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?
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Users who have consented to supply said efforts to Genius. Not to Google. Or LyricFind.
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.
Can I scrape your website to get that content I am legally allowed to get (because I have a paid license)?
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”.