lurcherlover wrote: ↑
March 25th, 2019, 2:30 pm
But surely Librivox insists on texts that are on Gutenberg.org and verified as being in the Public Domain? How could someone be reading from a book which might have been edited and have a recent publication date even if it was originally written before 1924?
Can an Admin verify that a book being PL'ed has
to be PL'ed from a Gutenberg text (or in some cases from another reliable and verified source acceptable to LV).
A project must use a PD text. The link they put in the project is the one they're supposed to record from. That's why it says, "Source text (please only read from this text!)
" [bolded mine for emphasis]
IF someone wants to record a book that doesn't have an e-text or for some reason they just want to record from a hard copy, we ask them to scan or photograph the title page and verso (copyright info page), and upload that to us so we can verify the edition they're reading from is PD.
We're not so untrusting as to expect readers to say they're going to read from, say the Gutenberg text, then turn around and record from some other text. I admit it has happened before (we've pulled a cataloged project or two for this), but 99.9999% of readers don't, so we're not going to burden PLs with the requirement that they have to follow along with the text to be sure the reader is using the stated text.
I accurately (I hope) PL my own readings and very rarely have to change something because the DPL or PL has found a problem. But the whole point of having work PL'ed is to just catch the occasional mistake in pronunciation, missing text, noises off, and stumbles in reading, and anything else that comes to light. The PL is an extra pair of ears and checks the reading against the text. A PL also should put the submitted file through the Checker app to make sure it is technically correct for LV, such as being in mono etc. In professional PL'ing they pick up the slightest mis-pronunciation, hesitation, noise, erratic speeds, obvious changes in gain (volume) etc., etc. I know LV has a slightly lower acceptance than that required for professional work, but I would have thought that accuracy in reading the exact text (correct for 99%) was essential. The areas where LV allows some headroom is in the interpretation and speed of reading as well as not pointing out the suitability or not of the voice for reading, which is fair enough as LV uses mostly volunteer readers who are pretty dedicated.
Where does this leave blind PLs? They cannot follow along with the text.
Occasionally we get an error report of a missing paragraph/page/section of text in a recording, but it's rare. And 99% accuracy is actually a large margin. On a 20 minute recording, that's 12 seconds of textual error.
If you want the PL to follow along with the text on your recordings, use the "Special" PL designation, and then state your requirement(s). But standard PL does not require it, as per the links in my post above.