Re: c.1995

>> A friend who catalogs books has noticed that many of the books received
>> during the last 6 months of the year have a copyright date of the
>> following year. He also notes that this practice seems to be occuring
>> more frequently now than in the past. Does anyone have an explanation
>> for this? Is it legal? Does it have the effect of stretching the
>> duration of copyright?

To which Micah Stolowitz replied:

> I have noticed that on occassion, too. It must be the work of an
>attorney far more clever than me. It is not a correct notice, it seems
>to me, which "shall consist of the following three elements...

(deleted stuff)

> Maybe that clever attorney will enlighten me.
>---
>Micah Stolowitz

I am not a clever attorney, just a librarian, but it is very common practice in American publishing starting in September to include the next year's date as the copyright year. Part of this may stem from not knowing exactly when items may be published, but most likely it is to get the scoop on the competition...like cars bringing out their 1995 models in September.

Information goes out of date so fast in todays society, that a book which carries a 1995 copyright date for 15 months looks like the lastest word on that particular topic. It makes books marketable for a longer period of time. Even the following year, it doesn't look too far out of date to be of use, even though it may be two years old at the time.

Is this legal or ethical? I don't know. This just happens to be common practice. Should the publishers stop? Well, that again is another question.

AUTOCAT, the discussion group for Library Catalogers and Authority, has discussed this topic and if you are truly interested, a review of their archives may be of some help.

Virginia K. P. Rigby
Access Services
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville TX 77341

LIB_VKR[_at_]SHSU.EDU Received on Tue Nov 01 1994 - 21:00:10 GMT