In the digital world, I don't think it's neccesary to decide which _one_
of multiple people the work should be "entered under". We no longer need
this kind of "main entry" for display to the user. The work can be
"entered under" (ie, related to, with those relations apparent in
searches, browses, and displays) multiple people with various creation
roles. Those roles should be indicated, again for display of the user.
To the extent that we called "main entry heading" is used as an
_identifier_, to _link_ records/entities, it is still neccessary to
decide what this "citation form" or "main entry heading" or (in my term
that nobody seems to like much) "traditional heading-style identifier"
_is_. Unless we switch to using another more modern style of
identifier to make these link relationships. But to the extent that for
some time we will have a mix-and-match of using various types of
identifiers to link records (again, I suggest that this "main entry
heading" or "citation" when used to make links is an identifier of
sorts), sure perhaps it is convenient to us to choose one particular
creator to include there. But it need have no effect on display, and
this should be remembered when deciding it--it's just an arbitrary
convenience for us to choose _one_ "main entry" creator. All creators of
use to users can be included, and all should be included in any kind of
display, search, or browse (with role indicated, where appropriate).
Jonathan
Jean Weihs wrote:
Admittedly, this is a very long time ago. When Shirley Lewis, Janet
Macdonald, & I were working on the rules for cataloguing nonbook
materials (late 1960s early 1970s), we visited/wrote to several film
production companies to ask who was responsible for the content of a
motion picture or whether it was viewed as a collective effort. Many
replied that the director was responsible; the actors, the camera
person, the sound people, etc., all did as he/she directed. A few
claimed it was the producer (he who controls the money calls the tune).
Others that it was a collective effort. We came to the conclusion that,
when one, two, or three person filled all the important functions in
the creation of the film, the motion picture should be entered under
that the first named or most prominently named. If more people had
major roles, enter under title. I don't think that there can be one
rule for identification of MPs.
Ben Tucker, then Principal Cataloger at LC, agreed at a public meeting
that LC entered an MP under personal name when it was obviously the work
of one, two, or three people.
Jean Weihs
Adam L. Schiff wrote:
John Attig wrote:
In the case of motion pictures, the extensive nature of the
collaboration involved makes it extremely difficult to identify ANY
role as that of creator -- which is probably why the practice of
identifying such works solely by their preferred titles, without
including the name of a creator, makes sense.
I think there needs to be flexibility in how a moving image work is
treated. There is no doubt in my mind that some moving image works have
creators and should be identified by the creator. Consider the case
of an
amateur student work that is written, directed, filmed, and acted in by
only one person. Or the numerous works in YouTube created by a single
person putting a video camera in front of themselves and making
something
for the rest of us to see. While these types of resources might not
often
be cataloged by a library or even a film archive, there's very little
doubt in my mind that sometimes a creator is involved in the creation
of a
moving image work.
Adam Schiff
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
