{"id":3445,"date":"2021-02-23T20:57:26","date_gmt":"2021-02-23T20:57:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/?p=3445"},"modified":"2021-02-23T20:57:27","modified_gmt":"2021-02-23T20:57:27","slug":"lyrics-transcript-is-not-protected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/2021\/02\/lyrics-transcript-is-not-protected.html","title":{"rendered":"The creation, curation, and provision of timely and accurate music lyrics transcriptions is not protected by the Copyright Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"\"Genius Media Group (Plaintiff) is a \u201cdigital media company,\u201d one of whose \u201cprimary services is the development and maintenance of annotated music lyrics.\u201d LyricFind is a Canadian company that maintains a database of music lyrics. Both Plaintiff and LyricFind \u201clicense lyrics for display and distribution from music publishers.\u201d Google \u201cowns and operates the internet\u2019s dominant search platform.\u201d Pursuant to an agreement \u201cLyricFind provides lyrics to Google for use in Google\u2019s search results.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

While music publishers \u201cusually own the copyright in the lyrics for a given song,\u201d companies like Plaintiff and LyricFind \u201cdo not typically receive any actual lyrics transcriptions in connection with their licensing agreements,\u201d and must otherwise generate or obtain the lyrics they have licensed for display. Plaintiff also \u201cobtains lyrics directly\u201d from artists.<\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff \u201cearns revenue in several ways,\u201d including by \u201clicensing its database of high-quality lyrics\u201d to \u201cmajor companies, such as Apple,\u201d and by \u201cgenerating ad revenue through web traffic on its website and apps.\u201d All visitors to Plaintiff\u2019s website are bound by terms and conditions, \u201cwhich are accessible to users from all pages of website.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The Terms of Service prohibit, inter alia, the unauthorized \u201clicensing, copying, modification, sale, or transmission for any commercial purpose, of any portion of Plaintiff\u2019s Service, or access to Plaintiff\u2019s Service.\u201d The Terms of Service also prohibit, inter alia, the unauthorized \u201cmodification, copying, sale, or distribution\u201d of Plaintiff\u2019s content, other than a user\u2019s own content that a user has \u201clegally uploaded\u201d to Plaintiff\u2019s website.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many visitors arrive at Plaintiff\u2019s website via a search engine, \u201cmost typically Google\u2019s,\u201d and website \u201cis often the top-ranked organic search result on Google for lyrics search queries.\u201d However, even if Plaintiff is the top-ranked organic result for a user\u2019s lyrics search, a Google search feature known as an \u201cInformation Box\u201d may still appear \u201cabove all other organic search results,\u201d displaying \u201cthe complete lyrics for the requested song.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Such lyrics Information Boxes are often \u201cdisplayed in such a manner that the user cannot see any\u00a0other search results without first scrolling down,\u201d and significantly reduce the \u201cclick-through rate\u201d to Plaintiff\u2019s website.<\/span><\/p>\n

When Google introduced the Information Box feature into its lyrics search results, Plaintiff \u201cobserved that the lyrics in those Information Boxes were sometimes identical, on a character-for-character basis,\u201d to lyrics on Plaintiff\u2019s website. Because such a match \u201cis highly unlikely\u201d given the particular nature of the lyrics transcription process, Plaintiff came to suspect that its \u201clyrics were being misappropriated.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In August of 2016, in an effort to further investigate this suspected misappropriation, Plaintiff created a \u201cdigital watermark to embed in certain lyrics appearing on its site\u201d (\u201cWatermark #1\u201d). In May of 2017, Plaintiff notified Google via email that it had found Watermark #1 in Google\u2019s lyrics Information Boxes, \u201cproving that Google was displaying lyrics copied from Plaintiff\u2019s website.\u201d In response to that initial email and subsequent follow-up communications by Plaintiff, Google informed Plaintiff that it was \u201clooking into the issue.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"In April of 2019, Plaintiff \u201cagain notified Google, in writing, that it was displaying content misappropriated from Plaintiff\u2019s website,\u201d in response to which Google eventually \u201cidentified LyricFind as the source of the lyrics in the examples that Plaintiff provided to Google.\u201d Plaintiff then \u201cwrote to LyricFind to request that it cease and desist from the misappropriation and commercialization of content appearing on Plaintiff\u2019s website.\u201d Despite having been \u201cplaced on actual notice of their behavior,\u201d Defendants failed to take \u201cany steps to cease such conduct.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Soon after Google began adding source attributions to its lyrics Information Boxes, including attributions to LyricFind for lyrics that Plaintiff had previously notified Google appeared to be taken from Plaintiff\u2019s website. Around the same time, Plaintiff \u201cdiscovered that Watermark #1 had disappeared from Google\u2019s lyrics Information Boxes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Suspecting \u201ca deliberate effort to conceal continued misappropriation of lyrics from Plaintiff\u2019s website,\u201d Plaintiff created a second watermark, this time designed to spell out the word \u201cGENIUS\u201d in Morse code (\u201cWatermark #2\u201d). In a number of instances involving lyrics in which Plaintiff had embedded both Watermark #1 and Watermark #2, Plaintiff observed that Watermark #2, \u201cthe details of which had not previously been made public,\u201d was present, while Watermark #1 was not.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff informed Google of these findings, and \u201cdemanded that Google stop displaying lyrics misappropriated from Plaintiff\u2019s website and address the issue.\u201d In response, Google asserted it had not done anything wrong, and stated that it had \u201c\u2018obtained additional assurances\u2019 that their data partners \u2018do not, and would not, obtain lyrics from Plaintiff\u2019s website.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

On December 3, 2019, Plaintiff commenced its action<\/a>, asserting claims for (1) breach of contract, based on Defendants\u2019 alleged violation of Plaintiff\u2019s Terms of Service; (2) indemnification for \u201cdamages and incurred expenses including attorneys\u2019 fees and lost advertising and licensing revenue,\u201d pursuant to Plaintiff\u2019s Terms of Service; (3) unfair competition; and (4) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff sought money damages and injunctive relief.<\/span><\/p>\n

Breach of contract claims<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s breach of contract claims are nothing more than claims seeking to enforce the copyright owners\u2019 exclusive rights to protection from unauthorized reproduction of the lyrics and are therefore preempted. Plaintiff asserted that its contract rights for use of the lyrics transcriptions are \u201cseparate and apart\u201d from the copyright owners\u2019 exclusive rights in the lyrics.<\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s argument is, in essence, that it has created a derivative work of the original lyrics in applying its own labor and resources to transcribe the lyrics, and thus, retains some ownership over and has rights in the transcriptions distinct from the exclusive rights of the copyright owners.<\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s breach of contract claims are based on the theory that Defendants breached their obligation under the Terms of Service by using Plaintiff\u2019s lyrics \u2014 LyricFind by selling those lyric transcriptions to Google and Google by employing and displaying those lyric transcriptions in its search engine.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"Unjust enrichment claims<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s unjust enrichment claims are preempted because they fall within the scope of the Copyright Act. Plaintiff alleged that LyricFind copied content from Plaintiff\u2019s website and then \u201cbenefitted by entering into licensing agreements with content partners whereby LyricFind received compensation for distributing content misappropriated from Plaintiff\u2019s website,\u201d and that those \u201cbenefits came at Plaintiff\u2019s expense.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Plaintiff similarly alleges that Google benefitted from its \u201cmisappropriation of content from Plaintiff\u2019s website,\u201d by \u201cretaining users in and among Google-owned properties further concentrating its market power,\u201d and that these \u201cbenefits came at Plaintiff\u2019s expense.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Because the \u201cgravamen\u201d of Plaintiff\u2019s unjust enrichment claims is that Defendants were unjustly enriched by their use of Plaintiff\u2019s lyric transcriptions \u2014 work that, as discussed above, is within the scope of the Copyright Act \u2014 these claims are preempted.<\/span><\/p>\n

Unfair competition claims<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s unfair competition claims are preempted by the Copyright Act. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants \u201cmisappropriated content from Plaintiff\u2019s website,\u201d in \u201can unjustifiable attempt to profit from Plaintiff\u2019s expenditure of time, labor and talent in maintaining its service,\u201d. Plaintiff\u2019s claims are precisely the type of misappropriation claims that courts have consistently held are preempted by the Copyright Act.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given that the Court found that all of Plaintiff\u2019s state law claims are preempted by the Copyright Act, and Plaintiff has not asserted any federal law claims, the Court dismissed<\/a> the Complaint for failure to state a claim.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff\u2019s argument is, in essence, that it has created a derivative work of the original lyrics in applying its own labor and resources to transcribe the lyrics, and thus, retains some ownership over and has rights in the transcriptions distinct from the exclusive rights of the copyright owners.<\/p>\n

Continue readingThe creation, curation, and provision of timely and accurate music lyrics transcriptions is not protected by the Copyright Act<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,14,5,29,43,6,4,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-interpretation","category-competition","category-copyright","category-digital","category-digital-environment","category-intellectual-property","category-internet","category-litigation","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3445","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3445"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3445\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3446,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3445\/revisions\/3446"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dekuzu.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}