Genius sues Google and LyricFind over allegedly stolen song lyrics

https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20993621/genius-google-lawsuit-stolen-lyrics-lyricfind

by msaltz • 7 years ago

85 98 7 years ago

ehmorris4• 7 years ago

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...

neonate• 7 years ago

That WSJ article is at http://archive.is/ZC39Y.

FireBeyond11• 7 years ago

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).

crazypyro3• 7 years ago

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...

jszymborski• 7 years ago

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...

unreal373• 7 years ago

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.

edmundsauto5• 7 years ago

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.

function_seven• 7 years ago

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.

katzgrau• 7 years ago

Ah, pretty clever. The REDHANDED phrase seems much more likely to convince a jury

alexcnwy• 7 years ago

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

blondin• 7 years ago

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.

dang• 7 years ago

Url changed from https://futurism.com/the-byte/genius-sues-google-allegedly-s..., which points to this.

criddell10• 7 years ago

If Google can show that the lifted lyrics come from LyricFind, does that get them off the hook?

ehmorris4• 7 years ago

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.

FireBeyond11• 7 years ago

And quite possibly -told- LyricFind about the watermarking method Genius was using so that LyricFind could strip it and continue unabated.

dijit• 7 years ago

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.

taejavu2• 7 years ago

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)

kemonocode• 7 years ago

Pretty sure Genius actually licenses their lyrics to be in the clear in that regard.

criddell10• 7 years ago

As does Google.

exhilaration• 7 years ago

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...

taejavu2• 7 years ago

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.

paulpauper2• 7 years ago

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.

Dwolb2• 7 years ago

“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”

paulpauper2• 7 years ago

how is letting a tiny company game its algos and get away with it help google's hundred-billion dollar search business

throwaway_tech• 7 years ago

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.

ehmorris4• 7 years ago

That ban actually happened about a year before the lyrics info box came into existence.

Deimorz• 7 years ago

Mike Masnick's thoughts about how dumb this lawsuit is: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191204/10251043506/it-do...

FireBeyond11• 7 years ago

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.

criddell10• 7 years ago

The fact that Genius has to do work to get the lyrics doesn't really matter from a copyright point of view, does it?

clSTophEjUdRanu• 7 years ago

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.

FireBeyond11• 7 years ago

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?

alwaysdoit• 7 years ago

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?

unreal373• 7 years ago

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)?

toast03• 7 years ago

"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.

criddell10• 7 years ago

This lawsuit doesn't revolve around copyright, does it? Isn't Genius claiming that scraping the lyrics is a violation of their EULA?

unreal373• 7 years ago

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...

cthalupa5• 7 years ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how Genius has any chance if winning this lawsuit.

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.

ehmorris4• 7 years ago

This lawsuit isn't about copyright. It's about violating Genius' TOS and anticompetitive behavior.

akersten• 7 years ago

Google never signed a contract with Genius? How would violating a terms of use they were never subject to be illegal?

adventured• 7 years ago

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.

dastx• 7 years ago

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.

en4bz• 7 years ago

#5 is disputable.

hayksaakian• 7 years ago

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

cthalupa5• 7 years ago

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.

fierarul3• 7 years ago

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.

cthalupa5• 7 years ago

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.

fierarul3• 7 years ago

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.

organicfigs2• 7 years ago

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.

yowlingcat• 7 years ago

Do you mean this one [1]?

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/26/11627246/rap-genius-co-founder...

organicfigs2• 7 years ago

Unfortunately, that article isn't surprising at all

austenallred• 7 years ago

I think there are some mental health concerns at play, unfortunately.

wilde• 7 years ago

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...