Spotify Modifies Terms for Audiobook Rightsholders, Changes May Put Authors in Legal Peril With Narrators
storyfair.net
An ominous new change in Spotify's terms for audiobook rightsholders allows Spotify to "create derivative works from" audiobooks.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/12029451

Spotify just changed their TOS, giving them unprecedented rights to create “derivative works” from audiobooks

They frame it as though it’s for user content, more likely it’s to train AI, but in fact it gives them the right to do almost anything they want - up to (but not including) stealing the content outright.

  • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
    0·
    9 months ago

    Selling an ebook on a marketplace should not give any rights of the contents of the ebook to the marketplace.

    The same should be for other niche marketplaces.

    Changing the TOS like this is an unfair business practice. Existing published works should have the option of receiving advanced notice of these changes and a long grace period to deny the change and pull their work from the platform.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      9 months ago

      Not saying that it’s right or wrong, just that the source of the info is being manipulative and I don’t like that.

      “We don’t know why they made the change, so it’s probably the most extreme thing we can think of that stops short of libel”.

      Typically the sub rights you grant to the market place are to allow them to display excerpts from the book on the store page, or for things like the transcription they actually mentioned.

      • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
        0·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think it’s being manipulative, because it is extreme

        transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, fully paid, irrevocable, worldwide license to reproduce, make available, perform and display, translate, modify, create derivative works from (such as transcripts of User Content), distribute, and otherwise use any such User Content through any medium

        This could mean, they could rerecord your book and sell their recording, or use the recording to make commercials, or any number of things you might find objectionable. There are no limits in the text of the TOS.

        also agree to waive, and not to enforce, any “moral rights” or equivalent rights, such as your right to object to derogatory treatment of such User Content.

        If my competitor tried this I would advertise that I don’t abuse my customers too.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          9 months ago

          I don’t think either of us are lawyers, so disputing the exact meaning of words in a contract is an invitation to nonsense.
          I do know that rerecording and selling the copy would require them to have more copyright rights than would be called a limited license.

          It’s manipulation because they’re overtly stating “we’re not sure what they’ll do, but it’s probably so they can train AI on your books and make infinite shitty clones”. That’s emotionally manipulative, just like the title of this post.

          The site itself has a clause in their public tos that gives them license to “worldwide license to reproduce, make available, perform and display, translate, modify, create derivative works from (such as transcripts of User Content), distribute, and otherwise use” the books they publish, they just phrase it in plain English.

          You grant StoryFair the right to reproduce, display, market, sell, and present the Work for sale on any of its properties in all applicable territories and jurisdictions,

          StoryFair may make minor edits and/or summarize metadata related to the Work, such as the Work’s “blurb” or product description, or to truncate a title, or to crop or resize your book cover image. StoryFair may also apply audio compression or other minor edits to the Work’s audio files.

          I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know how substantial the difference is between the terms. It seems to me like both grant the distributor the right to make copies, sell them, make changes and advertise with the authors works.

          This is an advertisement for a platform, trying to make you fear their competition. Any time they seem to make a solid claim, they couch it in a hypothetical or quote someone else. They make it clear that they don’t actually know what the license says, just the “plain reading” “appears” “at a glance” “to seem” to have no limits.

          To be fair: we aren’t lawyers here, just independent authors, and we have not evaluated the rest of the agreement

          It’s inflammatory, manipulative, and trying to get right up to the edge of libel without actually doing so.