I don’t think this analysis is right. The character of use may be educational, but on the other hand, I’m not sure you’re transforming it—you’re simply reproducing the text as audio. The nature of work goes beyond presenting public domain things like facts and ideas, by quoting the text as a whole. The amount used is maximal. The effect on market is substantial, in that it prevents the author from selling their writing as audio.
As for precedents. Well… Righthaven v. Hoehn established that it is OK to present a full editorial article in the setting of a noncommercial online post that discusses it. But here you’re just presenting the work in its entirety, and not using it for comment. Google Books scanning was deemed legal. But that was because they don’t represent the whole book. Another relevant example, although it was settled out of court, is that Audible bought rights to some books, and then got sued for allowing the text to be read aloud by TTS AI. If you don’t even own the text, then having the text read is I think a larger infringement.
So I doubt that narrating a whole post is fair use—rather it looks like a copyright infringement.
The effect on market is substantial, in that it prevents the author from selling their writing as audio.
So I doubt that presenting a whole book is fair use.
I could be totally wrong, it’s honestly ridiculous for me to give IP/tort advice.
However, I think the issue at stake is EA forum posts being turned into podcasts. But for EA forum posts, there’s no standard commercial profit from making posts (besides that sweet, sweet clout, which if anything might be increased by podcasting it?). So I don’t get it.
After checking, I’m confused about Righthaven v. Hoehn. Righthaven had some commercial interest to their content (if malicious/rentseeking). Yet it was dismissed on lack of standing. So I guess...this seems orthogonal to this issue?
I don’t think this analysis is right. The character of use may be educational, but on the other hand, I’m not sure you’re transforming it—you’re simply reproducing the text as audio. The nature of work goes beyond presenting public domain things like facts and ideas, by quoting the text as a whole. The amount used is maximal. The effect on market is substantial, in that it prevents the author from selling their writing as audio.
As for precedents. Well… Righthaven v. Hoehn established that it is OK to present a full editorial article in the setting of a noncommercial online post that discusses it. But here you’re just presenting the work in its entirety, and not using it for comment. Google Books scanning was deemed legal. But that was because they don’t represent the whole book. Another relevant example, although it was settled out of court, is that Audible bought rights to some books, and then got sued for allowing the text to be read aloud by TTS AI. If you don’t even own the text, then having the text read is I think a larger infringement.
So I doubt that narrating a whole post is fair use—rather it looks like a copyright infringement.
I could be totally wrong, it’s honestly ridiculous for me to give IP/tort advice.
However, I think the issue at stake is EA forum posts being turned into podcasts. But for EA forum posts, there’s no standard commercial profit from making posts (besides that sweet, sweet clout, which if anything might be increased by podcasting it?). So I don’t get it.
After checking, I’m confused about Righthaven v. Hoehn. Righthaven had some commercial interest to their content (if malicious/rentseeking). Yet it was dismissed on lack of standing. So I guess...this seems orthogonal to this issue?