I would think that the situation was the reverse. For much of the late
19th and most of the 20th century, there was often a gap of some years
between the copyright date and the later date of publication or
production. Knopf would generally (?) put the date of the printing on the
t.p. with the copyright on the t.p. verso. If another publisher brought
out an edition, the date of that edition would generally be different from
the copyright date.
The dilemma of books arriving with a copyright date of the following year
is something that I think is somewhat later, although I am sure examples
could be found earlier. If something unusual can be done to a book in
design or publication, some publisher will have done it.
Larry
--
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head,
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Michael Borries wrote:
I have wondered whether originally the approach of separating publication date and copyright date didn't arise, in part, at least, from this phenomenon of having books published earlier than the copyright date indicates. I am sympathetic to the concern that a cataloger with the book in hand in 2013, copyrighted 2013, might wonder why the cataloging record available has 2012 in the 264. However, I wonder if the 588 note, or a 500 note, could not be used, e.g., "Item received for cataloging March 10, 2012," thus indicating that the book was in fact available in 2012.
Michael S. Borries
CUNY Central Cataloging
151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10010
email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu
Phone: (646) 312-1687
________________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Patricia Sayre-McCoy
[p...@uchicago.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:01 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
But what about the cataloger who received the book in 2013? And the patron who
used it last week but it can't be this book because this book hasn't been
published yet? I makes less sense to pretend that the book wasn't published for
8 months than to include a bracked publication date and make it clear when the
book was actually available.
Pat
Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Head, Law Cataloging and Serials
D'Angelo Law Library
University of Chicago
773-702-9620
p...@uchicago.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Lisa Hatt
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:45 PM
To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Publication date/copyright date
On 3/28/2013 8:07 AM, Will Evans <ev...@bostonathenaeum.org> wrote:
Rules or no rules, shouldn't the record reflect the reality of the
situation?!
264#1 $c [2013]
264#4 $c (c) 2014
500 Publication received by cataloging agency in 2013. $ MBAt
I'm puzzled by this approach, which seems to second-guess the
publisher's intent. Unless there's something we haven't been told, I
don't get the idea that the resource itself makes any statement about
having been published in 2013. If a cataloger first encountered this
item in 2014+, they'd have no reason to believe it was published in
anything other than 2014, because that's the date printed on the thing
itself, yes?
(I know there are reverse cases where a later ed. such as trade pbk.
does not actually state its publication date and simply retains the
copyright of the first hc ed., resulting in situations like [2002],
c2001 in AACR2. But in that case other information supports the choice
of supplied date, I think.)
Rare books might be different, and I am no RDA guru, but my feeling
would be to go with what Deborah recommended.
--
Lisa Hatt
Cataloging
De Anza College Library
408-864-8459
