VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD!

Diane Havens · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:49 am Post subject:

Many textbooks are, in fact, being made into audiobooks these days -- and I am sure the publisher would not be happy about anyone "profiting" (however little) by recording their copyrighted material. If anyone's in a whistle-blowing mood, I'd alert said publisher to said posting.
_________________
Diane

Veni, Vidi, Voci
http://www.dianehavens.com

Gregory Best · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:26 pm Post subject:

If it is for his own use and not to sell to others, I don't see the issue. It wouldn't be much different than if he recorded it himself or did for a visually impaired person. Only as a VO talent you could not be assured of the final use. I got more out of creating my own tapes. It was another reading of the material. But the price point is the issue. This is just strange. If find the P2P world strange and avoid it whenever possible.
_________________
Gregory Best

greg@gregorybest.com

Diane Havens · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject:

I think it's still a copyright issue. If I made a business out of recording copyrighted material and selling it to only one person, I have still made money selling someone else's work. If the man recorded it himself to listen to himself, that's different. But this guy doesn't want to read it silently, never mind out loud.
_________________
Diane

Veni, Vidi, Voci
http://www.dianehavens.com

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:30 pm Post subject:

Shouldn't be a copyright issue if he owns the book.

Just like it's not illegal for me to make a copy of movies I own for personal use, even I have to buy software to do it.
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

Diane Havens · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:45 pm Post subject:

I think it's different. Look at it this way, if I go out and buy a book and then record it at the request of one person who will pay for the finished product and swears they only want to listen to it and won't share and/or sell it to anyone else, I have still made money using the print book only meant for sale as a print book.

I'd like to get a copyright attorney's take on it, but my gut feeling is it's copyright infringement.
_________________
Diane

Veni, Vidi, Voci
http://www.dianehavens.com

Gregory Best · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:50 pm Post subject:

Diane I would disagree with your logic if it is still only for his personal use and it is his book. It differs little from reading for the blind be it for pay or not. Now if it is being sold or used to sell something else that may be different.

I don't think it would be a copyright infringement unless it becomes a commercial use. Even then it is not likely a publisher would go after a small guy. They are too busy busting rings of counterfeiters, pirates and other illicit higher volume file sharing operations.

Just like using commercial copy and music in your demo - copyright violation? Probably is, since you are using it to sell yourself; however, when the last time you heard of some company sue a VO artist over it? Several have been approached to take something down and change it, but as Bob Bergen once pointed out, let's be realistic.

Was it a stupid V123 lead? Yes. Another reason I despise P2P's. They don’t vet any lead or any talent and then charge us VO types.
_________________
Gregory Best

greg@gregorybest.com

Diane Havens · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject:

A demo is not a marketable product. An audiobook is. Whether you sell it to one person or to a thousand. Now, you're probably right and no one would bother to prosecute the guy for it. It's not like it's a best seller either. But it doesn't make it right, and 123 has no right, ethically, to post it.

As an aside, when I was teaching, Disney actually sent letters to schools prohibiting them from using any Disney characters (redrawn or photocopied) on classroom bulletin boards, etc. and advised that they would be within their rights to prosecute. So you never know.
_________________
Diane

Veni, Vidi, Voci
http://www.dianehavens.com

Gregory Best · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:34 pm Post subject:

You are not selling an audio book, just your voice over services to record it. An audio book publisher sells the product. You are offering a service. If we were selling a product, we would have to charge sales tax. I think you maybe over analyzing this.

It matters little if it is a marketable product or not. It is the unauthorized use that is prohibited. The demo is a marketing/sales tool used to sell your services; arguably a commercial use. However, not prosecuted. We must take a practical view of these things.
_________________
Gregory Best

greg@gregorybest.com

Bish · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:55 pm Post subject:

This is getting a tad circular... we need a proper legal opinion, not just our own "best guesses". That being said, I just pulled a random book from my shelf, and imprinted inside is...

All rights reserved which includes the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever.

Now, whether or not any action is pursued is academic. To record this book without the rights-holder's permission is a clear violation of copyright. - We all bend the rules a little in what we deem to be "fair use" cases, or if we decide to use stuff our own demos, but providing a professional service to record 900 pages of copyrighted material is certainly, in my opinion, a horse of a different colour.
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

Diane Havens · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:18 pm Post subject:

Thank you, Mr. Bishop. You may step down. Your Honor, I rest my case.
Wink

_________________
Diane

Veni, Vidi, Voci
http://www.dianehavens.com

jsgilbert · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:37 pm Post subject:

In addition, a demo tape, if it is comprised of work that is protected under someone else s service mark, trade mark or copyright, is also in violation. Even a demo made up of recordings you were hired to do is technically breaking the law unless you have express permission from the "owner", and even if you were to write the copy yourself, but use a trademark or tagline, such as "McDonald's" or "Kleenex" or "Just Do It".

Just because someone chooses not to exert their rights, doesn't make it legal. We can expect there to be some activity with regards to rights protection, just as we have already seen NDA's and other legal agreements in response to the V.O. 2.0 community posting their auditions, scripts, etc.
_________________
j.s. gilbert

js@jsgilbert.com
www.jsgilbert.com

"today is the first day of the rest of the week"

Jen Gosnell · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:39 pm Post subject:

But wait a minute - Am I remembering wrong, Greg, or aren't you a lawyer?

I'm just sayin' Wink

_________________
jen@jengosnell.com
https://www.jengosnell.com
Skype: jen.gosnell
971.258.2448

jsgilbert · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject:

Of course we are a great big litigious society. One can be sued for the slightest provocation and I am guessing most voice talent wouldn't have insuran e to protect against such a thing.

Imagine you do the voiceover for a tv commercial and there wasn't appropriate rights clearance for a piece of video. The "wronged" party could list everyone involved with the commercial in their law suit, including the voice talent and the person who did the titles. Then each must deal with the cost of mounting a defense.

It doesn't happen with voice talent specifically, (maybe because most don't have anything worth suing for) but it could. As a producer/ director, there is E & O (errors and omissions) insurance that kicks in for these situations.
_________________
j.s. gilbert

js@jsgilbert.com
www.jsgilbert.com

"today is the first day of the rest of the week"

Gregory Best · Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:45 pm Post subject:

Well Jen, I did graduate from law school and work for the government in my day job, however, I am not currently practicing law. In recording any audio book you are providing a service not selling the book. I think he would be the alleged violator not you. If it is for his own use he is probably ok too. It is like Jeff said, you can copy movies and audio cd's for your own use. Frankly, (sorry Frank) I don't see the difference.
_________________
Gregory Best

greg@gregorybest.com

Diane Havens · Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:09 am Post subject:

This is a great discussion to have. Thanks, all for contributing to it -- I spent some time as a librarian, and I did take a course or two that dealt with copyright. So I find the subject fascinating.

If the guy was recording the book himself, yes, it would be more like copying a CD/DVD but there are two differences -- he's paying a third party to do it and he's changing the media. If he hired someone to come over to his house and read it to him, that also would be ok --that's a service. But when you record a book in finished audio, you are creating a product, in my opinion, something that could be resold, whether or not it would. Audiobook rights are specific in every publishing contract, and authors and publishers can sell those rights specifically to any third party, so that right has value in and of itself. And isn't the law all about "over" analyzing something? That's why there's a court system.

Of course, the solution to all of this in this case would be for the student or the narrator to contact the print publisher and request permission to record the book under these restricted circumstances. They might give it -- and in the process, make them consider perhaps publishing their textbooks in audio form. And pay fair compensation to a narrator. After all, somebody is willing to spend a couple of grand on one. And that's a pretty good price point.
_________________
Diane

Veni, Vidi, Voci
http://www.dianehavens.com