Google Explains How It Licenses Song Lyrics For Search, Will Add Attribution (9to5google.com) 72
Over the weekend, Google Search was caught allegedly copying song lyrics from Genius.com. In response, Google published a long explanation of how lyrics in Search work and said that they will add attribution to note which third-party service is supplying the lyrics. 9to5Google reports: When you look up a song in Search, Google often returns a YouTube video with the Knowledge Panel featuring lyrics, links to streaming services, and other artist/album/release/genre info. A query that explicitly asks for "lyrics" will display the full text as the first item at the top of Google.com. The Wall Street Journal over the weekend reported on an accusation that Search was taking content from Genius. According to Google today, it does "not crawl or scrape websites to source these lyrics." When available, Google will pay music publishers for the right to display lyrics. However, in most cases, publishers do not have digital transcripts, with the search engine instead turning to third-party "lyrics content providers."
Google today reiterated that it's asking partners to "investigate the issue," with the third-party -- and not Google directly -- likely at fault for scraping Genius content. Meanwhile, Knowledge Panels in Search will soon gain attribution to note who is supplying digital lyrics text. "Google today reiterated that it's asking partners to 'investigate the issue,' with the third-party -- and not Google directly -- likely at fault for scraping Genius content," Google said in a blog post. "Meanwhile, Knowledge Panels in Search will soon gain attribution to note who is supplying digital lyrics text."
Google today reiterated that it's asking partners to "investigate the issue," with the third-party -- and not Google directly -- likely at fault for scraping Genius content. Meanwhile, Knowledge Panels in Search will soon gain attribution to note who is supplying digital lyrics text. "Google today reiterated that it's asking partners to 'investigate the issue,' with the third-party -- and not Google directly -- likely at fault for scraping Genius content," Google said in a blog post. "Meanwhile, Knowledge Panels in Search will soon gain attribution to note who is supplying digital lyrics text."
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing, Google didn't hire anybody to do something illegal. The contract between Google and the third party almost certainly contains language to the effect that the third party will provide Google only data that has been acquired legally and is properly licenced.
So this is totally different from you hiring an assassin.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you hire the assassin to do your grocery shopping and he shoots the cashier....
Just admit it you chiselers. (Score:2, Insightful)
"According to Google today, it does "not crawl or scrape websites to source these lyrics"
EXCEPT YOU WERE FUCKING CAUGHT DOING THAT, DERP, and paying some contractor to do it IS THE SAME.
Who the fuck trusts these companies not to lie to your face when they're constantly doing just that?
Fuck your failed damage control, TELL THE TRUTH FOR A CHANGE IDIOTS. Yes, we fucked up and scraped genius content. SO EASY!
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, they're saying "we didn't do it, it was somebody else" when caught doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
"We aren't distributing copyrighted work without a license, we have a license from X, its not our fault that license isn't valid for that specific copyrighted work - take it up with them" - that isn't going to fly. Google has two problems here - firstly, they are distributing copyrighted work without a license, and secondly they have a partner that is fleecing them for a license they are not entitled to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
What copyrighted work? The lyrics? They have a license for that.
The punctuation? You think that that is independently copyrightable? And, assuming for the sake of argument that it is, you think th
Re: (Score:2)
How does it remain "their data" after a contractor accesses it, by prohibited scraping or otherwise, and provides only the lyrics (owned by the music publisher) to Google? What law requires attribution? Why does Google need a license from anyone other than the music publisher?
BTW, since both of us can demonstrably read and write, "illiterate" do
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I honestly believe that it is ok for me to copy uncopyrighted data without any agreement, even if it is prohibited by a TOS (which is an agreement, by the way), so long as I'm not the one who accessed the site or directed that it be accessed so as to violate the TOS. I didn't agree to the TOS. I didn't a
Re: (Score:2)
You know who doesnt have a license for those additions? Google.
You know who else doesn't? The writers of the song.
Every argument you have made has is claiming that Google has a license to those additions. They don't, fucker.
Re: (Score:2)
What "additions?" Describe them. Because there was only one -- they changed styles of apostrophes that already existed in the lyrics to spell out in morse code two words That is not copyrightable expression. "Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases." [copyright.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth noting that Genius (formerly RapGenius) were also distributing those same copyrighted works without a licence [thewrap.com] - but with the defence of fair use, for the crowdsourced annotations they added, which are not being copied here. However it's pretty doubtful that they have any rights at all over the original lyrics, unless they want to claim that rearranging apostrophes is a "transformative work".
Google must indeed ensure their lyrics come from an authorised licenser. LyricFind claims [lyricfind.com] licence deals wit
Re: (Score:3)
Google should have gone and gotten the ORIGINAL lyrics under license
They did get their lyrics under licence, directly from LyricFind. RTFS second link:
We do not crawl or scrape websites to source these lyrics. The lyrics that you see in information boxes on Search come directly from lyrics content providers
Because LyricFind is authorised by the original rightsholders to sublicence to Google, Google is legally entitled to use those lyrics REGARDLESS of the source, as I already pointed out. Also, Google is not repackaging them "for sale" but for display under their licence, they already provide attribution to the songwriter, and they're adding attribution to their source - in this case, LyricFind.
Because it's Genius' VERSION of the lyrics they can essentially prove Google stole THEIR work and repackaged it.
Except Genius are not claiming Go
Re: Just admit it you chiselers. (Score:2)
Except not all jurisdictions follow US practice of not allowing copyright for collating things. Move over the Atlantic to Europe and that is simply not the case, and Google which operate in Europe have to comply with the relevant local laws which by using lyrics sourced by whatever means from genius.com they have broken the law as they have no license to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Genius.com file in an European court? No? Then your comment is immaterial to the discussion at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Jurisdiction does not enter into it, because:
- Genius has not filed any legal complaint, anywhere
- Genius is not accusing Google or anyone of breaking any law
- Genius isn't even claiming copyright infringement
- Genius has not demonstrated or claimed any rights to the lyrics
- Google does have legally obtained licences for its lyrics, for which the original rightsholders have been paid, that is internationally recognised in all major jurisdictions, including Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying a contractor to provide you with digital versions of lyrics is the same as directing a contractor to scrape a website to source those lyrics, or doing that yourself?
Nope.
I'm surprised that an anonymous coward who will not even take pseudononymous responsibility for his or her own posts is advocating that others take
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. What law or legal theory are you invoking? Copyright? They don't own a copyright in the lyrics.
Go on believing that.
A fistful of state bar registrations say otherwise, but a potty-mouthed anonymous coward apparently knows better.
Need website that scrapes google and strips ads (Score:2)
I need a web search engine that uses google to do the searching but removes all google ads and anonymizes the search for google. Does Dogpile or something do that.
they can now do this legally as long as they put up an attribution that it got the search results from google. Not need to obey any of google's terms of service.
Statement from the contractor, LyricFind (Score:3)
For completeness, LyricFind's statement [lyricfind.com]:
Some time ago, Ben Gross from Genius notified LyricFind that they believed they were seeing Genius lyrics in LyricFind’s database. As a courtesy to Genius, our content team was instructed not to consult Genius as a source. Recently, Genius raised the issue again and provided a few examples. All of those examples were also available on many other lyric sites and services, raising the possibility that our team unknowingly sourced Genius lyrics from another location.
Re: (Score:2)
YMMD
Re: (Score:2)
But as every "so easy" answer also plain wrong.
Sue the Contractor (Score:2)
Google should sue their contractor. I can't imagine Google would have a deal where the contractor didn't assert that they had the legal right to supply the data, and by violating that provision, they have defamed Google, making the problem much worse.
When in doubt (Score:3)
"Google today reiterated that it's asking partners to 'investigate the issue,' with the third-party -- and not Google directly -- likely at fault for scraping Genius content,"
When in doubt, blame someone else. "Don't be evil" version 2.
So... if I go rob a bank... (Score:2)
DMCA Takedown (Score:2)
Did the company that claims to own the lyrics issue a DMCA Takedown notice to Google? I would think that would be the first step.
Of course, the problem here is that the lyrics are owned by the artists who wrote them, not various web sites that publish them. I suspect few to none of them are paying a licensing fee to the authors, and it's just one set of freeloaders complaining to another. (If anyone has real information instead of random speculation, it would be great to hear.)
Re: (Score:3)
*sigh* You couldn't suspect your way through a 5 second Google search, but you want to hear enough to ask others to do it for you [digitaltrends.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Google violated the terms of service, they didn't violate copyright.
"No, we just paid someone to" they say now.
They certainly didn't bother to check.
Not copyright (Score:2)
This isn't about copyright. It's about unauthorized computer access to do the scraping. Legally, just like if I were to break into your bank account and publish the details. Your routing numbers and SSN aren't covered by copyright, and I don't even think there's any law against publishing them (maybe aiding and abetting whoever steals your identity?). There's definitely a law broken when I obtain them.
Re: (Score:2)
Which law? The lyrics were published on a publicly-accessible website - there was no "breaking into" anything, nor was the content in any way private. No access controls were circumvented. Even their robots.txt file permitted it, as far as I can tell.
Genius are complaining that their website's Terms of Service was violated, which is not a crime [eff.org]. They are entitled to refuse service of course, to whom? Since it wasn't Google or LyricFind, but apparently one of LyricFind's sources that did the scraping, we st