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.

  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    10 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.

    • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
      1·
      10 months ago

      I’m not a lawyer you are right, but I do deal with CCDC contracts as part of my job. A big part of the scope of a contract is what it includes and what it states it excludes. Exclusions usually come when there is some sort of implied inclusion in another part of the contract, as an example a term like “will be made to interoperate with” might imply a contractor would provide power circuits, licensing, subscriptions etc, and the exclusions would state that recurring expenditures would be outside the scope of the contract or something.

      The storyfair terms are specifically referencing and including activities storyfair is accomplishing, and only referencing things that are specifically to accomplish selling the piece of media.

      The Spotify terms are granting Spotify partners the ability to use the media in an unlimited and derogatory way, it’s specifically including “irrevocable”, “sublicencable” and “transferable”. These three words are actually huge changes in the terms.

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

        So, I started looking up some words in the legal sense, since “a contract that can’t end” seems crazy.
        It looks like irrevocable in this context means you can only terminate the license according to the rules agreed upon, not for no reason at any time.
        The derogatory bit appears to mean you can’t sue them if you dislike one of the minor edits they made.

        I’m not a lawyer though, so I’m going to stop trying to interpret license terms, because if nothing else it’s far from my original point.

        I have no idea if the terms are good or bad, or even when the change happened.
        What I do know, is that I would expect more attention given to it if it were as bad as it’s being made out to be, and from sources beyond one of their competitors.
        I don’t trust people using emotionally manipulative language and weasel words to try to persuade me, even if they’re entirely correct. (If it’s as bad as they say, why not actually get their lawyer to provide an explanation, rather than clarifying that they aren’t lawyers and are only guessing?)