16 ms·

yeah all three are copyright infringement you cant make audio books, illustrations, or translations of a book without the authors permission note that text to

yeah all three are copyright infringement you cant make audio books, illustrations, or translations of a book without the authors permission note that text to speech isnt considered derivative work. its considered a tool rather than creating content. so its legal for a kindle to read it to you

edflsafoiewq 2y ago
I have no idea if that's true, but you can't seriously expect anyone to actually abide by that, it's absurd.
ordu 2y ago
> its legal for a kindle to read it to you It seems to me that computers programs have more rights than humans.
fenomas 2y ago
I think you're confused, or at least talking past GP. It's not copyright infringement to create a derivative work - e.g. by adding illustrations to a book. What's infringement is if you copy and distribute the derivative work without a license to the original. GP was asking about the former, not the latter.
- chandler5555 2y ago
  us code 106 gives the copyright holder exclusive rights of derivative works so yes even at home, making art for a book you dont have permission for, and isnt seen by anyone but you, is still copyright infringement
  - fenomas 2y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't mean it's "illegal" to create a derivative work. It just means that the original author has rights they can exert over what you make.
    - chandler5555 2y ago
      I dont know everything i read online says its copyright infringement to create derivative works, outside of stuff like parodies, fair use and getting permission.
      - fenomas 2y ago
        > outside of stuff like .. fair use That's the important bit - the things you called illegal a few comments back were obvious examples of (presumptive) fair use. More generally, whether something is copyright infringement can be vague and subjective - so the bar for going around saying "yes, that is infringement" is not "does it meet a description I read online?". The bar is: "have courts previously ruled that a very similar case was infringement?".
- numpad0 2y ago
  There's a case where a Japanese venue commissioned an art piece, wrapped it, artists sued the venue, and the court ordered the art be restored to the original state on the ground of copyright. I think it was a couple feet tall cat statue or something. It's somewhat of a case by case basis matter and it's rarely brought to the court, but just because you own a piece doesn't always make it all to your discretion to modify it.

edflsafoiewq 2y ago

I have no idea if that's true, but you can't seriously expect anyone to actually abide by that, it's absurd.

ordu 2y ago

> its legal for a kindle to read it to you It seems to me that computers programs have more rights than humans.

fenomas 2y ago

I think you're confused, or at least talking past GP. It's not copyright infringement to create a derivative work - e.g. by adding illustrations to a book. What's infringement is if you copy and distribute the derivative work without a license to the original. GP was asking about the former, not the latter.

chandler5555 2y ago
us code 106 gives the copyright holder exclusive rights of derivative works so yes even at home, making art for a book you dont have permission for, and isnt seen by anyone but you, is still copyright infringement
- fenomas 2y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't mean it's "illegal" to create a derivative work. It just means that the original author has rights they can exert over what you make.
  - chandler5555 2y ago
    I dont know everything i read online says its copyright infringement to create derivative works, outside of stuff like parodies, fair use and getting permission.
    - fenomas 2y ago
      > outside of stuff like .. fair use That's the important bit - the things you called illegal a few comments back were obvious examples of (presumptive) fair use. More generally, whether something is copyright infringement can be vague and subjective - so the bar for going around saying "yes, that is infringement" is not "does it meet a description I read online?". The bar is: "have courts previously ruled that a very similar case was infringement?".
numpad0 2y ago
There's a case where a Japanese venue commissioned an art piece, wrapped it, artists sued the venue, and the court ordered the art be restored to the original state on the ground of copyright. I think it was a couple feet tall cat statue or something. It's somewhat of a case by case basis matter and it's rarely brought to the court, but just because you own a piece doesn't always make it all to your discretion to modify it.