LibriVox Forum

A Librivox fan recently got in touch to let me know that One Drive and Google Play Books are selling/using Librivox works. I set him straight on Copyright /Public Domain.

HOWEVER...concernig ATTRIBUTION....he pointed out:

"Also many titles by Century Audio using the same "Narrator", Anthony Maher are on Google Play Books. I checked the audio for The Prince and the Pauper using the preview button and the voice was clearly yours in my opinion.
https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Mark_Twain_The_Prince_and_the_Pauper?id=AQAAAEDMjiTO-M
https://librivox.org/the-prince-and-the-pauper-by-mark-twain/"

A quick search for Twain audiobooks comes up with my material being attributed to not only Anthony Maher, but also, James Hamill (Oregan Publishing), Brian Kelly (Oregan Publishing), James Hamill (Oregan Publishing) among others.

Does this happen a lot???
And is there anything that can be done to get attribution corrected??

I'm not hopeful....

I guess it's their way to avoid people finding out that they could have the very same recording for free on LV.

Yes, it's totally shady.

No, I have no idea how to make them change their ways or even the narration attribution.

It happens.

It's shady, but it's legal, since the recordings are public domain, and that includes no requirement for correct attribution.

They may be sourcing these from Amazon/Audible, because the same thing happens over there. I wonder if Google would be more receptive to removing them than Amazon has been.

It could be illegal - I don't really know. It depends if you have any rights to your voice as opposed to the actual recording. Or maybe if the USA has consumer protection laws (one gets the impression they don't ) it could be false advertising
But the bottom line is you give some one a gift and they sell it on Ebay, that's life

Anne

"The 'gift' that keeps on giving"

ah well...

bigger fish to fry!

Thanks All!!!

I get even. Whenever I do something embarrassing, I tell people my name is Anthony Maher.

in some european countries, demanding payment for works which are gemeinfrei can lead to compensation claims.
but that is one of the differences of gemeinfreiheit and public domain (according to a website i read just now, realizing that half of the abandoned projects (and including my readings) are legally ...let's say a little bit complicated?)
i doubt, that there are other possible approaches possible than fraud, extortion or something similar.

annise wrote: ↑August 13th, 2019, 6:12 am It could be illegal - I don't really know. It depends if you have any rights to your voice as opposed to the actual recording. Or maybe if the USA has consumer protection laws (one gets the impression they don't ) it could be false advertising
But the bottom line is you give some one a gift and they sell it on Ebay, that's life

Anne

This is where I get confused. Are people allowed to take some else's voice and claim it as apart of their own work? Yes they might be reading something and using their voice to do that... but what about them not wanting their voice all around the internet? Yeah sure, it might be under another name, which might also be illegal, but is it illegal for them to do this without the reader's consent?

I googled "Do you have rights to your own voice" and here are the results:

"Clearly one could protect their voice through the performances themselves, but their voice in isolation is probably not protected. In the US voice actors have been confirmed to have certain rights in their works." I also google can a voice be copyrighted: "A voice cannot be copyrighted. ... There are concepts in the law called "publicity rights" which can limit the use of their likeness or the likeness of their voice, particularly if it casts the person in a bad light or implies their support to something with which they do not agree.

So in that case, someone could use a popular actor's voice and use it for whatever they want?

I think USA law is weighted in favour of the money makers who do drive the economy so I doubt you could use Mickey Mouse's voice
I suspect though if I took a CD of a famous singer singing a 1923 song and reissued it saying I sang it, it wouldn't last long

Anne

In books, sometimes, there is printed a note along with the copyright stating something like "the moral rights of the author have been asserted".
As far as I understand, this has something to do with the correct person being identified as the author of a work.

And stretching what I understand even further, this is something you cannot waive in Germany (the EU?) at all: You can only waive copyrights ("gemeinfrei") but not these other rights.

I don't know if these people use any recordings of our EU members, but that might be a loophole to send them a "cease and desist" or even sue them. Not that this is something I would recommend for the average LibriVoxer, mind you.

availle, you are absolutely right! that is more or less the point, yes.

for interested people and myself (to remember it better), this is the stuff i read the last days:
we don't have copyright laws, we have a sort of creator-laws.
( link for interested people with many, many wikipedia links in the text)

in austrian laws, eg, §19.2 Urheberrechtsgesetz it says: the rights of the creator can not be renounced, a waiving is not void.
(link for interested people)

(that is, why i wanted to stay anonymous and chose to register a nickname here on librivox. but the unknown creator could be problematic, too: eg in france, the rights of unknown creators never expire - ever!)

also, the austria forum explains the term gemeinfreiheit in a (wikipedia) chart as "the rest, which is not affected or part of these many, many possible laws fors creators, or working laws (a private institution cannot demand of their employees to waive their rights, while official state departments may do so.) or laws regarding heritages (after a creator died, his heirs own the rights), patents, design,... (link for interested people, the chart)

additionally, in european union as a whole, there is a rather new law, which is more or less unknown in it's consequences and there are no court judges what i know.
it was one of the aimed for aspects (and totally in contrary to fair use laws within the usa) that search engines must not use headlines of newspapers for free.

my conclusion is, gemeinfreiheit is very different from the public domain, the possibility to waive the rights, and or things like the fair use laws in the us.

and as i wrote above, when someone charges money for stuff, which is gemeinfrei, you can at least get your money back.

also, when i remember it right: on audible, they were writing somewhere in their 1001 terms and conditions, that they don't want audiobooks based upon old pd books.
there is a chance, that these works will be deleted, when you message them with links to the original files.
but they ceased to email me about their procedures, and i think hugh didn't get a final, official answer, too.

....or, calm down, your work is appreciated enough to be sold, even

I just received word that Overdrive took down all my works that were attributed to someone else!!!!
They are VERY supportive!!!
Is there a Librivox email address to which I can send the interchange between my local librarian/friend to Overdrive and their response????



-j

Well done!

You can forward your emails to info@librivox.org. Let's see where this is going!

congrats and thank you for trying it

The latest from Librarian Hannah!!! A wonderfully supportive person....
........
At least you can count yourself as in the company of George Orwell!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/technology/amazon-orwell-1984.html