Genius sues Google and LyricFind over allegedly stolen song lyrics(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Genius sues Google and LyricFind over allegedly stolen song lyrics
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20993621/genius-google-lawsuit-stolen-lyrics-lyricfind
13 comments
> Genius does not hold a copyright on any of these lyrics
It's worse. They started out by stealing and scraping these lyrics from other websites.
It's worse. They started out by stealing and scraping these lyrics from other websites.
This lawsuit isn't about copyright. It's about violating Genius' TOS and anticompetitive behavior.
Google never signed a contract with Genius? How would violating a terms of use they were never subject to be illegal?
Would it be ok to scrape google's results and distribute them, while saying you don't accept their TOS? It's a bit like not paying taxes and saying you didn't sign up for that. Who knows, maybe that's the way forward
I am not a lawyer. But I think this was settled with the LinkedIn lawsuit. Yes, it's perfectly fine to scrape public facing information.
Yes, it's been well established that accessing a site is not the same as accepting it's TOS. And That's why Google and any competent site know it's their responsibility to detect scraping and suspicious behavior and block it themselves.
You mean like Startpage.com does?
> Would it be ok to scrape google's results and distribute them, while saying you don't accept their TOS? It's a bit like not paying taxes and saying you didn't sign up for that.
When Google has the ability to levy taxes, things will be very different all over.
When Google has the ability to levy taxes, things will be very different all over.
That's an amusing example.
You are aware that Google scrapes almost every page on the internet, without having any agreement with most of them, right?
Yes, you can add noindex and robots.txt to tell them you'd like to opt-out, but:
a) That only works so well, and b) they're default is to use your page without your permission.
You are aware that Google scrapes almost every page on the internet, without having any agreement with most of them, right?
Yes, you can add noindex and robots.txt to tell them you'd like to opt-out, but:
a) That only works so well, and b) they're default is to use your page without your permission.
The lawsuit is about Genius having failed to live up to the valuation it raised money at and the expectations for future potential. They've contracted back to being an annotated lyric site and there is nowhere near enough business there to prop up a multi hundred million dollar valuation (much less higher). The conquer the world through annotations plan didn't pan out, at all.
They're lucky if they're worth 1/10th their peak valuation currently. So now they're going to stretch in any direction they can for a couple bucks before the lights go out or they're force-sold by the VCs to whatever company will buy it for spare change. Maybe they're hoping Google will open up their pockets and take care of that problem.
Either way, this is the last gasp of a failed (entirely worthy) experiment at getting the masses to annotate everything.
They're lucky if they're worth 1/10th their peak valuation currently. So now they're going to stretch in any direction they can for a couple bucks before the lights go out or they're force-sold by the VCs to whatever company will buy it for spare change. Maybe they're hoping Google will open up their pockets and take care of that problem.
Either way, this is the last gasp of a failed (entirely worthy) experiment at getting the masses to annotate everything.
If you ever need to sue somebody for stealing your work, I hope the judge doesn't have the same attitude as you're having right now.
When you license lyrics, you don't necessarily get the actual written words to use (the lyrics).
You simply get permission to use the lyrics.
Genius volunteers listen to music and write down their interpretation (punctuation, spelling, spacing etc.)
Genius has a TOS to prevent republication of their content.
Genius started the lawsuit because they claim Google violates this TOS by duplicating Genius's unique transcriptions.
Google specifically claims they are NOT scraping Genius, but Genius claims they have proven that they do with watermarks.
Genius is taking them to court.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYqV5aReGjE
You simply get permission to use the lyrics.
Genius volunteers listen to music and write down their interpretation (punctuation, spelling, spacing etc.)
Genius has a TOS to prevent republication of their content.
Genius started the lawsuit because they claim Google violates this TOS by duplicating Genius's unique transcriptions.
Google specifically claims they are NOT scraping Genius, but Genius claims they have proven that they do with watermarks.
Genius is taking them to court.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYqV5aReGjE
>When you license lyrics, you don't necessarily get the actual written words to use (the lyrics).
Yep
>You simply get permission to use the lyrics.
Also yep.
>Genius volunteers listen to music and write down their interpretation (punctuation, spelling, spacing etc.)
This does not give the volunteers or Genius ownership of the transcribed lyrics.
>Genius has a TOS to prevent republication of their content.
The recent LinkedIn lawsuit seems to set precedent that you cannot enforce a TOS on publicly accessible content like this.
>Genius started the lawsuit because they claim Google violates this TOS by duplicating Genius's unique transcriptions.
Sure. Doesn't mean they have any chance of winning it.
>Google specifically claims they are NOT scraping Genius, but Genius claims they have proven that they do with watermarks.
My understanding is Google is claiming they get their lyrics from a 3rd party. If that's the case, they can certainly say that they aren't scraping Genius themselves.
Yep
>You simply get permission to use the lyrics.
Also yep.
>Genius volunteers listen to music and write down their interpretation (punctuation, spelling, spacing etc.)
This does not give the volunteers or Genius ownership of the transcribed lyrics.
>Genius has a TOS to prevent republication of their content.
The recent LinkedIn lawsuit seems to set precedent that you cannot enforce a TOS on publicly accessible content like this.
>Genius started the lawsuit because they claim Google violates this TOS by duplicating Genius's unique transcriptions.
Sure. Doesn't mean they have any chance of winning it.
>Google specifically claims they are NOT scraping Genius, but Genius claims they have proven that they do with watermarks.
My understanding is Google is claiming they get their lyrics from a 3rd party. If that's the case, they can certainly say that they aren't scraping Genius themselves.
#5 is disputable.
Better source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/genius-media-sues-google-claimi...
This is different from the story that came out this past summer, about Genius watermarking lyrics.
1. There’s a new watermark. After the first watermark got exposed, Google said they’d investigate, but Genius has caught them again.
2. Genius has filed an actual lawsuit.
Disclosure: I used to work at Genius
Also, a direct link to the legal complaint, which is a surprisingly fun read: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde...
This is different from the story that came out this past summer, about Genius watermarking lyrics.
1. There’s a new watermark. After the first watermark got exposed, Google said they’d investigate, but Genius has caught them again.
2. Genius has filed an actual lawsuit.
Disclosure: I used to work at Genius
Also, a direct link to the legal complaint, which is a surprisingly fun read: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde...
For the first watermark mechanism, it's described in the complaint in paragraph #60:
> This watermark (“Watermark #1”) involved replacing the apostrophes in a selection of newly released songs with a distinctive pattern of curly (’) and straight apostrophes (').6 Genius set the 2nd, 5th, 13th, 14th, 16th and 20th apostrophes of each watermarked song as curly apostrophes, and all the other apostrophes straight. If the straight apostrophes are interpreted as dots and the curly apostrophes are interpreted as dashes, the pattern spells out “REDHANDED” in Morse code, as shown below. Genius designed Watermark #1 to be woven into the text of the lyrics of the watermarked songs so that, if the apostrophe pattern were to be found outside of Genius’s website, there would be no explanation other than that the lyrics were copied from Genius’s website, e.g., by using the copy/paste functionality or a computer program.
> This watermark (“Watermark #1”) involved replacing the apostrophes in a selection of newly released songs with a distinctive pattern of curly (’) and straight apostrophes (').6 Genius set the 2nd, 5th, 13th, 14th, 16th and 20th apostrophes of each watermarked song as curly apostrophes, and all the other apostrophes straight. If the straight apostrophes are interpreted as dots and the curly apostrophes are interpreted as dashes, the pattern spells out “REDHANDED” in Morse code, as shown below. Genius designed Watermark #1 to be woven into the text of the lyrics of the watermarked songs so that, if the apostrophe pattern were to be found outside of Genius’s website, there would be no explanation other than that the lyrics were copied from Genius’s website, e.g., by using the copy/paste functionality or a computer program.
That's so clever - it's like an intellectual property honeypot.
It reminds me of "trap streets" mapmakers add to their maps to "trap" potential copyright violators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street
It reminds me of "trap streets" mapmakers add to their maps to "trap" potential copyright violators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street
Ah, pretty clever. The REDHANDED phrase seems much more likely to convince a jury
So Genius gets people to transcribe the lyrics mostly for free and then sells them to other companies for a lot of money.
Google found someone to provide lyrics and that company allegedly scraps Genius for cheaper than Genius charges for direct access.
So this is basically a continuation of the on-going question of whether scraping is legal? That's my basic understanding from reading the complaint. I'm also not sure why Google is at fault, except for a bunch of ranting about the Information Box stealing their business.
Guess there's also the attempt to try to enforce Genius' ToS...
Google found someone to provide lyrics and that company allegedly scraps Genius for cheaper than Genius charges for direct access.
So this is basically a continuation of the on-going question of whether scraping is legal? That's my basic understanding from reading the complaint. I'm also not sure why Google is at fault, except for a bunch of ranting about the Information Box stealing their business.
Guess there's also the attempt to try to enforce Genius' ToS...
Scraping is one thing, redistributing and republishing is another. In a world where scraping is legally protected, displaying Genius lyrics in a Google infobox could still be illegal without a prior agreement on the basis of copyright. There's an argument for "curation of facts", etc...
Seems all moot since it's not their intellectual property in the first place... as in the artist would own the lyrics?
It looks more like a ToS claim; they aren't claiming to own the lyrics. They aren't objecting to Google scraping their site for the index -- they object to Google/LyricFind scraping the lyrics, removing hidden watermarks to prove provenance, and displaying the lyrics in whole on SERPs, without attribution.
The removal of watermarks, after repeated contacts and the WSJ article, indicate that Google/LyricFind acted in bad faith.
The best part is they encoded the watermark so that Watermark #1 spelled out REDHANDED and Watermark #2 spelled out GENIUS, using a pretty clever method that survived multiple data transfers/transformations.
The removal of watermarks, after repeated contacts and the WSJ article, indicate that Google/LyricFind acted in bad faith.
The best part is they encoded the watermark so that Watermark #1 spelled out REDHANDED and Watermark #2 spelled out GENIUS, using a pretty clever method that survived multiple data transfers/transformations.
I mean, from my reading of the complaint, the waterproofing method was rather crude. They just simply changed either the apostrophe character or the space character to different characters that are visually the same.
Any system that wasn't actively trying to clean up "trouble" characters would leave it alone.
Any system that wasn't actively trying to clean up "trouble" characters would leave it alone.
If the watermarks are just text oddities, wouldn't it make sense that they were removed during some sanitization process?
They weren't removed at first - that's how Genius confirmed the lyrics were being lifted. They were only removed after the WSJ article.
Then Genius embedded a second watermarking scheme, and -- drumroll! -- Google's results only removed one of the two sets (the ones they knew about).
Then Genius embedded a second watermarking scheme, and -- drumroll! -- Google's results only removed one of the two sets (the ones they knew about).
Ok - but what's the issue with that?
I don't think anyone is debating at this whether or not Google was in fact copying the genius lyrics, just whether or not that was in fact breach of contract or otherwise a violation of the law.
Changing fake apostrophes to real apostrophes after they found out their (in their mind legally acquired) data had them is just plain sensible, fake apostrophes break functionality like search for users (both ctrl-f and possibly more sophisticated search engines like google.com). They add edge cases to any software that wants to use them for text to speech or whatever. And so on. Literally the only use case fake apostrophes don't impact by at least adding an edge case is humans reading song lyrics that they have already found.
I don't think anyone is debating at this whether or not Google was in fact copying the genius lyrics, just whether or not that was in fact breach of contract or otherwise a violation of the law.
Changing fake apostrophes to real apostrophes after they found out their (in their mind legally acquired) data had them is just plain sensible, fake apostrophes break functionality like search for users (both ctrl-f and possibly more sophisticated search engines like google.com). They add edge cases to any software that wants to use them for text to speech or whatever. And so on. Literally the only use case fake apostrophes don't impact by at least adding an edge case is humans reading song lyrics that they have already found.
The issue is intent, did they remove the watermark as a matter of input sanitization, or did they remove it to conceal their behavior. Genius claims it was the latter.
Genius actually licenses the lyrics from the music publishers.
The first line of your comment is accusing them of something that they don't do.
The first line of your comment is accusing them of something that they don't do.
I didn't accuse them of anything. I was re-stating what they themselves wrote in their complaint.
Yes, Genius licenses the lyrics, but they often aren't provided the lyrics when they purchase a license. This is where the community comes in... FWIW, Google and the other target of the complaint have the same license from these music publishers.
This is all spelled out clearly in Genius' complaint.
Yes, Genius licenses the lyrics, but they often aren't provided the lyrics when they purchase a license. This is where the community comes in... FWIW, Google and the other target of the complaint have the same license from these music publishers.
This is all spelled out clearly in Genius' complaint.
And didn't LyricFind claim that the lyrics they licensed were scraped from Genius by the publisher?
> 1. There’s a new watermark. After the first watermark got exposed, Google said they’d investigate, but Genius has caught them again.
After that first watermark, either Google, Lyricfind or both took steps to 'un-watermark' the lyrics (once they knew what to look for), but kept doing it unabated, as Genius showed when they used another watermark that they didn't reveal (pretty sneaky, with Unicode space characters in certain locations only).
After that first watermark, either Google, Lyricfind or both took steps to 'un-watermark' the lyrics (once they knew what to look for), but kept doing it unabated, as Genius showed when they used another watermark that they didn't reveal (pretty sneaky, with Unicode space characters in certain locations only).
That WSJ article is at http://archive.is/ZC39Y.
[deleted]
funny how these things are. while they are suing google, genius is out there pushing their presence on youtube. if they end up winning, curious how this is going to play out.
Are sites like Genius still in a legal grey area concerning copyright? As in, the lyrics are unauthorised reproductions of copyrighted works.
(I’m aware this lawsuit isn’t about copyright, I’m just curious)
(I’m aware this lawsuit isn’t about copyright, I’m just curious)
From TFA:
Genius doesn’t have a copyright claim because it doesn’t own the lyrics. Both Genius and Google hold licenses from music publishers to print song lyrics, which makes the lawsuit trickier, focusing more on how Google and its partners got the lyrics to begin with.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20993621/genius-google-la...
Genius doesn’t have a copyright claim because it doesn’t own the lyrics. Both Genius and Google hold licenses from music publishers to print song lyrics, which makes the lawsuit trickier, focusing more on how Google and its partners got the lyrics to begin with.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20993621/genius-google-la...
That makes sense, but that license surely wouldn’t include independent artists that do not have a publisher. Then again, independent artists most likely do not have the means to take legal action, or at least the outcome wouldn’t justify the expense, so I suppose that point is moot.
Music licensing (at least in the US) often involves blanket licenses that cover all music, without requiring consent or knowledge of the rightsholder(s). There's usually a designated administrative company, such as ASCAP, that royalties are paid to in absence of more specific agreements, and they divy them up. In this arrangement, for covered uses, generally rightsholders have no claim against the company, if it followed the forms, they would need to take it up with the administrative agency.
[deleted]
Pretty sure Genius actually licenses their lyrics to be in the clear in that regard.
As does Google.
Except Google licenses from companies who don't do it legally, and didn't cease when they were notified. They didn't stop after a WSJ article. On top of it, once the watermark was disclosed, they removed it.
Google licenses from the same music publisher that Genius does. I doubt Genius or any of the other lyrics sites have the right to create sub-licenses.
Google licenses from a number of places, including LyricFind. Which, I don't think, is a music publisher.
I offer that to correct a mistake, knowing it doesn't invalidate your point. Reading the complaint, it sounds like it's a ToS violation. The interesting thing is that Google -> Genius have some business agreements (Genius is an adsense customer, at the least).
To my Not A Lawyer brain, that moves it out of the "scraping public documents is fine" and into a more complicated relationship. The outcome of this lawsuit will be interesting!
I offer that to correct a mistake, knowing it doesn't invalidate your point. Reading the complaint, it sounds like it's a ToS violation. The interesting thing is that Google -> Genius have some business agreements (Genius is an adsense customer, at the least).
To my Not A Lawyer brain, that moves it out of the "scraping public documents is fine" and into a more complicated relationship. The outcome of this lawsuit will be interesting!
Google licenses from the same music publishers. They have to or they wouldn't be able to display the lyrics.
Just having a license doesn't necessarily give you the actual lyrics though. They still have to create or buy them from somebody.
In the past I think LyricFind said that when they licensed lyrics, some were provided by the publisher and it was the publisher that scraped them from Genius. I may be mis-remembering that, but there was something along those lines.
I think this is an issue of Genius alleging that LyricFind scraped their website with is a ToS violation.
Just having a license doesn't necessarily give you the actual lyrics though. They still have to create or buy them from somebody.
In the past I think LyricFind said that when they licensed lyrics, some were provided by the publisher and it was the publisher that scraped them from Genius. I may be mis-remembering that, but there was something along those lines.
I think this is an issue of Genius alleging that LyricFind scraped their website with is a ToS violation.
I’ve noticed this actually. Sometimes I look up lyrics only to see them incorrectly transliterated on Google’s search box drop down. So I click through to genius and see the same error.
But other sites have a different transliteration.
I thought it was just them exposing the content from genius, the same way it works for weather.
But other sites have a different transliteration.
I thought it was just them exposing the content from genius, the same way it works for weather.
Google is notoriously hard to sue. they don't settle easily or readily
Genius was caught many years doing blackhat SEO that would have gotten smaller sites permanently banned, but thanks to google's kindness was forgiven.
Genius was caught many years doing blackhat SEO that would have gotten smaller sites permanently banned, but thanks to google's kindness was forgiven.
“Thanks to Google’s kindness”
The business isn’t kind - it’s practical. This should read “thanks to a positive transaction value Genius was forgiven”
The business isn’t kind - it’s practical. This should read “thanks to a positive transaction value Genius was forgiven”
how is letting a tiny company game its algos and get away with it help google's hundred-billion dollar search business
Because Genius was popular enough it would piss off users if their results didn't show up on the first page.
Clearly Google seems to agree that Genius has the best results based on the efforts they've taken to steal and even hide the fact that they're stealing from Genius.
Just to be clear, Genius may be small compared to Google, but they are the de facto source of lyrics for music. Can you imagine if users suddenly no longer found Google useful for figuring out lyrics? It would genuinely cost them users switching to Bing, DuckDuckGo, etcetera.
Clearly Google seems to agree that Genius has the best results based on the efforts they've taken to steal and even hide the fact that they're stealing from Genius.
Just to be clear, Genius may be small compared to Google, but they are the de facto source of lyrics for music. Can you imagine if users suddenly no longer found Google useful for figuring out lyrics? It would genuinely cost them users switching to Bing, DuckDuckGo, etcetera.
Genius was high profile enough to attract attention to the case.
De-platforming a customer can feasibly demonstrate having a monopoly in a given business space.
Demonstrating you have a monopoly could lead to advanced regulation.
De-platforming a customer can feasibly demonstrate having a monopoly in a given business space.
Demonstrating you have a monopoly could lead to advanced regulation.
Because the VC money, the board is tied. In the end that's the way with all the SV startups that gives them insane advantage. Too many vested interests.
b/c if Genius didn't get SEO traffic, they wouldn't let Google scrape their site ...
> but thanks to google's kindness was forgiven.
Sounds like fuel for the case against Google...Google would normally ban sites for x but didn't ban Genius for doing x, but why? Because Google was knowingly and willfully scraping/commercializing their content.
Sounds like fuel for the case against Google...Google would normally ban sites for x but didn't ban Genius for doing x, but why? Because Google was knowingly and willfully scraping/commercializing their content.
That ban actually happened about a year before the lyrics info box came into existence.
I love dunking on Google, but isn’t this vacated due to the LinkedIn scraping case?
https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/10/20859399/linkedin-hiq-dat...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/10/20859399/linkedin-hiq-dat...
>Genius doesn’t have a copyright claim because it doesn’t own the lyrics. Both Genius and Google hold licenses from music publishers to print song lyrics
Genius makes the lyrics publicly available on the web and there was just a good outcome on web scraping public data. I can't imagine Genius has a case here but IANAL.
Genius makes the lyrics publicly available on the web and there was just a good outcome on web scraping public data. I can't imagine Genius has a case here but IANAL.
This is like a re-trial of the famous Supreme Court case that the white pages phone directory cannot be copyrighted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
Facts are not copyrightable. And a collection of facts are not copyrightable. There has to be some spark of creativity or originality even small.
Wonder what Genius is claiming makes their lyrics "original" compared to what they get from the source...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
Facts are not copyrightable. And a collection of facts are not copyrightable. There has to be some spark of creativity or originality even small.
Wonder what Genius is claiming makes their lyrics "original" compared to what they get from the source...
If I make content publicly available on my website, should you be able to scrape it wholesale, AND commercialize it, AND tell me to piss off when I raise a complaint?
If so, why?
If so, why?
"Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright"
Given that the lyrics aren't owned by Genius, and that Google has a license to them, there's no reasonable claim of copyright violation.
There have been several cases lately that seem to suggest there's no problem with using public data either.
If you don't like it, don't make the data public. Require a login, and then you might have a case.
Given that the lyrics aren't owned by Genius, and that Google has a license to them, there's no reasonable claim of copyright violation.
There have been several cases lately that seem to suggest there's no problem with using public data either.
If you don't like it, don't make the data public. Require a login, and then you might have a case.
The watermarks they encoded to identify the original source are pretty creative :).
“Phantom streets”.
Come up with the same map as me based on research and first principles, you’re safe.
Plagiarize my effort and in the process capture the fake/non existent streets I -added- to the map to show that you were plagiarizing my work? Then absolutely I have a case against you.
Come up with the same lyrics for a song as I do based on listening to it? Fine.
Cutting and pasting my content, including unnecessary embedded Unicode spaces used to watermark my content, my transcription (see my other comment on this), absolutely problematic and actionable.
Come up with the same map as me based on research and first principles, you’re safe.
Plagiarize my effort and in the process capture the fake/non existent streets I -added- to the map to show that you were plagiarizing my work? Then absolutely I have a case against you.
Come up with the same lyrics for a song as I do based on listening to it? Fine.
Cutting and pasting my content, including unnecessary embedded Unicode spaces used to watermark my content, my transcription (see my other comment on this), absolutely problematic and actionable.
Perhaps this varies from country to country, but for the US, doesn't Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co. explicitly say that you cannot copyright these fake streets and someone creating a map that includes them would not be grounds alone for infringement?
Because the lyrics are not copyrighted by you, they are copyrighted by the Artist, whom Google and LyricsFind have a contract with to give them permission to use those lyrics?
You might want to look at the concept of transcription, particularly germane to music.
A transcription can be a creative work, so it can be protected by copyright. A transcription is copying and transforming an original work in a particular (symbolic). The original work that the transcription is based on is also protected by copyright, so to make the copy that embodies the transcription, you need permission from the original rights holder. Splicing the transcription onto an illegal copy of an original performance is also copyright infringement, but resynthesis based on the transcription is not. A transcription also might not be entitled to copyright protection, if it is the product of a computer program, since feeding a sound file into a program is not a creative activity. (The program that generated the transcription is, of course, protected by copyright).
Ergo, there absolutely can be claims that you need to license my content, consisting of original synthesized copyrighted lyrics.
I highly doubt Google or LyricsFind's contracts with the Artists or Labels says "We won't give you the lyrics, but if you find someone else has put them down on 'paper', go ahead and just slurp that up, regardless of their efforts, and make some money off of that for yourself, sucks to be them".
A transcription can be a creative work, so it can be protected by copyright. A transcription is copying and transforming an original work in a particular (symbolic). The original work that the transcription is based on is also protected by copyright, so to make the copy that embodies the transcription, you need permission from the original rights holder. Splicing the transcription onto an illegal copy of an original performance is also copyright infringement, but resynthesis based on the transcription is not. A transcription also might not be entitled to copyright protection, if it is the product of a computer program, since feeding a sound file into a program is not a creative activity. (The program that generated the transcription is, of course, protected by copyright).
Ergo, there absolutely can be claims that you need to license my content, consisting of original synthesized copyrighted lyrics.
I highly doubt Google or LyricsFind's contracts with the Artists or Labels says "We won't give you the lyrics, but if you find someone else has put them down on 'paper', go ahead and just slurp that up, regardless of their efforts, and make some money off of that for yourself, sucks to be them".
> I highly doubt Google or LyricsFind's contracts with the Artists or Labels says "We won't give you the lyrics, but if you find someone else has put them down on 'paper', go ahead and just slurp that up, regardless of their efforts, and make some money off of that for yourself, sucks to be them".
That's pretty much what the contracts are; the rightsholders don't actually have the lyrics in a machine readable form; or if they do, they're from liner notes which often don't actually match the songs as performed on the media that came with the notes, so pretty worthless.
That's pretty much what the contracts are; the rightsholders don't actually have the lyrics in a machine readable form; or if they do, they're from liner notes which often don't actually match the songs as performed on the media that came with the notes, so pretty worthless.
In which case, worst case scenario, Genius is saying “then come up with them yourselves, you can’t plagiarize our efforts”. Note that the anticompetitive part of the info boxes is a far different and separate issue.
They're not Genius' efforts to begin with. Lyrics are transcribed by users or given to them by the artists themselves and then Genius adds the watermarks mentioned in the lawsuit. Worst case scenario, Genius is saying "you can't benefit off the efforts of our users, only we can".
It seems that the only thing giving Genius any footing is their Terms of Service, which ToS tend to be unenforceable. Also consider the case involving LinkedIn which set precedence in being able to scrape public information.
Then again, IANAL so they may have more footing than I realize and/or they may do some transcription themselves, but it is largely their users.
It seems that the only thing giving Genius any footing is their Terms of Service, which ToS tend to be unenforceable. Also consider the case involving LinkedIn which set precedence in being able to scrape public information.
Then again, IANAL so they may have more footing than I realize and/or they may do some transcription themselves, but it is largely their users.
> They're not Genius' efforts to begin with. Lyrics are transcribed by users
Users who have consented to supply said efforts to Genius. Not to Google. Or LyricFind.
Users who have consented to supply said efforts to Genius. Not to Google. Or LyricFind.
I get the logic, but I also think it's a bit of a stretch. They may unknowingly consent to that, but you have to go out of your way to read the Terms of Service to consent to that specifically and I would imagine most people are just trying to provide or fix lyrics so others can easily find them, not so Genius can have them exclusively as that's certainly not how most users think.
It also brings up a good point on whether Genius should have exclusive rights to something in which they gained that exclusivity from uninformed "consent" of their users' efforts. If transcribed lyrics are copyrightable, why should Genius hold that right and not the users' when Genius are claiming that right by hiding their Terms of Use as a tiny link made to seem like it's part of the website's copyright/trademark notice[0]. I'm inclined to believe that Genius are purposefully being deceitful in how they link to their Terms of Use to avoid flack.
[0]: https://imgur.com/DP5fmre
It also brings up a good point on whether Genius should have exclusive rights to something in which they gained that exclusivity from uninformed "consent" of their users' efforts. If transcribed lyrics are copyrightable, why should Genius hold that right and not the users' when Genius are claiming that right by hiding their Terms of Use as a tiny link made to seem like it's part of the website's copyright/trademark notice[0]. I'm inclined to believe that Genius are purposefully being deceitful in how they link to their Terms of Use to avoid flack.
[0]: https://imgur.com/DP5fmre
What if you're just republishing someone else's content? It's not your original content, you're just publishing someone else's?
Can I scrape your website to get that content I am legally allowed to get (because I have a paid license)?
Can I scrape your website to get that content I am legally allowed to get (because I have a paid license)?
This lawsuit doesn't revolve around copyright, does it? Isn't Genius claiming that scraping the lyrics is a violation of their EULA?
The other issue Google / LyricsFind has is that their response wasn’t “this is totally okay, you have no case”, but “we would never do that, we would investigate, and cancel licensing agreements with anyone doing that”.
And then not doing that. And instead concealing and fixing the watermark that allowed the -detection- of the issue.
You can’t do that, and make the statements above and then credibly try to argue “nothing to see here, you have no rights”.
And then not doing that. And instead concealing and fixing the watermark that allowed the -detection- of the issue.
You can’t do that, and make the statements above and then credibly try to argue “nothing to see here, you have no rights”.
If Google can show that the lifted lyrics come from LyricFind, does that get them off the hook?
They do have an indemnity agreement with LyricFind, but they're kinda implicated here because they knew about the issue for so long and did nothing.
And quite possibly -told- LyricFind about the watermarking method Genius was using so that LyricFind could strip it and continue unabated.
Mike Masnick's thoughts about how dumb this lawsuit is: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191204/10251043506/it-do...
Many of Mike Masnick's arguments about how "dumb" this is are ... entirely lacking.
When Genius points out that - after being told what their apostrophe watermark scheme was - LyricFind / Google started stripping that watermark while still copying things wholesale, Mike says:
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Which is obstinate to say the least. Mike tries to paint the picture that it's entirely okay, because they removed the mechanism to detect copying, while still copying. Poor LyricFind.
Poor LyricFind, who, while covering their tracks, -weren't- deleting the _second_ watermark, that Genius didn't tell them about, thus showing that this was an entirely wilful, knowing act.
All of his arguments complain/whine about "how dare they, they have no copyright, of course, because they did nothing!", wilfully ignoring that Genius, and any other sites who _actively license_ the ability to reproduce lyrics these days have to generate their own lyrics from first principles - the days of liner notes/lyrics are largely gone.
Mike's arguments for the most part consisted of calling Genius "idiots" for failing his tests as to what the law is, often wrong, or willfully ostrich-like to anything that might derail his diatribe.
When Genius points out that - after being told what their apostrophe watermark scheme was - LyricFind / Google started stripping that watermark while still copying things wholesale, Mike says:
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Which is obstinate to say the least. Mike tries to paint the picture that it's entirely okay, because they removed the mechanism to detect copying, while still copying. Poor LyricFind.
Poor LyricFind, who, while covering their tracks, -weren't- deleting the _second_ watermark, that Genius didn't tell them about, thus showing that this was an entirely wilful, knowing act.
All of his arguments complain/whine about "how dare they, they have no copyright, of course, because they did nothing!", wilfully ignoring that Genius, and any other sites who _actively license_ the ability to reproduce lyrics these days have to generate their own lyrics from first principles - the days of liner notes/lyrics are largely gone.
Mike's arguments for the most part consisted of calling Genius "idiots" for failing his tests as to what the law is, often wrong, or willfully ostrich-like to anything that might derail his diatribe.
The fact that Genius has to do work to get the lyrics doesn't really matter from a copyright point of view, does it?
Not germane in this case, but yes, it would in “sweat of the brow” jurisdictions like the UK.
You licensed the lyrics, which the rights holder didn’t supply. You didn’t license a third party’s (often subjective) interpretation of them.
The third party's interpretation isn't protected, AFAIK.
It can be. Without a license from the original artist, Genius’ derivative work would be unusable by them, but the derivative work still receives its own copyright.
What Genius did (tweaked punctuation) isn't covered by copyright. This case is about the scrapers violating Genius' website terms of service.
Read my sister comments- transcription, if by a creative process and not automated absolutely -can- (but not always) be protected.
Do you think it is in this case?
On a side note, I met the founder of Genius (then called RapGenius) at the first hackMIT. It's been 7 years but I still remember him insulting multiple people and being embarrassingly immature.
Do you mean this one [1]?
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/26/11627246/rap-genius-co-founder...
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/26/11627246/rap-genius-co-founder...
Unfortunately, that article isn't surprising at all
I think there are some mental health concerns at play, unfortunately.
Url changed from https://futurism.com/the-byte/genius-sues-google-allegedly-s..., which points to this.
So Google licenses lyrics that don't exist in text format. How does that work?
Seems like Google has a license to listen to the audio, produce the text lyrics and then use these lyrics.
Since Google is indirectly stealing these lyrics, their license is not valid.
Seems like Google has a license to listen to the audio, produce the text lyrics and then use these lyrics.
Since Google is indirectly stealing these lyrics, their license is not valid.
Do you have a source for this interpretation of their license?
It does not match the interpretation of anyone else out there that I am aware of - it is not even an argument that Genius is making in their lawsuit.
It does not match the interpretation of anyone else out there that I am aware of - it is not even an argument that Genius is making in their lawsuit.
If two parties get gold mining rights in a river can one party steal gold from the other since they both have rights to the gold in the same river?
Certainly Genius is reading these threads and get new ideas.
Certainly Genius is reading these threads and get new ideas.
You're trying to conflate physical items with intellectual property here - that isn't how the legal system works in the US or in any country that I am aware of.
Genius has no ownership over the lyrics - they are not their intellectual property. When you get a license to mineral rights, whatever you extract is your property and you have ownership of it. That isn't the case here, and as such, it's a nonsensical analogy.
Genius has no ownership over the lyrics - they are not their intellectual property. When you get a license to mineral rights, whatever you extract is your property and you have ownership of it. That isn't the case here, and as such, it's a nonsensical analogy.
OK, maybe my gold example was not so good. But in what way is Google licensed? The lyrics in text format do not exist. So the 'rights owners' license something that provably does not exist and they do not have? That is valid how? Which means the license covers a process Google is allowed to apply to the recording. Since Google gets stolen lyrics I doubt their license covers that.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is this:
1) Genius does not hold a copyright on any of these lyrics
2) Genius licenses these lyrics, and that license is not an exclusive one.
3) Google does not hold a copyright on these lyrics
4) Google licenses these lyrics, and that license is not an exclusive one.
5) "Watermarking" lyrics is not enough to get a derivative work copyright
As both parties have non-exclusive licenses and neither own the copyright, I really don't see how Genius has any chance of winning this case. As best as I can tell, it would be perfectly legal for Google to purposefully and specifically copy the lyrics from Genius.
Edit: Reading through the filing, they seem to basically be suing them for violating their website's TOS and some 'unfair practices' laws local to California and New York. I am unsure of how legally binding TOS are for websites in general, and whether or not being able to view lyrics without ever viewing the TOS effects things, etc.