Using the same recording in Different Books

carteki · Post by **carteki** » March 17th, 2015, 9:56 am

In looking for books to "listen to" I found that "Life and Sayings Of Mrs. Partington and Others Of the Family"is a solo recording that is currently on hold I can't access the forum to see the status of this, but it probably contains the chapters that I've elected to read in Little Masterpieces of American Wit & Humor 1-tg which made me wonder if they haven't been read why I couldn't made a separate copy of the passage with the appropriate heading for the other project.
In looking for more listening material I found that my assigned passage is already "published" in Coffee Break #1 - and NO, I wasn't searching for that passage!

How many other "collections" do we have ready made out there from existing recordings?

Kangaroo692 · Post by **Kangaroo692** » March 17th, 2015, 10:05 am

No collections are made from existing recordings. They are all new recordings of works (that may have been recorded before).
LibriVox does not re-use recordings.

tovarisch · Post by **tovarisch** » March 17th, 2015, 10:07 am

Right... I don't think a BC would do that (repackaging parts of other projects). I heard (read) more than once that LibriVox does not reuse recordings. That would not, however, prevent an individual contributor from resubmitting his/her own recording another time, under a different project, with a different file name (and applicable MP3/whatnot headers), of course, if at all possible. I haven't done that myself, and don't know of any instance of such reuse.

ETA: such re-submission would still require additional PLing, of course, cataloguing...

gypsygirl · Post by **gypsygirl** » March 17th, 2015, 10:48 am

If by "existing recordings" you mean how many times have different readers recorded the same book, essay, passage, etc, then lots. We don't forbid readers from recording an item that is already in the catalog; just do a search for any popular author or title, like Jane Austen, or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, you'll see. We call it Choice of Voice.

If, on the other hand, you meant the exact same file recorded by one reader being submitted to multiple projects, then as the others have said before me, no that is not allowed. There are a few older projects where this did happen (I'm thinking mainly of the "First Chapters" collection), but some time after that the decision was made that this should not be done. If a reader wants to submit the same chapter, essay, etc to multiple projects, they must make two distinct recordings of it.

tovarisch · Post by **tovarisch** » March 17th, 2015, 11:14 am

I understand the need to PL the submitted recording (it's part of the project activity and leaves no residue beyond the records of the project itself in the forum), and can see where the recording itself may need to be cleaned/corrected as needed. But I don't see any good way of enforcing the rule, nor do I see any harm resulting from not following it. Then, again, I may be missing some serious issue. Could you perhaps elaborate on why such requirement exists, what brought it about?

Thanks!

YouTube · Post by **Darvinia** » March 17th, 2015, 1:15 pm

One reason is that a person may want to listen to several instances of a short story. They do a search, find the short story listed 8 times and download them all. Once they start listening, they learn that 6 out of 8 are identical and therefore there are only 3 different versions. Not what they were expecting. If the same person were to record a story two or three times, there would be differences at least in inflection, pace, perhaps voice characterization, or audio quality.

(Numbers are made up, purely arbitrarily.)

tovarisch · Post by **tovarisch** » March 17th, 2015, 1:32 pm

Yes, I understand the theoretical importance of having multiple performances recorded. When made by different people, they are actually worth it. But different version by the same person? Would somebody actually not pay attention to the reader's name on all those sections? And are we afraid that somebody wanting to listen to 8 different renditions of the same piece by 3 different readers would be somehow turned away from LibriVox upon encountering that there were in fact only 3 different renditions?

And, as far as theoretical (hypothetical) discussions go, we don't need to continue. We can make up countless situations, and talk about them till the cows come home. I was asking about an issue, a problem, hopefully with a precedent, that LibriVox actually encountered and subsequently fixed by establishing the rule in question.

Can you tell I'm not convinced that rule actually makes sense?

Post by **annise** » March 17th, 2015, 1:47 pm

Can I ask you a different question ? Why do you think it should be allowed ?

Now obviously there would not be a rule if someone hadn't wanted to reuse their recordings in a different project or 2 or three. It was "Before Me" so I don't know

but I can see the situation when I started a new project and someone else popped up and said , nice project , here's my recording from another project and someone else said and mine and I said NO - I am not running a recycling project - I want new recordings.

Anne

Kangaroo692 · Post by **Kangaroo692** » March 17th, 2015, 1:52 pm

Very well said, Anne.

And by the way, doesn't the homepage have a section for new audiobooks? By releasing audiobooks, we are telling the listeners that these are new audiobooks, not recycled audiobooks. Suppose you had a laptop. You sold it. That person put a new green case on it. Would they advertise it as new?

tovarisch · Post by **tovarisch** » March 17th, 2015, 1:59 pm

annise wrote:Can I ask you a different question ? Why do you think it should be allowed ?

I don't see a compelling reason to disallow it.

annise wrote: I can see the situation when I started a new project and someone else popped up and said , nice project , here's my recording from another project and someone else said and mine and I said NO - I am not running a recycling project - I want new recordings.

If it's your project, you have the right to refuse making it a recycling one. You'd get no argument from me. It's your project, do what you think right for you.

Here is a counter-example for you. Imagine that I want to publish a compilation album or a selected works book. Now, it could be from the same author or from several different ones. Imagine that I announce it and invite artists or authors to participate. Only, when each of them comes with their songs or poems, short stories, what-not, I ask, 'have they been published previously anywhere?' and if yes, refuse. For my compilation, do it over. Write a new song or a new poem...

I know, it is in fact done that way sometimes.

But if the whole idea of a new publication is to be a collection of, say, first sentences of well-known novels, whether those have already been read and included into some other collection should not matter, IMHO.

Kangaroo692 · Post by **Kangaroo692** » March 17th, 2015, 2:02 pm

tovarisch wrote:
annise wrote:Can I ask you a different question ? Why do you think it should be allowed ?
I don't see a compelling reason to disallow it.
annise wrote: I can see the situation when I started a new project and someone else popped up and said , nice project , here's my recording from another project and someone else said and mine and I said NO - I am not running a recycling project - I want new recordings.
If it's your project, you have the right to refuse making it a recycling one. You'd get no argument from me. It's your project, do what you think right for you.

Here is a counter-example for you. Imagine that I want to publish a compilation album or a selected works book. Now, it could be from the same author or from several different ones. Imagine that I announce it and invite artists or authors to participate. Only, when each of them comes with their songs or poems, short stories, what-not, I ask, 'have they been published previously anywhere?' and if yes, refuse. For my compilation, do it over. Write a new song or a new poem...

I know, it is in fact done that way sometimes.

But if the whole idea of a new publication is to be a collection of, say, first sentences of well-known novels, whether those have already been read and included into some other collection should not matter, IMHO.

There is a difference here. Books can have only one text, while it can be spoken in many different ways, different voices, accents, etc.

Post by **TriciaG** » March 17th, 2015, 2:25 pm

If I were Queen of LibriVox, I wouldn't allow different recordings by the same reader, in addition to the current prohibition of the same recording in different projects. But I wasn't around when the policy and that particular concession were made. *shrug*

Heck, if I were Queen of LibriVox, I wouldn't allow so many multiple recordings of the same texts, even by different readers. Good thing I'm not Queen of LibriVox, eh?

Kangaroo692 · Post by **Kangaroo692** » March 17th, 2015, 2:28 pm

English Andrew · Post by **English Andrew** » March 24th, 2015, 8:43 am

If I have recorded several chapters of a book for a collaborative reading and loved it so much that I decide to record a solo of the entire work, do I have to re-record those chapters I have already recorded, then?

Post by **TriciaG** » March 24th, 2015, 8:58 am

English Andrew wrote:If I have recorded several chapters of a book for a collaborative reading and loved it so much that I decide to record a solo of the entire work, do I have to re-record those chapters I have already recorded, then?

Yes. Or if the group project is still in process, you could be unkind to the BC and withdraw those sections from the group project to put them in your solo.