The portion of LCRI 25.5B relating to the application of uniform titles to motion pictures is being revised. The revision is stimulated by two different sources:

  1. some questions from LC's Cooperative Cataloging Team raised in the course of their work on a "FAQ on Uniform Titles (UTs)";
  2. "Discussion Paper--Uniform Titles for Moving Image Materials" prepared by Greta de Groat for the OLAC CAPC Meeting, ALA Midwinter, 2001.

Since LC's Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division (M/B/RS) uses Archival Moving Image Materials, 2nd ed. (AMIM2) in cataloging actual moving image materials, one of the purposes of the proposed revision is to provide guidance for those libraries using an AACR2 approach (including LC for non-moving image materials that are related to motion pictures). For clarity, the revision states both a proposed "PCC practice:" (i.e., AACR2 interpretation) and the AMIM2 practice.

At the 2001 Midwinter meeting of the PCC Standing Committee on Standards (SCS), Kay Guiles, LC's liaison to the SCS, proposed that LC CPSO and M/B/RS staff prepare a proposed draft that the SCS would review and comment on. That has been done, and now the draft is being submitted through the standard procedure for the usual comment and review.

The approach taken is a practical one. This results in the following departures from a strict approach to AACR2:

  1. consistent use of the qualifier "(Motion picture)" whenever a uniform title for a motion picture is created;
  2. use of uniform titles beyond that strictly called for by AACR2;
  3. limiting name authority records for motion pictures to the "work" level to the exclusion of name authority records for "expressions" of the work.

This is because of various factors such as:

  1. the character of moving image materials themselves;
  2. the need to provide predictability and consistency to accommodate PCC cataloging agencies working in a shared environment;
  3. the need to accommodate two sets of rules that take different approaches on some points (e.g., AMIM2 treats simultaneously released motion pictures in different languages as separate works, whereas AACR2 treats one release as the original and the other releases as translations; AACR2 calls for using language as an element in a uniform title for dubbed motion pictures, whereas AMIM2 does not);
  4. the need to manage in a clear way what could be confusing conditions related to certain language conditions (e.g., AACR2 calls for the use of language in cases of dubbing but not in cases of subtitles).

Since AMIM2 does not ever call for using a language element in a uniform title for moving image materials, limiting uniform titles to the "work" level precludes the possible confusion of authority records at both the "work" and "expression" levels in support of disparate practices.

As noted above, the proposed "PCC practice:" provides for using the qualifier "(Motion picture)" whenever a uniform title for a motion picture is created. In addition, in some instances the proposed practice provides for uniform titles for motion pictures beyond that called for by AACR2. This is in response to the compelling case made in Ms. de Groat's paper that there should be predictability in establishing headings for motion pictures in PCC cataloging agencies. Adding a qualifier to the name of a motion picture only in case of conflict does not guarantee predictability: conflict in whose catalog? The uniform title for the motion picture may be established for the Name Authority File by a cataloger in one cataloging agency on a "no-conflict" basis, i.e., without a qualifier. If that heading is needed by a cataloger in another cataloging agency and the title conflicts in that agency's catalog, that cataloger is burdened with changing the heading.

The proposed "PCC practice:" calls for creating a name authority record only for the work itself. In addition to the conditions noted above, this reflects Ms. de Groat's observation that the treatment of name authority records for motion pictures is very similar to the treatment for musical works. Music and motion pictures are not tied to language situations in the same straight-forward way as for most books. Most motion pictures are "title entries" and there is usually not the clear condition of a work created in language A and translated into language B (as in the case of many books). Therefore, the proposed convention for motion pictures is different from that of books and the same as that for musical works. The authority record represents the "work" unrelated to any language (except that inherent in the title itself). All language variants not covered by title added entries are carried on the name authority record for the work itself. The language relationships are explicitly expressed only in the bibliographic records. For example, on the bibliographic record for a dubbed motion picture, the uniform title for the motion picture will be followed by the name of the language. But a name authority record will not be created for the entire heading that appears on the bibliographic record. Instead, the name authority record will reflect only the uniform title for the motion picture exclusive of any name of a language.

To assist in understanding the proposed revision, a table comparing current LC practice, proposed PCC practice, and AMIM2 practice has been prepared. Select the appropriate link below for access to the proposed revision and to the table.

Please send comments by March 17, 2003 to the CPSO email account: [email protected]

(The following links are to PDF files that require the Adobe Acrobat Reader.
The free Reader may be downloaded from the Adobe web site)

Proposed revision of LCRI 25.5B
Table showing proposed treatment of uniform titles for motion pictures

Go to:
Library of Congress
Library of Congress Help Desk (01/31/2003)