We have reached the point where I need to stop pretending to have the answers.
This is indeed the critical issue, and there are differences of opinion in the moving-image community about this. RDA defines the screenwriter as a creator -- one of the few creator relationships applicable to a moving-image work -- and this is hotly contested. RDA considers a screenwriter to be a sub-category of "author" and authors are by definition creators. In my opinion, that doesn't work well for moving-image works; the script is not typically part of the original conception of the work, but is a part of the realization of somebody else's conception of the work. The producer/production company and the director are (I think) stronger candidates for creators of the work; actually, RDA considers them to be other persons associated with the work, rather than creators, but definitely considers them as related to the work, rather than the expression. I don't pretend that these are definitive answers. You will certainly find people who disagree with me. However, I think that you ask the right question: Which aspects are associated with the work and which with the expression? I should note that the Online Audio-visual Catalogers group has done a lot of work on this question. Various documents (under "Moving-image works ..." can be found at http://olacinc.org/drupal/?q=node/359. I don't agree with all their conclusions, but they have clearly done a lot of thinking about these issues. And they clearly represent the community that needs to be doing this thinking. John Attig Authority Control Librarian Penn State University jx...@psu.edu ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Benjamin A Abrahamse" <babra...@mit.edu> | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 1:32:19 PM | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | John, | I apologize for continuing to harp on this but I'm still having a bit | of trouble understanding it fully. | In your initial email response to me (thanks!) you stated Eastwood | gets "composer (expression"), | " because the music is simply one aspect of the realization of the | moving-image work ". Likewise you later clarified, assign | relationships as expression-level,"[i]f the relationship involves | the realization rather than the creation of the work. " | Isn't that more or less true of every aspect of a film? The script, | the directing, production… all is about "realizing" something. | Sometimes, so the oldest story in Hollywood goes, what is "realized" | has virtually nothing to do with what the author of the script | intended. | So what aspects of a moving-image work would be considered properly | part of the "work" and not "simply one aspect"? | Please note I'm not trying to argue this with you, as clearly you're | correct. Just trying to understand how it's supposed to work. | Benjamin Abrahamse | Cataloging Coordinator | Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems | MIT Libraries | 617-253-7137 | From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and | Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of JOHN C | ATTIG | Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:09 PM | To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | To me, it makes sense to say that Mozart composed the Jupiter | Symphony, but it does not make sense to say that Clint Eastwood | composed Million Dollar Baby. | It would make sense to say that he composed the music for the film. | If you want to treat that music as an independent work, that is | fine; you can even treat the music as a related work to the film | work. However, the example that started this conversation was | identifying the relationships(s) of Clint Eastwood to the film as an | integral work -- which is something quite different. | I hope you aren't sorry you stopped lurking, although I may be | beginning to wish I hadn't. | John Attig | Authority Control Librarian | Penn State University | jx...@psu.edu | ----- Original Message ----- | | From: "Jerri Swinehart" < swine...@oakland.edu > | | | To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA | | | Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:53:32 PM | | | Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 | | | I may be sorry that I stopped lurking ... | | | I catalog music. The idea of composer (expression) is not something | | | that makes sense. The pieces of music that make up the sound track | | of | | | a movie or a musical are considered to be (usually) separate pieces | | of | | | music that can also stand on their own. So please clarify why the | | | composer of those pieces of music would be considered any | | differently | | | than Mozart or Richard Rodgers etc.? | | | Thank you. | | | Jerri Swinehart | | | MLIS | | | Metadata Technician | | | Oakland University | | | Kresge Library | | | Technical Services | | | Rochester, MI 48309-4484 | | | swine...@oakland.edu |
