(Note that I strong upvoted because I think your concern is really about fairness, control and privacy, which copyright law doesn’t directly support.)
That is not how copyright works Kat!
I think this is how copyright law effectively works.
Basically, considerations such as “fair use”, low damages/profit, and the fact the copyright process is initiated by the owner, means that it’s at least a grey area and in this case, it’s very possible they are safe.
For more details, here is some logic about “fair use”, copying and pasting a forum post (heh).
The law limits the rights of copyright holders. A judge will make a fair use determination using the four factors listed in the law on fair use:
1. Character of use , 2. Nature of work , 3. Amount used , 4. Effect on market
4. Effect on market. This is the most important factor.
I do not see how your use could possibly affect the market based on the information you have given me. My gut feeling, based on what you have told me, is that 3 of the 4 factors, including the important one, work in your favor.
Personally, I think it is foolish to worry about [ Can they take legal action] I believe that what you are doing is completely legal, and I believe that any legal action they take will fail.
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?
(Note that I strong upvoted because I think your concern is really about fairness, control and privacy, which copyright law doesn’t directly support.)
I think this is how copyright law effectively works.
Basically, considerations such as “fair use”, low damages/profit, and the fact the copyright process is initiated by the owner, means that it’s at least a grey area and in this case, it’s very possible they are safe.
For more details, here is some logic about “fair use”, copying and pasting a forum post (heh).
It’s an obscure, poorly formatted forum post from 2005, but I think the content is correct. See the criteria mentioned here in this Stanford page.
Maybe another way of seeing this is that the poster is unlikely to suffer damages and there’s not much profit for the company.
I think catehall or other lawyers have been helpful, please stomp this post if this is wrong.
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?