[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34286-34290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16675]
[[Page 34286]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. RM 2009-3]
Mandatory Deposit of Published Electronic Works Available Only
Online
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is proposing
to amend its regulations governing mandatory deposit of electronic
works published in the United States and available only online. The
amendments would establish that such works are exempt from mandatory
deposit until a demand for deposit of copies or phonorecords of such
works is issued by the Copyright Office. They would also set forth the
process for issuing and responding to a demand for deposit, amend the
definition of a ``complete copy'' of a work for purposes of mandatory
deposit of online-only works, and establish new best edition criteria
for electronic serials available only online. The Copyright Office
seeks public comment on these proposed revisions.
DATES: Written comments must be received in the Office of the General
Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than August 31, 2009. Reply
comments must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the
Copyright Office no later than September 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five
copies of a comment or reply comment should be brought to the Library
of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Room 401, 101 Independence Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.D.T. The
envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. Copyright Office. If delivered by a commercial courier, an
original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be
delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site (``CCAS'')
located at 2nd and D Streets, NE, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and
4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, LM 403, James Madison Building,
101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20559. Please note that
CCAS will not accept delivery by means of overnight delivery services
such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service or DHL. If sent by mail
(including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail),
an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be
addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400,
Washington, DC 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General
Counsel, or Christopher Weston, Attorney Advisor, Copyright GC/I&R,
P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380.
Telefax: (202)-707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Historical Context
Under section 407 of the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 of the
United States Code, the owner of copyright, or of the exclusive right
of publication, in a work published in the United States is required to
deposit two complete copies (or, in the case of sound recordings, two
phonorecords) of the best edition of the work with the Copyright Office
for the use or disposition of the Library of Congress. The deposit is
to be made within three months after such publication. Failure to make
the required deposit does not affect copyright in the work, but it may
subject the copyright owner to fines and other monetary liability if
the owner fails to comply after a demand for deposit is made by the
Register of Copyrights. These general provisions, however, are subject
to limitations. Section 407 also provides that the Register of
Copyrights ``may by regulation exempt any categories of material from
the deposit requirements of this section, or require deposit of only
one copy or phonorecord with respect to any categories.'' 17 U.S.C.
407(c).
Accordingly, the Copyright Office, with the approval of the
Librarian of Congress, established regulations governing mandatory
deposit and deposit for registration of copyright, which are set forth
in Chapter II, Part 202 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Section 202.19 establishes the standards governing mandatory
deposit of copies and phonorecords published in the United States for
the Library of Congress. Section 202.20 prescribes rules pertaining to
the required deposit for registration of a copyright claim with the
Copyright Office under section 408 of Title 17, and section 202.21
allows for a deposit of identifying material in lieu of copies or
phonorecords in certain cases, for both mandatory deposit and
registration deposit. In addition, the Library of Congress's Best
Edition Statement in Appendix B of Part 202 specifies the required
deposit in instances where ``two or more editions of the same version
of a work have been published.''
When the mandatory deposit regulations were first issued in 1978,
the Copyright Office adopted a regulation exempting machine-readable
works. It reads as follows:
Literary works, including computer programs and automated
databases, published in the United States only in the form of
machine-readable copies (such as magnetic tape or disks, punch
cards, or the like) from which the work cannot ordinarily be
visually perceived except with the aid of a machine or device [are
exempted]. Works published in a form requiring the use of a machine
or device for purposes of optical enlargement (such as film,
filmstrips, slide films and works published in any variety of
microform), and works published in visually perceivable form but
used in connection with optical scanning devices, are not within
this category and are subject to the applicable deposit
requirements.
37 CFR 202.19(c)(5) (1978). At the time this exemption was
promulgated, copies of such machine-readable works were not widely
marketed to the public. Thus, the Library decided not to require their
deposit.
However, by the mid-1980s many important reference materials
traditionally made available only in print form were being published in
whole or in part in machine-readable form (e.g, CD-ROM) and the
public's demand for access to and use of these materials had increased
significantly. In addition, the Library''s interest in collecting
computer programs published in IBM and Macintosh formats was growing,
and it needed a way to obtain these works for its collection. As a
result, the Library established a Machine-Readable Collections Reading
Room, and, in 1989, the Copyright Office amended the machine-readable
copies exemption so that machine-readable works published in physical
form were subject to mandatory deposit and only ``automated databases
available only online in the United States'' were exempted. 54 FR 42295
(Oct. 16, 1989).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 1989 rulemaking did not suggest that electronic online-
only works should also be subject to mandatory deposit, and there is
no evidence that such an outcome was contemplated. In fact at that
time, the Library did not possess the technological means of
ingesting copies of online-only works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1989 amendments also added two classes of works to the list of
those not covered by the exemption: ``automated databases distributed
only in the form of machine-readable copies (such as magnetic tape or
disks, punch cards, or the like) from which the work cannot
[[Page 34287]]
ordinarily be visually perceived except with the aid of a machine or
device'' and ``computerized information works in the nature of
statistical compendia, serials, and reference works.'' Two years later,
the Copyright Office amended section 202.19(c)(5) yet again to
explicitly identify CD-ROM-formatted works as another category of works
no longer included in the exemption. 56 FR 47402 (Sept. 19, 1991).
Regulatory Interpretation and Practice.
The term ``automated database,'' although used in the regulations
to characterize a class of works, is a term that has not been defined
in Title 17, and neither the Copyright Office regulations regarding
mandatory deposit, nor the relevant Federal Register notices proposing
and implementing regulatory changes, provide a definition of the term.
However, the Copyright Office did provide a definition in its Circular
65: Copyright Registration for Automated Databases:\2\ The circular
defines an ``automated database'' as ``a body of facts, data, or other
information assembled into an organized format suitable for use in a
computer and comprising one or more files.'' This definition comports
with the general understanding of what constitutes a database, in that
a database usually would not include works like journals, newspapers or
encyclopedias.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Circular 65 is currently under revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even so, the Copyright Office practice to date has been, for
purposes of mandatory deposit, to interpret this category broadly to
encompass all electronic works published only online. To understand how
this interpretation evolved, it should be noted that when section
202.19(c)(5) was amended in 1989, there was no tension involved in
using the category ``automated databases available only on-line in the
United States'' to refer to all online-only publications. For all
practical purposes, the only works being published online at that time
were automated databases, e.g. Westlaw and Nexis. The Copyright Office,
however, did not revise its definition of automated databases as other
categories of works, such as articles and serial titles, began to be
published online. It chose instead to include these works in the
exempted category ``automated databases available only on-line in the
United States'' as a matter of convenience because, at that time, the
Library exhibited neither the intention nor the technological ability
to collect such works. Unfortunately, the effect of these practices has
been to stretch the definition of the excluded category ``automated
databases available only on-line in the United States'' beyond its
generally understood limits. Hence, the proposed revision to the
exemption will replace this category with the more accurate
``electronic works published in the United States and available only
online.''
Proposed Qualified Exemption: Demand-Based Deposit of Electronic Works
Published in the United States and Available Only Online
Twenty years have passed since the adoption of the regulation used
to exclude from mandatory copyright deposit electronic works published
in the United States and available only online. In that time, the
Internet has grown to become a fundamental tool for the publication and
dissemination of millions of works of authorship. To cite just one
pertinent example, the Library has determined that there are now more
than five thousand scholarly electronic serials available exclusively
online, with no print counterparts. In some cases the Library has
purchased subscriptions to these periodicals, but such subscriptions
are typically ``access only,'' and rarely allow the Library to acquire
a ``best edition'' copy for its collections. Thus, the current
inability of the Library to acquire online-only works through mandatory
copyright deposit places the long-term preservation of the works at
risk.
To fulfill its mandate of sustaining and preserving a universal
collection of knowledge, the Library is currently developing
technological systems that will allow it to electronically ingest
online-only works and maintain them in formats suitable for long-term
preservation. As part of this process, the Library will also establish
policies and practices to insure the security and integrity of its
electronic collections, and to provide appropriate, limited access as
allowed by law. So that this strategy may be implemented, the Copyright
Office proposes to amend the mandatory copyright deposit regulations
and thus enable the on-demand mandatory deposit of electronic works
published in the United States and available only online (i.e., not
published in physical form). Via this notice, the Office seeks public
comment on the proposed regulatory changes.
To date, mandatory copyright deposit has been one of the most
important methods for building the Library''s collections and making it
the world''s largest repository of knowledge and creativity. There is
no reason why mandatory deposit cannot or should not serve this
function in the digital environment as well. If, for example, a
scholarly journal is subject to mandatory copyright deposit when
published in paper copies, it is logical and reasonable to demand its
deposit once it is published solely in an online-accessible format, and
such is the goal of the proposed amendments.
a. Qualified Exemption for Electronic Works Published in the United
States and Available Only Online
This notice proposes that the current section 202.19(c)(5)
exemption be amended so that all electronic works published in the
United States and available only online enjoy a qualified exemption
from mandatory deposit, which would mean that any work in this class is
exempt until the Copyright Office issues a demand for its deposit. This
revised exemption would apply to all published electronic works
available only online. It would apply to serials, monographs, sound
recordings, automated databases, and all other categories of electronic
works. Furthermore, because the revised exemption would apply
exclusively to published online-only works, there will be no need to
retain the current list of machine-readable works in physical formats
to which the exemption does not apply. It is important to emphasize,
however, that the revised exemption would not apply to those works
published in both physical and online formats. These works, because
they are not published ``only''online, were never exempted from
mandatory deposit by Sec. 202.19(c)(5).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Note that the Library''s current Best Edition Statement for
``Works Existing in More Than One Medium'' does not currently list
electronic formats. See, e.g., 37 CFR 202.20(b)(1) (``For purposes
of this section, if a work is first published in both hard copy,
i.e., in a physically tangible format, and also in an electronic
format, the current Library of Congress Best Edition Statement
requirements pertaining to the hard copy format apply.'')
Nevertheless, the Library of Congress retains the authority to
determine what constitutes ``best edition'' and it may decide at a
future time that, when a particular work is published in both print
and electronic editions, the electronic edition is the ``best
edition'' for purposes of mandatory deposit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing a qualified exemption, the Office seeks to balance the
current needs of the Library of Congress against the imposition of a
mandatory requirement on all copyright owners of works published
exclusively online to deposit one complete copy of the best edition.
Guidance for adopting this approach comes from the House and Senate
Reports for the Copyright Act of 1976 which state that:
The fundamental criteria governing regulations issued under
section 407(c) . . . would be the needs and wants of the Library.
The purpose of this provision is to make the deposit requirements as
flexible as possible . . . so that reasonable
[[Page 34288]]
adjustments can be made to meet practical needs in special cases.
The regulations, in establishing special categories for these
purposes, would necessarily balance the value of the copies or
phonorecords to the collections of the Library of Congress against
the burdens and costs to the copyright owner of providing them.
H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 150 (1976); S. Rep. No. 94-473, at 133
(1975). By exempting published electronic works available only online
until a demand is made, the proposed qualified exemption addresses the
practical difficulties of acquiring works published in non-physical
formats, ensures that the Library will only receive those works that it
needs for its collections, and reduces the burdens on copyright owners,
who will only have to deposit those works demanded by the Copyright
Office.
b. Single Copy of Work Demanded
Title 17's mandatory deposit provision requires the deposit of two
copies or phonorecords [17 U.S.C. 407(a)(1)], but grants the Copyright
Office authority to reduce that number to one by regulation. Pursuant
to this authority, the proposed qualified exemption will state that
only a single copy or phonorecord of a demanded work is required. The
Office has determined that transmitting duplicate electronic files
presents a risk of slowing down the electronic ingest system of the
Library, particularly in the case of a work consisting of a single
large file or of many small files. Upon receipt of the single copy of a
demanded work, the Library may allow simultaneous access by two on-site
users. This achieves the statute''s goal of providing two copies of a
published work to the Library of Congress in a more efficient and
flexible manner.
c. Demand Deposit Process
This notice proposes that published electronic works available only
online be deposited only pursuant to a demand issued by the Copyright
Office, under the authority of section 407(d) of Title 17. The Library
intends to phase in its collection of online-only works on a category-
by-category basis. The initial revision of Sec. 202.19(c)(5) proposed
in this notice identifies ``electronic serials'' as being exempt but
subject to demand, because that is the first category of online-only
works that the Library intends to collect. As the Library expands its
collection of online-only works to other categories, these new
categories would be identified in Sec. 202.19(c)(5) as subject to
demand, following a notice and comment period.
Under the proposed regulation, once a category of works is
identified as being subject to demand under the qualified exemption of
Sec. 202.19(c)(5), the Copyright Office would be able to make a demand
on the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication for
one complete copy of a work in that category, for any such work
published on or after the date that this proposed regulation goes into
effect. A demand for a copy of an online-only periodical or other
serial would cover not only the issue or issues specified in the
demand, but also all subsequent issues of the serial title.
The owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication
would have three months from the date of receipt of the notice in which
to make the deposit, in keeping with the time period allotted by
statute for deposit of the best edition of a published work not subject
to an exemption. See 17 U.S.C. 407(a). The proposed regulation also
includes a provision governing requests for special relief from the
requirements of the demand process to accommodate, for example,
situations where the work is no longer available in any of the formats
listed in the Best Edition Statement.
d. Notice of Publication
The Library intends to commence the demand-deposit program proposed
by this notice with the ``electronic serials'' category of electronic
works published in the United States and available only online. The
Library believes that sufficient bibliographic information exists on
electronic serials (such as indexes, online search tools, and
announcement lists) that it will be able to independently determine
which titles to demand. However, experience with the demand-deposit
process may demonstrate that a number of important electronic serial
titles are escaping the Library''s notice. Moreover, other categories
of online-only works likely are not subject to the same level of
bibliographic control as electronic serials, and hence may prove to be
even more elusive.
The Copyright Office is thus soliciting comments on the question of
whether the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication
in an online-only work should be required to notify the Library of
Congress upon the publication of a new online-only work in the United
States. Such a notice of publication would provide an additional source
of information on which the Library could rely in ascertaining what
works are available.
As a threshold matter, the Office is interested in comments
regarding whether promulgating such a notice requirement as a condition
of the qualified exemption from mandatory deposit is within the
Office''s authority as granted by 17 U.S.C. 407. In addition,
commenters should address whether a notice requirement is necessary and
prudent and whether it would strike the appropriate balance between the
needs of the Library for timely publication information and the
imposition of a further requirement on copyright holders. Comments are
also welcome on the content and frequency of notices of publication.
For example, would it be preferable to require notification upon the
publication of each new work or serial title, or instead to require the
submission of a list of all new publications at a predetermined
frequency (monthly, quarterly, etc.)? Finally, assuming the
advisability of a notice of publication requirement, what should the
consequences be for noncompliance?
e. Revised ``Complete Copy'' Definition
Section 407 of Title 17 requires the deposit of a complete copy of
the best edition of a work published in the United States. Section
202.19(b)(2) of the Copyright Office regulations defines a ``complete
copy'' of a work for purposes of mandatory deposit as one that
``includes all elements comprising the unit of publication of the best
edition of the work, including elements that, if considered separately,
would not be copyrightable subject matter or would otherwise be exempt
from mandatory deposit requirements under paragraph(c) of this
section.'' Published electronic works often contain elements such as
metadata and formatting codes that, while they are not perceptible to
the naked eye or ear, are part of the unit of publication. These
elements are also critical for continued access to and preservation of
a work once it is deposited. Thus, this notice proposes to clarify that
a ``complete copy'' of a published electronic work available only
online includes the associated metadata and formatting codes that make
up the unit of publication.
f. Best Edition Statement for Electronic Serials
This notice proposes the creation of a new section of the Best
Edition Statement in Appendix B to Part 202, describing best edition
criteria for published electronic works available only online in the
United States. These criteria are based primarily upon the potential
sustainability of the various digital formats currently in use. A work
deposited in a sustainable format is one that is less difficult and
more cost-effective to transform or migrate to future systems as
technologies change.
Consistent with the Library''s current collection priorities,
demands under the proposed amendments will initially
[[Page 34289]]
focus on material that has traditionally been published in hard copy.
The first category of electronic works published in the United States
and available only online for which the Library is proposing best
edition criteria is electronic serials, a term that this notice
proposes to define. It is the understanding of the Copyright Office
that the formats listed in the proposed Best Edition Statement for
electronic serials are all currently publication formats used by some,
if not all, electronic serial publishers. Best edition criteria for
other categories of electronic works published in the United States and
available only online will follow as they are developed.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202
Copyright and registration of claims to copyright
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office proposes to
amend part 202 of 37 CFR, as follows:
PART 202 - PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT
1. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702
2. Amend Sec. 202.19 as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (b)(2);
b. By adding a new paragraph (b)(4); and
c. By revising paragraph (c)(5).
The additions and revisions to Sec. 202.19 read as follows:
Sec. 202.19 Deposit of published copies or phonorecords for the
Library of Congress.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) A complete copy includes all elements comprising the unit of
publication of the best edition of the work, including elements that,
if considered separately, would not be copyrightable subject matter or
would otherwise be exempt from mandatory deposit requirements under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(i) In the case of sound recordings, a (complete( phonorecord
includes the phonorecord, together with any printed or other visually
perceptible material published with such phonorecord (such as textual
or pictorial matter appearing on record sleeves or album covers, or
embodied in leaflets or booklets included in a sleeve, album, or other
container).
(ii) In the case of a musical composition published in copies only,
or in both copies and phonorecords:
(A) If the only publication of copies in the United States took
place by the rental, lease, or lending of a full score and parts, a
full score is a (complete( copy; and
(B) If the only publication of copies in the United States took
place by the rental, lease, or lending of a conductor's score and
parts, a conductor's score is a (complete( copy.
(iii) In the case of a motion picture, a copy is (complete( if the
reproduction of all of the visual and aural elements comprising the
copyrightable subject matter in the work is clean, undamaged,
undeteriorated, and free of splices, and if the copy itself and its
physical housing are free of any defects that would interfere with the
performance of the work or that would cause mechanical, visual, or
audible defects or distortions.
(iv) In the case of an electronic work published in the United
States and available only online, a copy is (complete( if it includes
all elements constituting the work in its published form, i.e., the
complete work as published, including metadata and formatting codes
otherwise exempt from mandatory deposit.
* * * * *
(4) For purposes of Sec. 202.19(c)(5) of these regulations, an
electronic serial is an electronic work published in the United States
and available only online, issued or intended to be issued in
successive parts bearing numerical or chronological designations, and
intended to be continued indefinitely. This class includes periodicals;
newspapers; annuals; and the journals, proceedings, transactions, etc.
of societies.
(c) * * *
(5) Electronic works published in the United States and available
only online. This exemption includes electronic serials available only
online only until such time as a demand is issued by the Copyright
Office under the regulations set forth in Sec. 202.24. This exemption
does not apply to works that are published in both online, electronic
formats and in physical formats, which remain subject to the
appropriate mandatory deposit requirements.
* * * * *
3. Add a new Sec. 202.24, as follows:
Sec. 202.24 Deposit of Published Electronic Works Available Only
Online
(a) Pursuant to authority under 17 U.S.C. 407(d), the Register of
Copyrights may make written demand to deposit one complete copy or
phonorecord of an electronic work published in the United States and
available only online upon the owner of copyright or of the exclusive
right of publication in the work, under the following conditions:
(1) Demands may be made only for works in those categories
identified in Sec. 202.19(c)(5) of these regulations as being subject
to demand.
(2)Demands may be made only for works published on or after [the
effective date of the final regulation].
(3)The owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication
must deposit the demanded work within three months of the date the
demand notice is received.
(4)If the demanded work is not available in any of the formats
listed in the Best Edition Statement, the owner of copyright or of the
exclusive right of publication may request special relief under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Definitions. (1) ``Best edition'' has the meaning set forth in
Sec. 202.19(b)(1) of this part.
(2)``Complete copy'' has the meaning set forth in Sec.
202.19(b)(2) of this part.
(c)Special relief. (1) In the case of any demand made under
paragraph (a) of this section, the Register of Copyrights may, after
consultation with other appropriate officials of the Library of
Congress and upon such conditions as the Register may determine after
such consultation,
(i)Extend the time period provided in section 407(d) of Title
17[e1];
(ii)Permit the deposit of incomplete copies or phonorecords; or
(iii)Permit the deposit of copies or phonorecords other than those
normally comprising the best edition.
(2)Any decision as to whether to grant such special relief, and the
conditions under which special relief is to be granted, shall be made
by the Register of Copyrights after consultation with other appropriate
officials of the Library of Congress, and shall be based upon the
acquisition policies of the Library of Congress then in force.
(3)Requests for special relief under this section shall be made in
writing to the Copyright Acquisitions Division, shall be signed by or
on behalf of the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of
publication in the work, and shall set forth specific reasons why the
request should be granted.
4.Amend Part 202, Appendix B, Section I as follows:
a.By redesignating section IX as section X; and
b.By adding a new section IX.
The revision to Part 202, Appendix B, Section I reads as follows:
Appendix B to Part 202 - ``Best Edition'' of Published Copyrighted
[[Page 34290]]
Works for the Collections of the Library of Congress
* * * * *
IX. Electronic Works Published in the United States and
Available Only Online
For all deposits, UTF-8 encoding is preferred to ASCII encoding
and other non UTF-8 encodings for non-Latin character sets in all
categories below.
A.Electronic Serials
1. Content Format
a. Level 1: Serials-specific structured/markup format:
(i)Content compliant with the NLM Journal Archiving (XML)
Document Type Definition (DTD), with presentation stylesheet(s),
rather than without.
(ii)Other widely used serials or journal XML DTDs/schemas, with
presentation stylesheet(s), rather than without.
(iii)Proprietary XML format for serials or journals (with
documentation), with DTD/schema and presentation stylesheet(s),
rather than without.
b.Level 2: Page-oriented rendition:
(i)PDF/A (Portable Document Format/Archival; compliant with ISO
19005).
(ii)PDF (Portable Document Format, with searchable text, rather
than without).
c.Level 3: Other formats:
(i)XHTML/HTML, as made available online, with presentation
stylesheets(s), rather than without.
(ii)XML (widely used, publicly documented XML-based word-
processing formats, e.g. ODF/OpenDocument Format, OpenXML), with
presentation stylesheets(s), if appropriate, rather than without.
(iii)Plain text.
(iv)Other formats (e.g., proprietary word processing or page
layout formats).
2.Metadata Elements:
If it has already been gathered and is available, descriptive
data (metadata) as described below should accompany the deposited
material.
a.Title level metadata: serial or journal title, ISSN,
publisher, frequency, place of publication.
b.Article level metadata, as relevant/applicable: volume(s),
number(s), issue dates(s), article title(s), article author(s),
article identifier (DOI, etc.).
c.With other descriptive metadata (e.g., subject heading(s),
descriptor(s), abstract(s)), rather than without.
3.Access and copy controls:
a.Editions without access and copy controls, or with those
controls disabled, are preferred over editions with such controls.
Dated: July 7, 2009.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. E9-16675 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-S