The concept of authorship, so central to copyright law, also has very practical implications for libraries and their users for a number of reasons.First, the often contentious relationship between copyright owners and librarians may be sharply contrasted with the relationship between libraries and authors.The latter is hugely positive.Libraries cannot exist without authors who produce the works that are housed in library collections.Authors often make extensive use of library collections to perform the necessary research for their works.In fact, many authors acknowledge and thank librarians for their assistance in helping to locate arcane information so crucial to their work.A perusal of the preface in many works reveals the high regard in which authors hold libraries and librarians who are often mentioned by name.Second, libraries even contribute to an author’s reputation, not only by making their works available to various readers, but also by inviting them to present their works at public gatherings in the library, and featuring authors in newsletters and in library displays.An excellent example is the Chicago Public Library’s One Book, One Chicago program where everyone in the community reads the same book and discusses it.[1]Libraries further enhance the reputation of authors by serving as the repositories of published works, organizing and preserving them and making them available to users.[2] Third, in many foreign countries, library activity actually help provide financial support for authors under the Public Lending Right particularly in European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.Authors receive compensation when their works are lent by libraries, but often it is the country’s government rather than the library or its users which actually compensates the authors.[3]Fourth, many authors feel a great love for libraries, and the reverse is certainly true.Library associations present many book awards to the “best” in a category each year to recognize outstanding authors.Examples include the American Library Association’s Caldecott Award[4] for the best in children’s picture book, its Newberry Award[5] for outstanding contribution to children’s literature and the Coretta Scott King Award presented to “authors and illustrators of African descent whose distinguished books promote an understanding and appreciation of the ‘American Dream.’"[6]State library associations present state and regional awards, especially for children’s works and regional fiction.[7]Fifth, support of authors sometimes even involves litigation.Some of the national library associations filed an amicus brief on the side of Tasini in the Tasini v. New York Times[8] case in which freelance writers successfully sued publishers over their electronic rights.It is interesting that the American Library Association (ALA) and Association for Research Libraries (ARL) supported authors even though the closer interest may have been that with publishers in this instance.The resulting removal of articles authored by freelance writers from the New York Times database was not positive for libraries and their users, but both ALA and ARL believed that their traditional support for authors could not be overlooked and that this compelled them to file an amicus brief on the side of writers.[9]Sixth, librarians also write books and articles, some dealing with library science, some with intellectual property, but also with a host of other subjects.Several mystery writers are reformed librarians[10] and a number of authors set their mystery stories in libraries such as Jo Dereske’s Miss Zukas series.But library collections would not be very rich if the only works in the collections were works written by librarians.Libraries depend on authors, and they have always have done so.Lastly, authors provide one of the standard elements of bibliographic control.Bibliographic control is the mastery over written and published records, which is provided by and for the purposes of bibliography.Bibliographic control is defined as 

the process of describing items in the bibliographic universe and then 

providing name, title, and subject access to the descriptions, resulting 

in records that serve as surrogates for the actual items of recorded 

information.Bibliographic control further requires that surrogates records 

be placed into retrieval systems where they act aspointers to the actual 

information packages.[11]

The relationship between publishers and librarians is considerably more problematic by contrast.It is often a love/hate relationship, and yet libraries and publishers are very interdependent today.Libraries often are the only purchaser of expensive esoteric works and journals that are invaluable for serious research.Librarians are asked to suggest new titles and useful works that a publisher should consider producing.Publishers like to offer “deals” to libraries on purchases, they sponsor events at library association meetings, present librarians with small company gifts that advertise the company, and the like.But there are many antagonisms too, such as exorbitant journal pricing, (not so much in law, but in science and technology.[12]Not only are journal prices excessively high, but often the library subscription rate is five or six times that of an individual subscription.[13]Commercial journal publishers unabashedly discuss the maximization of profits for their shareholders and view libraries as a huge market, a source of these profits.While library budgets have increased, they have not kept pace with the rate of inflation in publishing; further, the increasing volume of material published annually is overwhelming.

Moreover, librarians watch with alarm what they view as the “great copyright grab” where publishers and producers are holding copyright in more and more of the works produced while at the same time seeking to restrict the rights of users to access these works and to use them.Librarians worry that publishers are moving toward a pay-for-use world, which will exacerbate the problems of the information poor.

In this article I will address authorship generally and then specifically as it relates to libraries with special focus on authors as the central element in bibliographic control.The article contrasts the view of authorship as it is used in libraries with that in copyright law and concludes with particular problems for libraries associated with digital works and authorship.

What was it that made human beings first want to document their ideas and share their creative renderings?It may have begun with Paleolithic cave paintings, but it could have begun even earlier.[14]Some of the earliest cuneiform writing is from Sumeria recorded on clay tablets. Sumarian-Bablyonian epic poetry began as oral recitations that were eventually recorded around 1200 B.C. as the Gilgamesh Epic.The same migration from the oral to the written tradition occurred in ancient Greece as evidenced by the Homeric tales between 900-700 B.C., which eventually were preserved in written form as the Iliad and the Odyssey.Recorded by hand, these works were copied over and over again, and it was inevitable that errors would occur in this process of hand copying.Later manuscript copies likely bore little relation to the original.Around the seventh century A.D. wood block printing developed in China and was used to produce books.Wood block printing was slow to be used in Europe, but by the 1300s it had been widely adopted.[15]Although Johann Gutenberg is credited with the invention of moveable type in Mainz, Germany in 1450, there is increasing evidence that it was known and used as early as 1234 in Korea.[16]Books were printed in Europe from the mid-15^th century forward, and printing made it possible for print houses and publishers to develop and profit from producing books.Further, authors now had the ability to distribute their works widely to share their ideas.[17]

As a group of writers began to derive their livelihood from their writings, the concept of authorship in the modern sense arose.[18]

The new conceptions of writing and reading entailed seeing the 

writer as an originator one who no longer produced texts as 

a cog in a publication machine, but instead created them as 

an ‘author.’It is this emphasis upon creativity as the mark 

of authorship that informs current legal discussion of copyright.[19]

In the Romantic construct of authorship, there is a hierarchy that ranks works of the imagination higher than other works.[20]And copyright law presumes that authors who have created the property are entitled to special or unique rewards because of the social value of their creations.[21]The Statute of Anne[22] made the first reference to author in copyright in England in the 18^th century.Although the statute referred to authors, the real intention behind the statute was to protect the rights of booksellers and printers.[23]But gradually, the concept of authorship began to replace the interests of publishers in English law.The term “ … [author] took on a life of its own as individualistic notions of creativity, originality, and inspiration were poured into it.‘Authorship’ became an ideology.”[24]

In the course of the last three centuries, the fiscal imperatives of copyright have become aesthetic and legal constructs, changing our definitions of texts, copyright and authors.In the case of copyright, what was once a law to ensure publishers’ and proprietary rights to products is now an often unspoken belief that solitary authors have original ideas, and that those authors should be able to control those ideas as an expression of their originality.[25]

Yet, copyright is not the only way to support authors.They could be subsidized directly by the government, be awarded grants (such as from the National Endowment for the Arts),[26] or through a Public Lending Right.

Martha Woodmansee writes that society tends to idealize the lone author working to produce a copyrighted work.[27]Libraries also are likely to see authors that way and there certainly are many examples to support this view.We envision the author pecking away on the computer keyboard to produce excellent mystery novels, historical fiction or legal tomes.This is the ideal author – a loner who watches people and gathers characters like most of us gather coat hangers or the author is one who use works of nonfiction just to uncover sufficient historical details to set the work more or less accurately in a period of history.

What of works of nonfiction?Are the writers of these works not authors too?Certainly they are, but we just do not idealize them to the same extent.We think of them as serious researchers working in dusty libraries to uncover little know facts to help support arcane arguments.Or analyzing and synthesizing scientific writings to produce new works that will make a difference, which, in the best view will make a difference in the world at large, and at worst, will at least support the author’s quest for tenure at an in institution of higher education.But creativity is not reserved solely for works of fiction, artistic and dramatic works.

The term “authorship” generally is used as a shorthand method to encompass the relationships between a person or persons and the content of an item which denotes responsibility for either the creation or modification of the intellectual or artistic content of the work.[30]For libraries, authorship is a very important key to grouping works or documents by subject matter, quality and level of knowledge. In fact, the author often implies subject matter often since authors tend to write in a limited number of subject fields or genre, and they possess different levels of knowledge even about the same matters.The author also tells readers about the quality of the knowledge the individual has or communicates.A reader may determine this herself or by reading reviews of the author’s works.Further, author tells the reader something about the level of the work since some authors write only for adults, others only for children, etc.[31]

There is a sort of magic in solo authorship because society honors and admires those authors who can produce great works as they labor alone.But that magic is not really related to copyright or to library issues.Additionally, there are others who seek to be considered as authors.

Among professional indexers, for example, there is a movement to call themselves authors and to be credited with authorship for the scholarly work they perform in creating the index to a work.“The interpretation of text for an index is not unlike the process of sifting through hours of transcribed interviews and research materials gathered for a feature story. In both situations, it is necessary to pull the important topics out and make them explicit.”[32]Members of the public seldom consider indexers to be authors, but the same may be said of many indexers themselves who fail to consider that they might be authors.Most indexers are anonymous, and at least one indexer has opined that if the indexer were identified at the first of each work, the quality of indexing itself would improve.Further, if editors realized that they were dealing with authors, then indexers would be given the same degree of editorial control that other authors receive.[33]If a stand alone index meets the copyright requirements of originality and fixation, the index is copyrighted,[34] but those indexes that are described as “back of the book” indexes are not.

Translators are another example of contributors to a work who are not recognized as authors in library catalogs but may be so recognized in copyright law.“Translation is stigmatized as a form of writing, discouraged by copyright law, depreciated by the academy, exploited by publishers and corporations, governments and religious organizations.”[35]Since translations are defined as derivative works in the copyright law,[36] there is only a narrow area for translation.[37]The reason the role of the translator as an author is marginalized might be the prevailing concept of authorship which focuses on originality and self expression.Translation, on the other hand is viewed solely as derivative.“Given the reigning concept of authorship, translation provokes the fear of inauthenticity, distortion, contamination.”[38]Moreover, because of its nature as a derivative work, translation challenges the notion of scholarship. It is impossible to produce a translation that is not somewhat slanted by cultural views, and yet academic institutions venerate foreign language and literature, and do not even want to consider cultural conditions under which languages are taught.[39]While a translation is a derivative work, the copyright law recognized this type of authorship and a work is eligible for copyright if it meets the originality and fixation requirements.Nonetheless, a library will enter the work in the catalog, i.e., “catalog” the work under the name of the author of the original work with only an added entry for the name of the translator, if there is any catalog entry for that individual at all.There are scholars who advocate for translation to be recognized as a distinct type of authorship which involves collaboration between divergent groups as opposed to a form of personal expression.[40]

The Copyright Act recognizes joint authorship when a work is prepared by two or more authors “with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.”[42]Many disputes have arisen between individuals who are involved in the production of a work over whether they should be considered joint authors.[43]Often, the dispute is over royalties and the desire of a contributor to receive continuing compensation for his contribution when the work is commercialized and especially if the work is commercially successful.Since the law provides that initial ownership of the copyright vests in the author, the importance of being a joint author is obvious.

Co-authorship also is quite common in the publishing industry.If the work is a work for hire, the employer is the author.[44]Publishers themselves may be the author under the work for hire doctrine.[45]A work for hire is defined as a work produced by an employee within the scope of her employment or a work that is ordered or commissioned for use as a collective work.[46]For this latter category, however, only certain types of contributions are defined as being a part of such a collective work.These include contributions to a motion picture, as a translation supplementary work, as a compilation, instructional text, as a test or answer material for a test or an atlas.Furthermore, the parties must agree in writing to the above arrangement.[47]

Collaboration on large research projects and the resulting writing that summarizes the results present complicated issues for determining authorship, and the rules for such determination vary across academic disciplines and fields.Since authorship determines tenure and promotion, it is an important issue for faculty members.Academia is replete with stories of young authors who are entirely omitted from the authorship line unfairly but who have little recourse if they want to preserve their jobs.While there are ethical guidelines for authorship in various disciplines, they do not always make much difference even though it is unethical conduct for a senior researcher to take credit for something produced by a younger colleague.Some researchers have even petitioned the federal government to develop better authorship rules for works produced with federal funding. Perhaps even more promising is that some research labs have decided to solve the problems caused over wrangling for authorship by publishing their work under the name of the lab as the author.[48]

If more writing is collaborative today, the electronic era is hastening the demise of the idea of the author working alone.[49]Moreover, various contributors to works may seek recognition as co-authors.For example, in December 1999, cinematographers from 22 European countries met Torun, Poland, and produced the Torun Declaration 99.The Declaration states that the work of cinematographers on films as works of art depend on their creative work as the author of the images.Therefore, European cinematographers seek recognition as co-authors of films and other audiovisual works, and they claim moral rights as authors.[50]

What does the concept of authorship mean to library users?If one were to ask them, probably not much. Most library users simply have not pondered the matter.If they were prodded about how they use the concept of authorship, they should be able to list the following as ways they use “author.”First, the name of the author is an important a way to locate materials in the library collection.Second, author’s name is the first part of a citation to indicate responsibility for the work, a concept with which law students should have particular familiarity.Third, users should know that the name of the author can serve as an indication of subject, or quality, date or importance of the work.Finally, author is a shorthand device to describe a style of writing or ideas conveyed or a literary genre.

Some entire collections or portions of many library collections are simply arranged by author’s last name.For example, the fiction collection in many libraries is not classified by subject but instead is arranged alphabetically by author’s last name.Many libraries still use the Cutter Tables, based on the alphabet, to assign alphanumeric call numbers that reflect last name of the author and shelve materials in this order.[53]Even the Library of Congress (LC) Classification scheme arranges modern works of fiction in class P; they are then alphabetized by the last name of the author within broad time periods.[54]So, although an LC classification number that appears on the book’s spine, a large part of that number is based on the last name of the author.

In addition to the library’s catalog, there are other finding aids such as bibliographies and indexes.The difference between bibliography and catalog is that the best bibliographies list every relevant item on a particular subject, or every item that is produced in a particular locale or is published during a certain period of time.Also, bibliographies typically do not provide location for the materials listed.Catalogs, on the other hand, list and detail the holdings of a particular library or collection and include the location of the material through a call number or other location device.[55]An index usually provides access to portions of larger items, such as articles in periodical issues, poetry in collections or chapters in books.By contrast, cataloging provides access to entire works, such as books, journal issues, and the like.[56]Early indexes also recognized the importance of author entries even as an adjunct to a subject index.[57]

For any library, the author catalog or author entries in a dictionary catalog, i.e., one that interfiles author, title and subject headings, is an essential finding tool. The principles of authorship for the catalog are closely related to the concept of authorship in copyright law.The reasons that the author catalog is so important to libraries are both historical and practical.The first reason is that the name of the author is printed on the spine of the book and on the title page of the work which makes it the most readily identifiable feature of a book.Second, if the library patron has spelled the author’s name correctly, the author catalog is the only one from which she can determine whether the library has a particular title. In fact, early author catalogs were really an inventory of the bookstock of a library; and in medieval libraries, this inventory feature was particularly important.A third reason for the importance of the author catalog is the assumption that library users will group books by author rather than by title, the other readily identifiable feature of books.But even these purposes are not the most important purpose of an author catalog.The most important reason is one that tracks the copyright concept of authorship, and that is to identify the person who has intellectual responsibility for the creation of work.[58]“The fact that a work is the embodiment of a person’s thought is of supreme importance in relation to that work.”[59]When it is not possible to identify an author, then libraries traditionally designate the title entry for a work as the main entry in the catalog.Thus, the two main criteria for the author catalog are identification and intellectual responsibility.The history of cataloging codes over the past 150 years demonstrates that the view about which of these two criteria is the most important has changed over time, but is somewhat related to what one considers the main purpose of the author catalog to be.[60]

The 1908 Anglo American cataloguing code defined author as “The writer of a book, as distinct from translator, editor, etc. … Corporate bodies may be considered the authors of publication issued in their name of by their authority.”[61]By 1967 and the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules defined author similarly “By author is meant the person or corporate body chiefly responsible for the creation of the intellectual or artistic content of as work.”The definition of author from these codes broadens the definition to include editors and compilers.[62]Themodern Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 2d, defines personal author as “... the person chiefly responsible for the creation of the intellectual or artistic content of the work” and defines corporate author as “… an organization or group of persons that is identified by a particular name and that acts, or may act, as an entity.”[63]The concept of authorship in the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules is complex, and is likely to become more so.For library catalogs and other finding tools, some scholars have suggested that the term “author” be replaced with terms such as "originator," "agent" or "creator" as a way to express various facets of the concept of authorship.[64]

The first substantial non-private library about which something is known is the Great Library at Alexandria established in 290 B.C. by Ptolemy I.The library flourished under the Ptolemies and throughout the Roman period.The collection brought great fame to the city for which it is named; and because of the library, the city became famous as the literary and scientific capital of the Mediterranean and the intellectual capital of the Greek world.The number of tablets or scrolls is reported to have reached 532,000 or about the equivalent of 100,000 modern books.[66]There likely were three separate libraries in the city and not just one, so the Great Library at Alexandria may also be thought to be the first library system with branch libraries.[67]

Like any modern library, it held the store of knowledge, but in the delicate form known as papyrus scrolls.Ptolemy asked his fellow rulers around the known world to lend him texts which he would have copied; it is rumored that he did so but sometimes kept the originals and returned the copies to the rightful owners!Additionally, when ships landed at the port of Alexandria, vessels were searched, not for contraband but for books and maps.These were confiscated, copied and then returned to their owners.The copies were added to the library.[68]A truly unique feature of this library is that it was not a private library but instead was established by the state.The library was open to all, so it was, in effect, the first public library.

Destroyed in 415 A.D., the library was ransacked for gold and silver and burned, although the reasons for the destruction are conflicting and political in nature.What is clear, however, is that the library was destroyed.Today, several excavations have revealed scientific and historical documents that would have resulted in the industrial revolution having occurred 1500 years earlier.Among the lost documents included the methods used to build the pyramids and the Parthenon, alchemy, natural plant medicine and utopian philosophy.[69]The legend of the destruction of the library by Christian monks who feared the pagan content of the library[70] offers interesting parallels to the Internet and modern attempts to control the content of what is on the Internet whether it be offensive material, material that is critical of certain governments or works by alleged terrorist works.

How were the materials in the Library at Alexandria arranged?The physical shelves may have been located in one of the outlying halls or even in the Great Hall itself. Contemporary descriptions indicate that the shelving consisted of pigeonholes or racks for the scrolls, the best of which were wrapped in linen or leather jackets in order to protect them.[71]There was some systematic sorting apparently, probably by classes of authors such as poets, philosophers, orators, etc., and then alphabetically by author within the class.Zenodotus of Ephesus (born ca. 335 B.C.), is identified as the first librarian at Alexandria, and he is credited with developing this system of collection arrangement.[72]

In Roman times, manuscripts started to be written in codex form, i.e., in book format rather than a roll, and began to be stored in wooden chests called armaria.Materials were probably housed in these chests and shelves in the groups in which they were acquired.Callimachus of Cyrene (ca. 305-240 B.C.), the second and most famous librarian of Alexandria, created the first catalog listing of 120,000 scrolls, called the Pinakes or Tables, which lists Greek works.[73]It appears that the Callimachus divided authors into classes such as epic poets, orators, historical writers, etc., and then arranged the authors alphabetically within the classes or subclasses.Thus, from earliest times, authorship was important for bibliographic control.Biographical information was included for each author, when possible. Unfortunately, the library catalog did not survive the destruction of the library intact, but fragments do exist.[74]The scrolls were cataloged by author, if the author was known.[75]So, this is the first recorded use of the name of the author as a finding tool for recorded knowledge.

Most of the early listings of medieval library collections were not catalogs as we know them today but were bibliographies, i.e., a compilation of lists of books.Some of these early listings also contained biographical information about the author of the work.[76] Monastic libraries were first developed in England by the Benedictines, but it was the Carthusians which made provision for books to be lent outside the monastery.By the 11^th century the Benedictines adopted the Carthusian plan and each monastery had two book collections, one from which books could be lent outside the monastery and the second consisted of books that were kept in secure spaces and were considered to be valuable property of the house.These libraries thus had what could be described as lending and reference collections.Books were generally stored in cupboards or wherever there space could be found.The monk in charge of the library was the precentor, who was also the chief singer and archivist.[77]

The first catalogs of medieval monastic libraries were actually inventory lists often arranged in the order in which the manuscript was received by the monastery.[78]Early library catalogs included information such as title, author, location in library and the name of scribe who copied the book listed on a card.[79]Some catalogs may have been organized broadly by form (literature, music) or by discipline such as science, religion, law, or by authorship or title.[80]One of the earliest such catalogs is that of the Glastonbury Abbey Library, produced in 1017, which was primarily an inventory (and thus was author arranged).Its most famous catalog, however, was produced in 1247, and it adopted an unusual classification based on whether the value of the work was due to the author or its subject.No other library appears to have used this method of classification.[81]Christchurch, Canterbury produced its library catalog between 1313 and 1331, and it was a subject catalog with author arrangement under at least one subject, theology, the largest category.[82]The catalog at the Exeter Cathedral Library was compiled in 1327 and was an author catalog.[83]By the 15^th century, some of the catalogs of cathedrals, monasteries and universities were still author catalogs but the majority had adopted subject catalogs with listings under each subject by author.[84]

Although many would identify the 19^th century effort to share the cataloging for journal literature as the first effort at cooperative cataloging, it actually was initiated several centuries earlier.In 1296 the Registrum Librorum Angliae was produced, probably the work of Franciscans.The Registrum lists 183 monastic establishments, each of which had a library and was assigned a sequential number.Following the list of libraries, is the author catalog which lists 94 authors.Under each author’s name there is a list of titles along with the list of libraries that held the item as indicated by the number that denotes the name of the library.[85]Thus, the earliest attempts at bibliographic control were dependent on author arrangement exclusively or on author arrangement within each subject heading.

Catalogs of private libraries are few, but many early collections that are detailed in wills and inventories of various estates indicate that some of these libraries were extensive.The inventory listings often are by author unless the listing was prepared by a valuator who cared little for books who may have listed the work as X number of volumes, bound in calfskin.[86]The first bookseller’s catalog was produced in 1595, the Catalogue of Andrew Maunsell, which consisted of two parts, an author listing and a subject listing.The third part was to continue the subject listing but had not been completed at the time of Maunsell’s death.[87]

In the Middle Ages, there were no public libraries, yet the needs of scholars and researchers led to the development of some of the principles from which the modern library developed.Likely the richest library was the private library of the King of France, which by about 1500 had nearly 2000 books, of which some 200 were printed volumes.[88]The library at the University of Leyden dates from 1575, and early engravings show that it was a subject- classified library with a variety of authors in each section.At Oxford University, the library was completely destroyed in 1549; Sir Thomas Bodley proposed that he should refit and restock the library,[89] but he insisted on an author catalog for the new collection as opposed to a subject catalog.[90]The Bodlian Library at Oxford University dates from 1597 and was open to the public as early as 1602.The first librarian, Thomas James was instructed to compile lists and submit them to Bodley so that duplicates would not be purchased.[91]The first Bodleian catalog was published in 1605 and it was the first general catalog for a European library.It was divided into four subject groups:theology, law, medicine and arts.Within each of the four subject divisions, the catalog was arranged by author.The books were not shelved in author order, however, but by size.[92]The second catalog was published in 1620 and it was the first general library catalog to be published in author order abandoning subject classification, but the preface still advised librarians to arrange their collections by size.[93]During the 17^th century the Bodleian catalog tried both author and classified arrangements, and found author to be more advantageous.[94]During the 18^th century, several libraries continued to use author arrangement for their catalogs, including the Bodelian, and some used a chronological arrangement of works under the name of the author.Except for the dispute over author versus subject classification, cataloging was becoming more standardized by this time.[95]

As library collections grew in size and complexity, library managers began to develop listings of these works, not only for inventory control but also to help locate the work when a user wanted to retrieve it.Early catalogs were in the form of book catalogs with entries for each work held by the library – cuneiform inventory lists, manuscript lists of holdings of monastery libraries and lists of holdings in private collections.These tended to be arranged by author, if the author was known, and otherwise by title.[97]

In England, Sir Antonio Panizzi, keeper of printed books at the British Museum, created a set of cataloging rules to govern the listing of the growing collection at the British Museum.In 1841 he produced his "91 Rules," and documented the practice of using 'entries' and 'references' to refer one to the main entry, i.e., author entry.[98]These rules are said to be the beginning of modern cataloging rules; prior to this time, each cataloger made his own rules, and often they were not committed to writing.The cataloging rules that were then developed in England and the United States were based on Panizzi’s rules.[99] Panizzi refused to develop a subject classification scheme since he believed that the name of the author should form the basis for the arrangement of the catalog.He testified before the Trustees of the British Museum that a catalog arranged alphabetically by the author’s last name was the most useful arrangement since students and other users would know the name of the author of the book they wished to peruse.[100]As late as the mid-19^th century the British Museum still used author as the primary entry element when there was an identifiable author.If the author was unknown, then the primary entry was under title.Multiple authors were listed depending on how many were credited with the title just as is done today for citations in bibliographies.[101]Panizzi’s rules continued to be used by the British Library, but they had been reduced to 41 rules by 1936.[102]In many ways, Panizzi’s code is both pragmatic and practical, and is as modern as any of its successors.[103] The British Library catalog continued to expand, and by 1975 the original 150 volume catalog had expanded to 2000 and would soon be 3000 volumes long; further, there was not sufficient room in the reading room to house the rapidly growing catalog.[104]Virtually all other library catalogs in Britain were subject-classified catalogs by the mid-20^th century with the exception of the British Museum.By this time also, the trend also appeared to favor a dictionary catalog as opposed to a classified one.[105]

Panizzi's 91 Rules and the principle of authorship formed the foundation of the Anglo-American cataloging tradition – now 161 years of tradition.“The importance of the concept of authorship, whereby libraries acknowledge the creator of a work, is a cornerstone of the Anglo-American cataloguing rules, since librarians believe that users identify a work with an author.”[106]As indicated, the name of the author has been the primary entry and arranging device in library catalogs for centuries.A work is first identified by the name of the author, referred to today as the main entry, and carries forward through the bibliographic description on a catalog entry.[107]Panizzi recognized joint authorship and collective authorship but did not appear to differentiate between them, he also recognized corporate authorship.[108]In the United StatesCharles A. Cutter, who developed widely followed cataloging rules beginning in 1876, identified two purposes of a library catalog:(1) to provide an indication of whether a library has a particular title by a given author and (2) to indicate the library’s holdings of books by a particular author.[109]The first function may be described as the finding list function and the second as the intellectual responsibility function.Early library catalogs were in book form, but by the end of the 19^th century, the card catalog was becoming the preferred format.Under the leadership of the Library of Congress, the standard entry for the card catalog was the main author entry, and it adopted Cutter’s principles by using the main entry to describe the intellectual responsibility for the work.[110]

1.Authorship and Cataloging Rules

As bibliographic control grew, the desire for standardization in cataloging increased.Even before Panizzi, some libraries had their own cataloging rules.Panizzi’s rules were published, however, evidencing the fact that librarians sought some uniformity from library to library so that the same book could be identified the same way in each library.

Cutter defined authorship for his cataloging rules, and the definition he used continued to be used in later cataloging codes also.

Author.In the narrower sense, is the person who writes a book; in a wider sense it may be applied to him who is the cause of the book’s existence by putting together the writings of several authors (usually called the editor, more properly to e called the collector).Bodies of men (societies, cities, legislative bodies, countries) are to be considered the authors of their memoirs, translations, journals, debates, reports, etc.[111]

The Anglo-American Code of 1908 (AA) was the result of cooperation between the American Library Association and theLibrary Association (Britain) which was first suggested by Melvil Dewey, the father of library science.In Britain the AA remained the cataloging rules in force for more than 50 years.The AA was designed for large library collections and the primary difficulty for this code was reconciling the needs for card catalogs in the United States with Britain’s book catalogs.Generally entry is under the author and under title if there is no author who can be identified.[112]The definition of author is instructive and somewhat tracks the general definition in copyright law:

1. The writer of a book, as distinguished from translator, editor, etc. etc.2.In a broader sense, the maker of the book or the person or body immediately responsible for its existence.Thus a person who collects and puts together writings of several authors (compiler or editor) may be said to be the author of the collection.Corporate bodies may be considered the authors of publications issued in their name or by their authority.[113]

The AA recognized joint authorship and multiple authorship as well.For joint authors, the order is the order as it appears on the title page of the work.[114]

The 1949 ALA Cataloging Rules[115] were based very closely on the 1908 AA but was intended to reflect the best current practices in cataloging in the United States.At that time, most U.S. libraries used the Cutter principles or rules for the main entry and followed the Cutter definition of author as did the AA.Again, the choice of main entry was first the name of the author whether a personal author or a corporate body.[116]For works with multiple authors, the 1949 ALA Cataloging Rules continued to designate the person principally responsible for the intellectual content of the work as the author which required some work on the part of the cataloger.The rules were complicated with 16 separate rules dealing with authorship, and they followed the AA in departing from the principle of designating as the author the first name listed on the title page. Instead, now the author is the person responsible for the work whether her name appears on the title page or not.If more than three persons are listed on the title page, the title is the main entry.[117]The rules of corporate authorship are quite similar to those in the AA in which four types of corporate bodies are recognized:societies, governments, institutions and miscellaneous bodies.[118]

The long-awaited Anglo American Cataloging Rules (AACR)[119] were published in 1967, primarily to respond to the needs of large libraries, but the needs of smaller libraries are also taken into account.AACR defines author thusly:

By ‘author’ is meant the person or corporate body chiefly responsible for the creation of the intellectual or artistic content of a work.Thus composers, artist, photographers, etc. are the ‘authors’ of the works they create; chess players are the ‘authors’ of their recorded games; etc.The term ‘author’ also embraces an editor or compiler who has primary responsibility for the content of a work, e.g. the compiler of bibliography.[120]

The definition was clearly expanded to recognize other types of creators of copyrighted works.The structure of the code is different from earlier codes in that the focus is on a few basic rules for different types of publications, but the principle continued to be using the tradition of intellectual responsibility for the main entry.AACR modified this principle, however, in that the author entry is normally based on the statements that appear on the title page of the work.This likely is because modern books all have title pages, unlike incunabula.The statement on the title page is not conclusive evidence of intellectual responsibility, however, since rule 1A says that the work should be entered under the author whether the author is named on the title page or not.Rule 1B goes further and states that if the publication itself erroneously attributes authorship to someone who is not the author; the work should be entered under the name of the actual author.[121]

The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 2d (AACR2) uses the following definition:

A personal author is the pers