There are some problems, it seems, that not even a library circulation desk can solve. This past October, the venerable book distributor Baker & Taylor (B&T) shuttered operations, ending a two-century-long tenure as the primary global supplier of print materials to libraries.[1] In recent years, B&T’s decline had become increasingly apparent to those in the book trade, as the company limped through successive private equity takeovers, persistent economic disruptions, and a debilitating ransomware attack.[2] A reprieve seemed possible when ReaderLink—a major distributor to mass merchandise retailers—announced plans to acquire B&T last fall.[3] The transaction, scheduled to close on September 26, collapsed that same day.[4] The acquisition failed not as a result of B&T’s familiar vulnerabilities, but because the nonprofit Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) filed suit against the struggling distributor, turning a commercial rescue into a legal battlefield.[5]
For much of the late twentieth century, B&T and OCLC occupied complementary roles in the library ecosystem. OCLC, steward of the cooperative metadata platform WorldCat, managed the informational architecture of library catalogs, while B&T handled the physical distribution.[6] Their relationship began to shift in the 2010s, as the library landscape moved decisively toward digital services.[7] Seeking to modernize alongside the market, B&T acquired Bridgeall Libraries, a library technology developer, and gradually rolled out new offerings, including an e-reading platform, a media management system, and a cloud-based bibliographic metadata platform called BTCat.[8] The launch of BTCat, a direct competitor to WorldCat, escalated tensions and positioned B&T at the center of a broader struggle over the control of library metadata.
Reading Between the Lines: OCLC v. B&T
Two prefatory insights help explain why the library metadata fight has become a full-blown war. First, the vast majority of bibliographic metadata is not copyrightable.[9] Metadata—the standardized, factual bits of information that enable cataloging—largely lacks the creative expression that copyright protects.[10] OCLC controversially registered WorldCat as a “compilation” in the 1990s, but the Library of Congress has specified that such registration does not confer exclusive rights.[11] Second, WorldCat’s origin complicates claims of exclusive ownership, as the database was assembled from records contributed by independent libraries.[12] OCLC merely aggregates the collection and licenses it back to the community under subscription contracts.[13] Put simply, bibliographic metadata is collectively produced and widely shared; the value lies not in owning the raw facts, but in controlling the network that organizes and connects them.
Lacking robust copyright protections, OCLC has turned to contract law to police access to metadata. Its suit against B&T, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleged the distributor violated a five-year-old licensing agreement.[14] OCLC accused B&T of extracting records “in excess” of the licensed allotment and, after the agreement ended, obtaining WorldCat data indirectly through its contracts with member libraries.[15] The complaint contends that the license was premised on the understanding that B&T would use the data to support distribution services, not to “develop . . . [the] competing product [BTCat.]”[16] Although the complaint acknowledges that WorldCat comprises “OCLC customer-contributed records [and] publisher records,” it asserts that OCLC alone controls access to that metadata.
B&T denied the allegations as “false and damaging,” insisting that BTCat relied on metadata it was entitled to use through longstanding relationships with libraries.[17] Before the case could proceed, however, B&T’s primary lender declared the company in default, triggering an asset sale to ReaderLink. OCLC responded with an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to block the sale, arguing that the transfer risked destruction of evidence and potential evasion of liability.[18] The court denied the restraining order but allowed OCLC to amend its complaint to add ReaderLink as a defendant if the sale proceeded.[19] The sale, of course, collapsed under the new legal pressure, and B&T’s lender seized its assets.[20] Days later, in a stipulated injunction, OCLC secured exactly what it sought: BTCat was frozen, all data sharing ceased, and a third-party audit was ordered to determine whether WorldCat records had been reused.[21] In freezing BTCat and hastening B&T’s demise, OCLC avoided not only a competitor but a long‑overdue challenge to its claim of owning shared bibliographic metadata.
End of the Battle or End of the War?
While B&T’s demise was certainly notable, it represents only one skirmish in a broader campaign. OCLC’s strategic use of litigation has become a well-established tactic.[22] Before B&T, OCLC sued Clarivate—the parent company of Ex Libris and ProQuest—over MetaDoor, a proposed peer-to-peer record-sharing platform.[23] Clarivate framed MetaDoor as a natural extension of cataloging collaboration; OCLC characterized it as a direct threat to WorldCat.[24] The case ultimately settled with Clarivate agreeing not to develop a record-sharing tool that incorporated data OCLC claimed as proprietary.[25]Once a facilitator of shared bibliographic metadata, OCLC increasingly functions as its gatekeeper, using its nonprofit status and licensing regime to block potential competitors. Whether the challenger is B&T, Clarivate, or some other entity, attempts to build parallel metadata platforms tend to meet the same legal barricade.
While the library metadata wars may seem abstract to the average North Carolinian, their consequences are immediate and local. Headquartered in Charlotte, B&T’s closure resulted in an estimated 112 layoffs across the state, with additional job losses expected as the wind-down proceeds.[26] Local libraries—many of which relied on B&T as their primary distributor—are now scrambling to acquire new accounts with alternative distributors.[27] Publishers, too, have lost access to a major market, and readers who depend on libraries for free access to books will likely face delays and reduced availability.[28] Finally, local librarians face a crossroads regarding the future governance of metadata: one path vests complete control in a single corporate gatekeeper, the other preserves these records as an open, interoperable public infrastructure. The library circulation desk may, in fact, hold the answers; we just need to wait for it to point us in the right direction.
[1] Baker & Taylor, Am. Libr. Ass’n, https://www.ala.org/donors/baker-taylor (last visited Jan. 20, 2026); Marshall Breeding, Baker & Taylor to Cease Operations, Am. Librs. Mag. (Oct. 8, 2025), https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2025/10/08/baker-taylor-to-cease-operations/.
[2] Breeding, supra note 1.
[3] Jim Milliot, ReaderLink Agrees to Buy Baker & Taylor, Publishers Wkly. (Sept. 11, 2025), https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/industry-deals/article/98575-readerlink-agrees-to-buy-baker-taylor.html.
[4] Jim Milliot, ReaderLink, B&T; Call Off Deal, Publishers Wkly. (Sept. 26, 2025), https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/industry-deals/article/98713-readerlink-b-t-call-off-deal.html.
[5] Katie Geniusz, Dublin-based OCLC Sues Company for Allegedly Using its Data to Create Competing Product, WOSU (Apr. 18, 2025), https://www.wosu.org/2025-04-18/dublin-based-oclc-sues-company-for-allegedly-using-its-data-to-create-competing-product.
[6] See Marshall Breeding, Smarter Libraries Through Technology: 50 Years of Technology at OCLC, Libr. Tech. Guides (Aug. 2017), https://librarytechnology.org/document/23317; Baker & Taylor, supra note 1.
[7] Three Trends Shaping the Future of Libraries, Libr. J. (Jan 3, 2022), https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/three-trends-future.
[8] Baker & Taylor acquires Bridgeall Libraries, Publishers Wkly. (Dec. 1, 2011), https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/49685-baker-taylor-acquires-bridgeall-libraries.html; see Breeding, supra note 1; B&T Launches Axis 360 Library Media Platform at ALA, Publishers Wkly. (June 24, 2011), https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/47731-b-t-launches-axis-360-library-media-platform-at-ala.html; Marshall Breeding, BTCat: A New Bibliographic Service from Baker & Taylor, Libr. Tech. Guides (June 2022), https://librarytechnology.org/document/27431.
[9] Kyle Courtney et al., No One Owns That Metadata, Copyright, and the Problems with Library Vendor Agreements, Harv. Libr. (2024), https://dash.harvard.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c89d6642-6ced-487d-8a79-ee0a30580336/content.
[10] Id.
[11] U.S. Copyright Office, Public Catalog, Copyright Registration No. TX0001285902 (Dec. 22, 1982), https://perma.cc/B9QB-GUVH; Courtney et al., supra note 9.
[12] Courtney et al., supra note 9.
[13] Id.
[14] Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages at 2, OCLC, Inc. v. Baker & Taylor, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-309 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2025).
[15] Id. at 3, 4.
[16] Id. at 2.
[17] A Message to Baker & Taylor Customers and Partners in Response to OCLC’s Lawsuit, Libr. Tech. Guides (Apr. 2021, 2025), https://librarytechnology.org/document/31288.
[18] Order at 1, OCLC, Inc. v. Baker & Taylor, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-309 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2025).
[19] Id. at 2.
[20] Breeding, supra note 1.
[21] Order at 1–6, OCLC, Inc. v. Baker & Taylor, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-309 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2025).
[22] Courtney et al., supra note 9.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Chase Jordan, 200-Year-Old Charlotte Publishing Company Details Local Layoffs Ahead of Shut Down, Charlotte Observer (Oct. 17, 2025), https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article312415853.html.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
