Legalities of Reading a book

[RayB]

This forum is probably a stupid place for me to get this discussion going, but wtf, I don't visit any other forums. So here goes:

I was thinking about Books on Tape.

[ChadTower]

You are not allowed to derive the work without permission, and this would cover that.  You are not selling a copy of only your voice, you are selling a copy of your derivation of their copyrighted work.

It is illegal.

[Stingray]

Short answer would almost certanly be no, it isn't legal, but I can see a lot of grey areas, like the ones you already pointed out. I'm pretty sure this would be along the same lines as if you had done a remake of someone else's song without paying them royalties or seeking permission.

-S

[ChadTower]

You don't have to seek permission to remake a song.  You have to pay royalties, but permission is not necessary unless you do a derivation, which would be a Weird Al style song or other substantial change to their work.

[RayB]

I know it wouldn't be legal. But let's explore all the questions I raised, because it seems a bit messed up that I don't have rights to my own voice just because of the words being spoken.

The comparison to song covers is interesting. Copyright law has a specific provision for covers. As mentioned already, you do not need permission. But the law specifies royalties that are due to the original song owner. However I think that live bands can play covers without paying anything. (Can anyone verify that?)

PS: Weird Al does not need permission either, but he does get permission out of professional courtesy. (This is from his own mouth, interviewed on Attack of the Show last month).

[ChadTower]

They are supposed to pay a royalty and major tours do pay it.  No one polices it in live clubs and small venues, it just isn't practical, and there is technically a lower limit to the venue capacity at which you can be charged anyway.

You do own the rights to your voice, however you do not own the rights to the work you are reading.  If you were reading it for charity, I bet no one would care.  Reading it for commercial use is flat illegal.  I don't see the grey area.  You are not selling your voice, you are selling the copyrighted work.  If you could sell your voice alone you would not need someone else's work to do it.

[Stingray]

What about story time at the library? Is that illegal? How large an audience must you have before your reading a book becomes infringement?

I'm guessing that this is probably legal because the library doesn't charge the kids to come and listen, also no recordings are being made or sold.

-S

[Daniel270]

PS: Weird Al does not need permission either, but he does get permission out of professional courtesy. (This is from his own mouth, interviewed on Attack of the Show last month).

The only time that didn't "quite" happen was with the song "Amish Paradise".  He thought he had permission to make the song, when in fact Coolio told him no.  A miscommunication between their reps, I believe....

[Zakk]

I think it would be logical to assume that if you could record yourself reading, and make a profit on it, people would be doing it.  There would be 5000 copies of spoken 'harry potter' books all over e-bay.

I think there must be a reason there isn't, and my assumption would be legal issues. 

[Shape D.]

However I think that live bands can play covers without paying anything. (Can anyone verify that?)

Yes and No. When A cover band plays a cover song there is supposed to be a small ammount paid to ASCAP or BMI. Who in turn pay that to the artists. However the burden of paying this fee falls on the "Venue" the band is playing at, not the band itself.

Wow, I guess the 4 semesters of Music buisness paid off.

(If by paid off I mean being able to answer questions online and not furthering my carrer at all)

[missioncontrol]

You don't have to seek permission to remake a song.

[ChadTower]

I would bet that if Coolio had really wanted to fight it, he may win in court, since everything I studied about Copyright Law conflicts with that.

He was likely getting permission so that they wouldn't sue him later. 

[duffjr]

weird al copies the music for all his songs.  the music and lyrics are copyrighted, but i swear most top 40 songs have nearly identical beats.

[shmokes]

FWIW I've noticed that whenever a band does a cover of another band's music the lyrics are omitted in the CD cover (even when the lyrics to every other song on the album are present).  I always figured that this meant that remaking and using the lyrics could be done without permission, but reprinting someone else's lyrics without permission would be against the law.

[Stingray]

I would bet that if Coolio had really wanted to fight it, he may win in court...

I'll bet the judge would throw the case out after having the bailiff kick him in the butt for going by "Coolio".

-S

[ChadTower]

At least it's original.  How many idiots are out there now going by names like Green Lantern or DJ Q Bert?

[Stingray]

At least it's original.  How many idiots are out there now going by names like Green Lantern or DJ Q Bert?

I don't know. How many?

-S

[ChadTower]

Erm... at least two.

[quarterback]

As stated, parodies are protected.    Also, as stated, venues which provide live music to their patrons pay ASCAP.  Look at the front window or front door of the club.  You'll see a yellow triangle ASCAP sticker on there.

There are a lot of different 'rights' involved here.  Sync rights, mechanical rights, performance rights, master use.

sync rights - you can use the previously recorded song in 'sync' with your commercial, film, DVD whatever
mechanicals - this lets you record a song AND distribute it.
performance rights - these are the things that radio stations, clubs, coffee houses etc pay the publishing companies (ASCAP, BMI etc) so they can play music publicly.
reproduction right - you can make copies of an existing recording and release it yourself.  Like a compilation CD

The "recording of a certain work" and "the performance of a certain work" and  "the certain work" itself are three completely different things.  You cannot just go around re-recording other people's works without paying them. Whether those are songs or if they're literary works.    However, if you get the right to re-record somebody's copyrighted work (song, book) then the rights to the actual recording of your voice belong to you.

IANAL, and I haven't dealt with music rights in a number of years, but I believe the above to be accurate.    The Harry Fox Agency used to deal with things like this but, afaik, they've gotten out of part or all of it.

EDITED TO ADD:
Here's some info from BMI's webpage:
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/license.asp

Here's some from ASCAP's:
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/

And it looks like Harry Fox still does this (as I think about it, I believe they just dropped out of the "sync license" business).  Here's their FAQ page:
http://harryfox.com/public/FAQ.jsp