make a note in the record somehow to indicate if we owned
>the rights, but they have not responded.
>Michael Brewer
>German & Slavic Studies and Media Arts Librarian
>University of Arizona Library, A210
>1510 E. University
>P.O. Box 210055
>Tucson, AZ 85721-0055
>Fax 520.621.9733
>Voice 520.307.2771
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Shufeldt [mailto:pashuf@charter.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 12:14 PM
>To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: [Videolib] Direct Cinema -- Home Video
>Path of least resistance is to order their films for the public
>library from another supplier who doesn't balk at selling without the
>unneeded public performance rights. My public library has purchased
>some of this company's films through Midwest Tapes. Amazon.com also
>carries a number of them.
>While this doesn't deal directly with the issue of the company's
>refusal to sell to the public library at home video prices, it does
>get around making personal purchases of copies intended for the
>Pat Shufeldt
>Greenville, SC
>"Jaeschke, Myles" wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Recently I submitted an order for some titles from Direct Cinema
> > that they offer as home videos. I received back a letter that says
> >
> > "We are retuning the following purchase orders for incorrect
> > pricing. On them, you have listed home video prices that do not
> > have Public Performance Licensing for use in educational
> > institutions. U.S. Copyright laws require that public libraries
> > provide this licensing as your materials are available for use by
> > schools, universities and other organizations."
> >
> > To me this second sentence is just plain wrong.
> >
> > I called them and had a few words with the person that answered.
> > Later I said that I will personally purchase these (home video only)
> > and then "donate" them. She told me that would be unethical.
> >
> > I say tiered pricing is unethical, for universities, PL, or
> > otherwise.
> >
> > End of rant.
> >
> > Best,
> > Myles
> >
> > Myles Jaeschke
> >
> > Tulsa City County Library
> >
> > Film Librarian
>Videolib mailing list
>Videolib mailing list

-- --- -- --- -- --- --
Susan Weber
Media Librarian, Langara College
Advanced Education Media Acquisitions Centre (AEMAC)

100 West 49th Avenue
Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V5Y 2Z6
Tel. (604) 323-5533 Fax. (604) 323-5475
email: sweber@langara.bc.ca