Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 1
    I find this interpretation utterly bizarre. The most you can say is that copyright law does not prohibit certain conduct (and even that is not clear: just because the text is in the public domain does not necessarily mean that the audio is in the public domain); this does not mean that copyright law expressly permits that conduct. Commented Aug 9, 2022 at 10:29
  • @BrianDrake: Under what law would you propose the conduct is prohibited?
    – Brian
    Commented Aug 10, 2022 at 12:47
  • It is quite likely that Google has rights to the voices used by their text-to-speech conversion, and in general they can allow you to use their software only as long as you follow their license. So what you want is likely disallowed, and it has nothing to do with the books copyright. Apple’s text to speech conversion would definitely not allow creating audiobooks, but you can buy commercially available voices with a license that allows it (obviously you need to respect other copyrights).
    – gnasher729
    Commented Aug 10, 2022 at 22:09
  • The new section on whether the audio is copyrighted is good as far as the copyright discussion goes, but we still need to establish that copyright is relevant to begin with. The way I see it, Google’s users, by using Google’s services, agree to Google’s terms of use. So, if those terms of use prohibit certain conduct, then it is prohibited. End of story. There is an exception here for conduct expressly permitted by law, but no such law has been cited. Surely the fact that conduct is implicitly permitted (‘Anything not forbidden is allowed.’) is not sufficient. Commented Aug 11, 2022 at 13:47