14 KiB
Considerations when Audioizing someone else's book?
-
Author: u/BayesMind *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/6lxo4v/considerations_when_audioizing_someone_elses_book/
-
Score: 12
-
Created: 2017-07-07T23:51:22
Post:
I like how Eneasz Brodsky charitably narrated HPMoR; indeed that was my intro to rational fiction.
What are the moral, ethical, legal etc. considerations if I were to do the same for other titles?
Comments:
u/JackStargazer [+5] Primordial Apologist (15 hours later)
I'm no expert in morality, but I can at least speak to the legal aspect.
The sensible thing to do is always to ask for permission. The only question is what if you either can't get in contact or recieve a negative answer. If it's a fan derivative work like HPMOR or Alexander Wales' Metropolitan Man, there is no legal issue with lacking permission - while they would likely considered to be 'derivative works' under copyright law, as they were created without license by the original IP, they will not receive the normal protection of copyright.
If it is an original work which has been released on the internet, such as Worm, there is a potential legal issue. While the work has been released into the public (first 'sale' doctrine), transforming it into a new medium and releasing it in that medium could be considered to be a new 'release'. In the same way movie producers have to negotiate with authors for movie rights, converting a book to a podcast or other audio format would require a license from the original IP holder.
This is a very simplistic primer. Also this is not legal advice. IAALBNYL.
u/alexanderwales [+7] Time flies like an arrow (16 hours later)
while they would likely considered to be 'derivative works' under copyright law, as they were created without license by the original IP, they will not receive the normal protection of copyright.
It was my understanding that copyright protection extended even towards derivative works which infringe upon copyright, though it only applies to those elements which are original to the derivative. Is this not true?
That is to say, someone wouldn't be allowed to take Metropolitan Man, make Superman a Captain Erstaz in order to circumvent the Superman intellectual property, and copy my prose/plot wholesale, because I still retain copyright on those aspects which are not derivative.
u/JackStargazer [+7] Primordial Apologist (17 hours later)
You are correct, the part of the work that is 'transformative' and original is technically copyrightable.
The issue is that basically everything in a fanfiction is coming from the original work, and if that use is not covered by 'fair use' or authorized there are certain restrictions applied to it. So the only real part of the work that would be covered would be the plot and prose, so that someone couldn't do exactly what you suggest here. However it isn't clear that, having already published it in a public for free, the author would not have given up the right to control who and how it is distributed by in effect giving out a general license.
That's if the author even gets the normal copyright protections. Obviously some of them would be restricted by virtue of the derivative work.
Under US Copyright Law, the original owners of a work have the sole and exclusive right to prepare derivative works (which fanfiction falls under). In Anderson v. Stallone, the emponymous actor sued a fan for writing an unsolicited script for Rocky IV. In that case the court ruled that, since the author had violated the right of the copyright holder, and the work was unauthorized, no part of the work was to be given copyright protection. If that is applicable, that would mean that a Fanfiction author who fails to prove fair use would have no copyright in their work at all.
Also, fanfiction doesn't really have a good jurisprudential history in the US. From a practical perspective, this is probably due to the monetary cost of bringing a case like this to court - most authors just roll over when the original copyright holder sends a C&D.
Ultimately the determiner is whether a judge finds the work to be 'transformative' or fall under one of the umbrellas of fair use. I don't have the time or the expertise to do a full survey of the jurisprudence, but from a practical standpoint you can really only enforce this kind of copyright if you've got a few hundred thousand lying around to establish a precedent.
u/BayesMind [+2] (16 hours later)
Thanks, I'll plan on asking for permission before hand, and since you know more about how these things can "turn out", any advice (as not-my-lawyer) on what I should go over when asking? Is email correspondence enough?
(eg address my ability to charge, or not, for the audio; my ability to release/distribute the audio; ...?)
u/JackStargazer [+1] Primordial Apologist (21 hours later)
Well, you can't charge for it any more than the fanfic author can. You're also making a derivative work.
As long as you have it in writing and it is clear, you should be fine. Email is good, but make sure you have a backup either locally or printed. (I am 100% for CYA).
If you explain exactly what you are planning, including how you plan to distribute, and they give that the go ahead, that is sufficient. Not all contacts have to be in perfect legalese.
Half of contract law is implying context from normal communications.
u/dalitt [+8] (an hour later)
You're pretty clearly obligated to ask the author's permission -- assuming he or she grants it, I can't think of any moral, legal, or ethical obstruction to proceeding. On the other hand, if you don't get permission, I'd say this is pretty clearly unethical.
u/None [+4] (10 hours later)
I think that if it's a webserial, fanfic or something it's not unethical, you're not allowing somebody else to circumvent paying for a story that they're not going to pay for anyways. I vaguely recall hearing somewhere that the hpmor podcast never sought permission either.
u/None [+8] (12 hours later)
You're giving people an alternative to going where the author posts it. I'd say it's highly unethical if the author normally posts it on their own site with ads. Even if they don't do that you're giving an alternative medium for people to be introduced to. If the author likes seeing views, reviews and other things increase they may be annoyed if people who would have used the original use the audio version. I think it's best to ask them.
u/None [+2] (20 hours later)
I agree, it's best to ask the author because it's the kind thing to do but I don't think it's necessarily unethical not to ask. It's probably a net positive for the author as well because it'll attract new readers.
u/noggin-scratcher [+3] I am a happy tree (a day later)
If it's clearly and uncontroversially to the author's benefit, I would expect them to give permission.
If they aren't persuaded of the benefits, and decline that permission, it seems a little odd and more than a little presumptuous to then say "No, I know best, this is for your own good".
I mean, maybe you still decide to do it anyway, but you'd be doing it for the benefit of your audience and yourself rather than the original author.
u/None [+1] (a day later)
Yes but is acting in a self-serving way wrong if it doesn't hurt anybody and even benefits people in a minor way?
u/noggin-scratcher [+1] I am a happy tree (a day later)
If it genuinely hurts no-one and benefits some people then by any utilitarian measure you're in the clear. But I don't think you can make a straightforward assumption that there's absolutely no harm; the author declining permission is evidence that they have (at least in their own judgment) some reason to expect it to be counter to their interests, maybe in a way that you're not considering.
Maybe uncontrolled distribution of their work via your adaptation hurts their prospect of traditional publishing. Maybe they plan to make an 'official' adaptation and don't want any confusion/competition. Maybe they're just a control freak who's distressed by anything happening without their involvement.
Whatever the case, it invalidates the assessment of zero harm (and in the absence of knowledge, the refused permission still suggests there's something). It might still be a utilitarian net positive overall, but we do generally treat authors and artists as deserving greater consideration than the next person when it comes to how their work is used - "moral rights" and the like.
u/Calsem [+1] (16 hours later)
Fanfiction is usually on a large site like fanfiction.net, not the author's personal website.
Not that there's anything wrong with asking the author.
u/None [+1] (17 hours later)
I realize that but the above post said:
I think that if it's a webserial, fanfic or something
u/embrodski [+4] (19 hours later)
This is true. At the time I justified it to myself with a number of "it's fanfiction, the community itself is based on the free and unfettered exchange of ideas and stories." Which is true, that's a core component of the community. In addition, from years of reading Eliezer's writings, I had a very strong intuition that he would not mind, and might even be tickled. And I was nervous as hell. So I just rolled with it, cuz at the time it was supposed to be just a little thing I did for fun on evenings.
In retrospect, I probably should have asked first. I've asked first for every other thing I've podcasted, including Eliezer's other works. It is best practice to do so.
If it's original fiction in an original world, aduioizing something without permission is violating copyright (at least in the US) and you can be sued. Things are fuzzier with fanfic, since technically fanfic itself is quasi-illegal.
u/calvinballing [+3] (2 days later)
When you have an established body of work that the author can listen to (if they want), the situation may be a little different than when you are just starting out creating audio productions. Without a work sample, the author does not know what kind of product to expect, and whether they would want to have this new audio version associated with their work. I've just begun doing a few audio recordings, and have taken the approach of recording/editing first, sharing with the author and asking their approval second, then releasing third (contingent upon approval). This would be disappointing if turned down after having put in the work to complete step one, but that's a risk I've been willing to take. Not sure if this is the best approach, but it's the one I've been using so far.
u/Calsem [+2] (17 hours later)
What about all the fanfiction that is posted in this subreddit? They are created without the original author's permission. Are those works unethical?
u/dalitt [+6] (17 hours later)
I think there's at least a reasonable argument that an author has more of an ownership over the literal text they've written than over the characters, concepts, etc. So it seems to me that fanfiction created without the author's permission is less objectionable than creating an audiobook without permission. Moreover, some authors publicly say that they're OK with fanfiction; I actually do think that if an author objects to fanfiction based on their work, the act of writing it is at least questionable.
The principles that motivated my original comment were (1) the idea that the author owns their work, and (2) the idea that if there's a reasonable likelihood your actions will hurt someone, you should take pains to avoid that (in this case, by taking potential ad revenue away from the author/decreasing the chance that a publisher will pick up their work/etc.). Assuming you agree with either of these principles (which I think are pretty uncontroversial), I think it's pretty clear one is obligated to ask permission.
u/waylandertheslayer [+3] (18 hours later)
I think anyone wanting to make a meta-fanfic doesn't have to ask the fanfic author's permission (although obviously it'd be nice to do so). Modifying something, or using it as a base to form derivative works, is inherently different from simply reproducing the work in a different medium.
u/Laborbuch [+8] (6 hours later)
Get a quiet room, ideally one without cars rushing by outside, do something against echoes (e.g. hang blankets around yourself), put a pop-filter between you and the mike, and don’t hesitate to record multiple takes for paragraphs. In fact, if your find you need to re-record a sentence, re-record the whole paragraph. I at last can often hear[1] when a new instance of narration began, simply since the narrator sounded differently.
And for the love of god, listen to it yourself. Get comfortable with the sound of your own voice, get a feel for it. Best case, read some practise texts aloud, edit them, gain some experience before jumping head first into the deep end.
Lastly, while practise makes perfect, perfect is also the enemy of good. At one point you need to stop fiddling with the recording and just release your work. Others will listen to it and give feedback (hopefully).
[1] Caveat: anecdotal. I obviously can’t note down the instance when I didn’t notice. Fairly sure I’m missing a plethora of cases, but still, I can often differentiate when a narration sounds inexplicably different from one paragraph to the next. Best case, you end a recording sitting at the end of a chapter and resume with the beginning of the next.
u/monkyyy0 [+2] (4 hours later)
Good mic and editing