OLAC CATALOGER’S JUDGMENT
Jay Weitz
Captioning and Subtitling
Question: In an effort to give added access to our patrons with hearing disabilities, our institution would like to use the subject heading "Video recordings for the hearing impaired" for videos and DVDs with subtitles, as well as those identified as closed-captioned or signed. In our cataloging records, the language of the subtitling is identified in the 546 field. Would this be an appropriate application of the subject heading? It does seem as if some definitions of "captioning" are evolving. The SDH (Subtitles for deaf and hard-of-hearing) are described as a subtitling mechanism of DVDs for captioning. Maybe a broader interpretation is needed for using this heading.
Answer: Indicating the languages of subtitles and closed captions in field 546 is a commendable practice. But when applying the "Video recordings for the hearing impaired" subject heading (sh87000886), catalogers need to keep in mind the differing technologies and intentions of subtitling and captioning. For instance, by definition, closed captioning has traditionally been accessible only with special equipment or the like, although that has changed considerably in recent years. Again traditionally, subtitles have been accessible without special equipment. With the advent of DVDs, however, one often has the ability to display a huge array of subtitling and/or captioning possibilities.
People also need to keep in mind that the original intentions of closed captioning were quite different from those of subtitling. Captioning now has a wider audience than originally intended, including TV watchers in noisy public places, such as restaurants and bars. Even so, captioning and subtitling remain different. Captions generally seem to be made on the assumption that the person reading them cannot hear the audio, so other audio cues (such as indications of laughter, applause or other non-textual data) are routinely included. Captions also render a verbatim (or close) transcription of every word, using rolling text bars. In contrast, subtitles rarely include any indication of non-textual data, on the apparent assumption that the listener/reader is actually able to hear such things as laughter or applause in context. Although practice varies from translator to translator, subtitles often do not render every single word, but instead provide a condensed essence. Occasionally, some passages are even allowed to go untranslated because the thrust of the action may be obvious or translation would be superfluous (for instance, shouts of a character’s name or "yes"/"no" sorts of exchanges that are clear without translation). One could go on, but you probably get the picture, so to speak.
Field 041 for Subtitles
Question: For the 041 field, the MARC 21 example shows first indicator "0" for not translated and subfield $b for language codes of subtitled languages. Since it can be argued that translation is involved, what is the reasoning on first indicator choice? Is the answer the same for films that are dubbed, resulting in a more comprehensive presentation of the additional language(s)? Is there any correct use for a film with subtitles to be coded 041 1 subfield $b?
Answer: With respect to subtitles, the second example in the current MARC 21 (page dated October 2003) under field 041 subfield $b, where it specifically refers to audiovisual materials, the first indicator is coded "1" for "Item is or includes a translation". This would suggest that subtitles are considered translations in MARC terms. Dubbed films would likewise be considered translations. MARC currently insists, however, that "…subfield $b contains the language code(s) of overprinted titles (subtitles) when they differ from the language of the sound track", thereby excluding language codes already found in subfield $a.
Notes and Added Entries for Cast
Question: I have a few questions concerning a motion film or video production’s cast and how they are credited in 5xx fields. AACR2R Rule 7.7B6 states: "List featured players, performers, narrators, and/or presenters". In OCLC’s Bibliographic Format and Standards (BFAS), under 511 first indicator "1" (Cast), there is a note with the names of 6 actors as well as their role-names. Does this mean that the "Rule of three" in AACR2R (Rule 1.1F5) does not apply to a 511 note, meaning, the rule only applies to the statement of responsibility (245 subfield $c) and to no other field? If yes, would this mean that all actors and their role names would have to be listed in 511 and therefore in individual 700s? If not, and the "Rule of three" does apply, should only the first actor be named as his/her name appears on the film’s or video’s credit list? If this is up to cataloger discretion, how does one decide whom to include?
Answer: AACR2 Rule 1.1F5 is specifically about the statement of responsibility (field 245 subfield $c), as is the corresponding Rule 7.1F in the "Motion Pictures and Videorecordings" chapter. Rule 7.7B6, which covers the extended statements of responsibility for films and videos (including cast and credits), does not explicitly include the so-called "Rule of three". My guess has always been that this is so because, in contrast to most (though obviously not all) books, the intellectual responsibility for which tends to be fairly concentrated, the intellectual responsibility for film is usually (though again, not always) widely diffuse over a range of disciplines. Until November 2000, when Rule 7.1F1 was slightly re-worded to incorporate what was intended to be additional guidance on the matter, there were LC Rule Interpretations for both 7.1F and 7.7B6 that offered more detail on whom to include and whom not to include (again, with no mention of the "Rule of three"). Although these two LCRIs have been cancelled, their spirits live on in practice. Additionally, there remains some significant guidance in the surviving LCRI 21.29D, which covers not the statements of responsibility, per se, but the added entries that may result from those statements. The section of this LCRI concerning "Audiovisual Materials", especially Point 3, can be read as solid suggestions for who should be included among the cast:
"3) Make added entries for all featured players, performers, and narrators with the following exceptions: ...
b) If there are many players (actors, actresses, etc.), make added entries under the headings for those that are given prominence in the chief source of information. If that cannot be used as a criterion, make added entries under the headings for each if there are no more than three."
Individual circumstances will vary, but generally speaking, use such hints as the credits printed on a label or container (and, of course, the credits appearing within the film itself) to limit the cast listing to those most prominently named. Their roles will sometimes be useful to include parenthetically (filmed plays or operas in which characters’ names may be well known, for instance), but that, too, will depend on the circumstances. My interpretation of the above LCRI excerpt is that, when the criterion of prominence is used, the "Rule of three" does not apply. The order of names should follow their order of prominence in the source, if that applies. All of this is subject to cataloger’s judgment, which no one should hesitate to exercise. It is also interesting to note that neither the Paris Principles nor the ISBDs have the "Rule of three" that exists in AACR2. Furthermore, in my understanding of the direction toward AACR3, the "Rule of three" is unlikely to survive in its present form, possibly being made optional or disappearing all together.
Notes and Added Entries for Crew
Question: Here are a few questions concerning the crew of a motion film or video production. AACR2R Rule 7.7B6 states: "List persons (other than the cast) who have contributed to the artistic and/or technical production of a motion picture or videorecording and who are not named in the statement of responsibility ... Do not include the names of assistants, associates, etc., or any other persons making only a minor contribution". In BFAS, the 508 field definition describes the crew as "... individuals or organizations (other than members of a cast) who have participated in the creative and/or production of the work". When does a crew member "contribute to the artistic and/or technical" part of a production and when not? When is a crew member’s contribution "major" and when is it "minor"? On what grounds does the cataloger decide who in the crew was should included or excluded from the 508 field?
Answer: Much of my previous answer regarding cast also applies to the other credits. Once again, LCRI 21.29D offers considerable indirect guidance. The intention of the rules was never to denigrate the contributions of any of the people who participate in the creation of a film, but instead to keep record size, cataloging costs and the necessity for authority work, etc. within reasonable limits. It was also intended to try to anticipate which types of film artists and creators were most likely to be sought by the largest number of users. Directors, producers, and screenwriters (listed in LCRI 21.29D, and in the cancelled LCRI 7.1F1, but unfortunately omitted from the list of examples in the re-written rule proper), considered to have generally the greatest overall responsibility, are usually placed in the statement of responsibility (field 245 subfield $c) and are traced. Depending upon the individual film being cataloged, it may be appropriate to list other contributors there as well (for instance, the composer and librettist for a filmed opera, the chief animator for an animated film, and so on). The cancelled LCRI 7.7B6 specifically listed such roles as photographers, camerapersons, cinematographers, animators, film editors, narrators, voices, and composers, among others, as appropriate to include in credits fields. Again, judgment has to be exercised; guidance may be gleaned from the main credits of the film itself, from the label, and from the container.
The Trouble with Television Series
Question: In your video workshop, you suggest putting a television program title in the 4xx/8xx as a series if the publisher treats it as a video publisher series; however, if it is not a publisher series, to put it as a title added entry in the 730 field. So if there is a video with "A&E Biography" on the container, would it be correct to put that in the 4xx/8xx instead of the 730? On the other hand, if it only appeared on the screen as part of the original program, would it be put into the 730? (There are two records for this TV series in the authority file: one treats it as a publisher series and the other as a uniform title).
Answer: It is often difficult to make the distinction between the title of a television series (be it broadcast or cable TV) and the title of a videorecording publisher’s series. Moreover, the subtleties of such distinctions are not necessarily on the minds of videorecording publishers when they put together such videos and design their labels, packaging, or promotional materials. This is all further complicated in instances where similarly-named and possibly (but not necessarily) related entities (such as "Arts and Entertainment Network" [nr92019436] and "A & E Home Video (Firm)" [no95029668]) are involved. As if that were not confusing enough, catalogers can be thrown off by the unfortunate use of the term "series", both in the formal cataloging sense ("a group of separate items related to one another by the fact that each item bears, in addition to its own title proper, a collective title applying to the group as a whole"--AACR2, Appendix D) and in the vernacular sense of "(a) a daily or weekly program with the same cast and format and a continuing story, as a soap opera, situation comedy, or drama; (b) a number of related programs having the same theme, cast, or format" (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed.). All that being said, let me try to address your questions.
If at all possible, try to determine how the video publisher is presenting the information about the television series name. Is it saying simply that "this program was originally presented as part of such-and-such television series on so-and-so network"? Or is it indicating that "we are repackaging the programs originally presented as part of such-and-such television series as our own series of videorecordings with the overall title of X"? By all means, the authority file should be used for guidance, but it is important to be sure about the identity of the authority record that is found. In almost every case of a videorecording publication of a television program, there should be a related-entity added entry (field 730) for the uniform title of that television program (as an example: "Biography (Television program)" [no97026146], which is a related title entry, not a series in the AACR2 sense). In addition, if it can be determined that the videorecording publisher is presenting some form of the title of the television series as a videorecording publisher’s series, a 4xx/8xx combination would also be appropriate (see for example: "Biography (A & E Home Video (Firm))" [no97030434], which is a series added entry in the AACR2 sense).
A Computer-Oriented Multimedia "Thing"
Question: Within the CD-ROM entitled, The Religious Landscape, there are many different pieces. Some are textual, but there are also photographs, sound tracks, video clips, and other media included. Would this be considered a computer-oriented multimedia "thing"? Should it be cataloged on a computer file workform?
Answer: First, consider the various components of the CD-ROM together and see if any particular component medium (text, sound, video, still photo, etc.) either predominates or can somehow be construed as the "main" content to which everything else might be considered subordinate. From your brief description, it does not sound that way. If you agree, then it makes sense to regard it as a Type "m" computer file. It would most likely be coded File "m" for "combination" or as "i" for "interactive" if that is more appropriate.
CD and DVD: Two Sides of the Same Disc
Question: I am cataloging my first music CD with the CD on one side and a DVD on the other side (somewhat like vinyl records with two sides). Complicating matters, the record in OCLC does not even mention the DVD part. This leads to a couple of questions. How should the 300 be recorded, since it is only one disc, but two-sided? It seems to me that "1 sound disc" does not represent it accurately. However, adding a subfield $e for 1 DVD does not seem the correct way to treat the DVD aspect, either, because that solution would make it appear as if there were two discs. What to do?
Answer: Yes, I have heard that some of these discs are called "Dual discs". This is one of those issues on which the AV and music communities will eventually need to come to some sort of consensus. Until that time, however, here are my suggestions on how to treat these. The decision must be made, case-by-case, as to which one is the predominant medium; that decision will dictate the choice of "Type Code", GMD, and physical description. If the item in hand is primarily a sound recording, describe it as such, with the various other aspects outlined in notes, 006s, and 007s, as appropriate. On the other hand, if it can be determined that it is primarily a DVD, describe it that way, with the sound recording aspects in notes, and so on. If the item itself is described in some helpful way, a quoted note may also be useful. If the DVD side has both DVD-Audio and DVD-Video, describe that side as such. You are correct that treating the subordinate medium as accompanying material in field 300 subfield $e does not work, because that misleadingly implies two separate discs.
Definition of "Feature Film"
Question: We would be interested in your definition of "feature film".
Answer: Here is the definition from Archival Moving Image Materials (2nd ed.): "A moving image work that is at least 40 minutes long. Historically, a feature was a theatrically released fiction film. In its broadest current definition, this term includes fiction and nonfiction works that are released theatrically, directly to video, or made-for-television". The scope note in the authority record for the LC Subject Heading "Feature films" (sh85047538) says: "Here are entered individual full-length fiction films with a running time of 40 minutes or more". LC’s online Moving Image Genre-form Guide <http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/migform.html#Feature> has the definition: "Work, usually originally released theatrically or direct to video, with an original length of at least forty minutes (or four or more 35 mm. reels)". The earlier (1988) print first edition of that tool had some additional detail, which also appears in a note in the aforementioned authority record: "Use for films which consist of 4,000 or more feet of 35 mm. film, or 1,600 or more feet of 16 mm. film, i.e. with a running time of 40 min. or more".
Directors of Theatrical Films
Question: According to LCRI 21.29D, added entries for directors, etc. do not have to be made if there is an added entry for a production company, unless the person is the director of a theatrical film. What is your understanding of a "theatrical film"? Is it a film of a theatrical production, for instance, a film of a performed play of Hamlet? Or is it any film made for a movie theatre, such as Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings? If it is the latter, what about movies made for TV? Obviously, no matter what the rules may say, an added entry for a famous director could be made, per cataloger’s judgment or institutional practice. Nonetheless, the real question is: should an added entry for a director of a movie always be made--or not?
Answer: Many of the rules and rule interpretations regarding the cataloging of moving images remain in the mindset of the days before the widespread distribution (via videotape and videodisc) of what are loosely termed "theatrical films". That was back in the time when the vast majority of films that libraries collected and cataloged tended to be instructional materials and the like. Back then, a major identifying aspect of many such instructional materials (filmstrips, slides, films) was the production company (names such as Schloat, Educational Audio Visual, and Eye Gate House come to mind), and any individuals credited with producing, writing, and directing were usually anonymous in-house employees of these companies. Within that context, the restriction about generally not making added entries for directors, producers, writers, etc., when there is an added entry for a production company, makes sense. As to "theatrical film", the only definition that I find at hand is from the Random House Unabridged, which distinguishes these films "made for exhibition in theaters" from those made for television. However, I do not believe that this is the distinction the RI is trying to make. It might be more fruitful to refer back to the previous answer about the definition of "feature films". The intention of the RI, at least as I interpret it, is to distinguish broadly "fiction and nonfiction works that are released theatrically, directly to video, or made-for-television" from specialized, instructional, and other similar sorts of films not intended for a mass audience. A "theatrical film" would certainly not be limited to filmed plays, and in today’s context, I would not even limit it to films that end up in your local cineplex. So, in sum, my advice would be three-fold: 1) to include personal name added entries for directors, producers, and writers for most of those broadly-defined "feature films"; 2) not to include such entries, in most cases, for those specialized films that have a tracing for an overall production company; and 3) to use good (cataloger’s) judgment (erring on the side of including added entries) for those films about which you cannot decide.
MCPS
Question: What is the meaning of the designation "MCPS" that is found on some recordings?
Answer: "MCPS" is Britain’s Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society <http://www.mcps.co.uk/>, which appears to be an equivalent of ASCAP or BMI. A brief description from its Website seems to confirm this: "The MCPS collects and distributes ‘mechanical’ royalties generated from the recording of music onto many different formats. This income is distributed to their members - writers and publishers of music".
Coding Dates for Sound Recording Compilations
Question: I was asked to clarify what to do in the case of a sound recording that includes several previously released works. In this case, it is a compilation of original soundtracks from several different film scores. Each of the selections has a different original release date and has not appeared in this particular manifestation before. My initial thought was to go with DtSt "p" (the date of distribution/release/issue and the date of production/recording differ by at least one year, even though there are several dates), but then I wondered if "m" (multiple dates) is more accurate. It seems that this scenario is occurring quite a lot lately, with all manner of compilations being issued. They are technically not really reissues since they have not necessarily occurred in these particular compilations before. Am I making this more complicated than it is?
Answer: Some of the (justifiable) confusion may arise from the differences in practice between visual materials and sound recordings. In a sound recording case such as this, the Date 1 would be the date of the compilation in hand, which may be the latest of multiple phonogram copyright ("p") dates, or may be an explicitly stated "p" date for the compilation. When there are multiple dates of earlier releases, the earliest of those dates is Date 2. For sound recordings, this is considered a reissue of previously released material (even though it may never have been released in this particular configuration), and so the DtSt would be coded "r". If, instead of previous release dates, there are only dates of the original sound capture, the earliest of those would be used as Date 2 and the DtSt would be coded "p". Should the compilation happen to have both the dates of original capture and the dates of previous release, the Type of Date hierarchy prefers code "r" (and so the earliest of the previous release dates in Date 2).
Return to Table of Contents | Previous Section
Last updated: March 29, 2005
http://www.olacinc.org/newsletters/mar05/qanda.html
neumeist@buffalo.edu